Parasha Noach (Genesis 6:9–11:32)

Posted on October 15, 2017 by Luke Ford

This week’s Torah portion covers the story of the Flood and the Tower of Babel.

Listen here.

* God decides to destroy the world because it is corrupt. What was so corrupt? The world at this time had same-sex marriage, according to the Talmud (same-sex-marriage).

* Leviticus Rabbah 23:9
Rabbi Yishma’el taught: The generation of the Flood were kings, and were only wiped off the earth because they were soaked in sexual sin…
Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Yosef (said): The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote gemamasi’ot for (the union of a man to) a male or to an animal.

Talmud scholar Gail Labovitz writes:

There are several rabbinic passages which take up, or very likely take up, the subject of same-sex marital unions – always negatively. In each case, homosexual marriage (particularly male homosexual marriage) is rhetorically stigmatized as the practice of non-Jewish (or pre-Israelite) societies, and is presented as an outstanding marker of the depravity of those societies; homosexual marriage is thus clearly associated with the
Other. The first three of the four rabbinic texts presented here also associate homosexual marriage with bestiality. These texts also employ a rhetoric of fear: societal recognition of such homosexual relationships will bring upon that society extreme forms of Divine punishment – the destruction of the generation of the Flood, the utter defeat of the Egyptians at the Exodus, the wiping out of native Canaanite peoples in favor of the Israelites…

Three of the four unions mentioned here are explicitly forbidden in Leviticus 18. Moreover, the biblical source suggests that any sexual contact between the people listed is forbidden. That is, although this passage mentions only marriage explicitly, this does not imply that sexual relationships between these persons outside of marriage is condoned or overlooked. Also, this is the only source to mention women marrying women as well as men marrying men.2

There is no explicit prohibition on female homoeroticism in Scripture, but by linking marriage between two women with the other
forbidden sexual pairings here, the passage rhetorically implies that the prohibition/sin involved is of a similar degree of authority and seriousness. Two parallel passages in amoraic midrashic texts also link same-sex marriage to the destruction of the society in which they take place; in this case, it is the generation destroyed in the Flood who is “guilty” of this sin.

What all of these sources suggest is that in the rabbinic mindset giving societal recognition to same-sex marriage is among the most egregious violations that human beings can commit. Only non-Israelites might be suspected of sanctioning such relationships; there is no suggestion that Israelites would ever consider such a thing. Indeed, Israelites are to avoid this in no small measure precisely because it is the (imagined) practiced of the Other. Homosexual contact, especially between men, is already highly stigmatized in rabbinic literature and is often associated with non-Jews (see, as just one example, Sifra Acharei Mot, perek 13:86). Marriage between members of the same gender, however, goes beyond forbidden sexual acts between individuals to the level of societal approval of this sin. When sin is no longer recognized as sin by a society, the rabbis would assert, that society loses its right to existence – like the generation of the Flood, or the defeated Egyptians and Canaanites, such a society deserves to be swept away.

CNSNEWS:

Leading into the discussion, guest host [Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.)] noted Faith2Action’s documentary, Light Wins, which is about the LGBT movement and the attacks on real marriage. He said to Porter, “But in the video you point out, according to the Babylonian Talmud — a book of rabbinical interpretation of the scriptures written 1,000 years before Christ — there was only one other time in history when homosexual marriage was practiced.”

“It wasn’t the time of Sodom and Gomorrah,” he said. “Although homosexuality was rampant, according to the Talmud, homosexual marriage was not. It wasn’t in Babylon or even ancient Greece or Rome.”

“According to rabbinical writings, the only other time in history where homosexual unions were authorized as marriage was ‘in the days of Noah,'” said Rep. Gohmert, a former state district judge for Texas.

* The story of the Flood reminds me of the Alt Right’s view of the United States of America — these worlds are irretrievably corrupt and must be destroyed and made over. After all, if American democracy and the U.S. Constitution lead inevitably to same-sex marriage and trannies in the bathroom, then the AR wants no part of democracy and the U.S. Constitution. If that is true, then the AR have given up on America. They might feel like God in the beginning of this week’s parasha. “God saw the earth and behold it was corrupted, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.” (Gen. 6:12)

* What’s the point of preserving a country if it is to be filled up by people hostile to you? The reason that the country of Israel matters to Jews is that it is a country filled with Jews and run by Jews. If all Israeli Jews were replaced by Arabs, then Jewish attachment to Palestine would be diminished.

* The plain meaning of the Torah text seems to indicate that God does not know the future. God seems unpleasantly surprised that the world has gone to hell. If people have free will, then God can’t know the future. Rabbinic commentator Gersonides held this.

* We condemn Nazis and communists for genocide, but in this week’s parasha, God kills everyone and all the animals. So is mass genocide ok when God does it?

* From this week’s parasha, it seems that surviving in a filthy society is not enough. You either have to clean up the filth or you leave.

* According to the Torah, there is one universal moral law whose source is God. Morality is not set by democracy. If people vote for legalizing same-sex marriage, that does not make it moral.

* Gen. 9:24: “When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him.”

So what did Ham do to his father? He took a selfie next to his naked passed out dad and posted it on Facebook.

If you mess with parental authority, you mess with civilization. Leon Kass writes:

Noah, without his clothes, and prostrate in his tent in a drunken stupor, lies dehumanized and “unfathered,” stripped of all human ways (though as a result of a peculiarly human way, the way of Bacchus). Ham’s viewing confirms and ratifies his father’s unfathering. To put it sharply, Ham’s viewing—and telling—is, metaphorically, an act of patricide and incest, of overturning the father as a father. Without disturbing a hair on Noah’s head, Ham engages in father-killing.

This overturning of the father is not the overturning of his biological paternity or the taking of his life; on the contrary, he is overturned precisely by being reduced to mere male-source-of-seed. Eliminated is the father as authority, as guide, as teacher of law, custom, and a way of life. Ham sees and celebrates only the natural and barest fact of sex; he is blind to everything that makes transmission and rearing possible…

Modern times have produced a third human type—neither tyrant nor philosopher—who is also deaf to authority and who knows neither awe nor reverence: democratic man. For him, all hierarchy is suspect, all distinctions odious, all claims on his modesty or respect confining. Last names, and even familial titles like Uncle or Aunt, are much too formal. Honor and respect, fear and awe, and filial piety seem increasingly vestiges of an archaic world. Sex, utterly demystified, is now sport and chatter; nakedness is no big deal. Severed now from their source in what is truly venerable, the customs of respect and modesty become anemic; increasingly petrified, they crumble beneath the avalanche of equality, explicitness, and the “right to be myself.” We are all pals now. But we should not be self-deceived. The sins of unfatherly fathers are still being visited on the sons. Canaan will still—and again—be cursed to live like a pagan. If you need a monument, just look around.

When I was growing up a Seventh-Day Adventist, the mother of my best friend held that there was nothing wrong with her walking around the house naked. My parents thought she was very wrong.

You can see gadolim naked if you go to the right mikveh. I don’t think I’d like to see a gadol naked.

NYT: “Debate Over the Rabbi and the Sauna”

For most people, they see God the same way they see their father. If your father was absent, God will be absent. If you love your father, you’ll likely love God.

* The Tower of Babel story teaches us that God loves ethno-nationalism. He deliberately separates the people of the world into their own nations and languages.

5. But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Making a name for yourself is not considered a sin in Judaism. God promises Abraham that He will make his name “big.”

* Andrew Fraser writes in his book The WASP Question:

Only those blinded by the secular humanist cult of equality can fail to see that “the Bible teaches that mankind is composed not of an amorphous mass of individuals but of nations.” Maurice was sure that the “dispersions” and “distinctions” of the nations were “the fulfilment of God’s designs for the race which He had made after His own likeness.” Others observe that in Genesis 10 we see that “God organized mankind into discrete nations in the aftermath of the Great Flood.” In Genesis 11 the sons of Noah built the Tower of Babel in an attempt to frustrate God’s design thus demonstrating their power and independence. God’s response was to destroy the Tower and scatter its builders “over the face of all the earth.” But, as HA Scott Trask observes, “the scattering was neither arbitrary nor chaotic. According to the Biblical account, people moved with their nations in an orderly exodus that fulfilled God’s purposes.” Each nation or people received its own lands separated from the others by territorial boundaries. Clearly, both the Old and the New Testament sanction the love of nations, each grounded in its own distinctive ethnic stock.

* Orthodox rabbi Sforno said that the real crime of the Babel builders was that they wanted to have just one religion.

* A Torah Perspective on National Borders and Illegal Immigration:

In the poetic song of Ha’azinu, Moses proclaims:

When the Most High gave nations their lot, when He separated the sons of man,
He set up the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. (Deut. 32:8)

…Japanese and Britons wait patiently in queues for trains and buses. Compare that to the scene in a New York City subway at rush hour, or at a crowded Tel Aviv bus stop when there are only a few seats left. The Italian language is melodic, and lends itself to romantic and passionate lyrics; the German language lends itself to scientific and philosophical precision, or to the epic and the serious in poetry and song. Such generalizations reflect some real truth, which the Torah recognizes. These national characteristics, and the distinct bounded lands that give rise to them, are part of G‑d’s providential plan.

…Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi) explains:

“The mighty men of Israel would dwell in the border towns and lock the frontier so no enemies could enter; it was as if it were closed with locks and bars of iron and brass.”

The borders posed a unique danger, and Jewish law mandated that authorities search out the real motivations of those who would enter the country. It cautioned that a deadly danger could lurk, and we should be wary of all who wish to cross it. So much so, that we are permitted to transgress the holy Sabbath for these security concerns. As the Code of Jewish Law puts it:

“In a border city, even if the non-Jews approach you [ostensibly] regarding straw and hay, one must violate the Shabbat to repel them, lest they take over the city and proceed from there to conquer the land.”

…In addition to security concerns, Jewish law recognizes that there are ideological dangers as well. Expounding on the negative commandment of not allowing idol-worshippers a holding in the land of Israel,8 Maimonides writes:

“When Israel [meets the conditions for observing the Jubilee], it is forbidden for us to allow an idolater among us. Even a temporary resident or a merchant who travels from place to place should not be allowed to pass through our land until he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants, as the verse states: “They shall not dwell in your land”9—i.e., even temporarily. A person who accepts these seven mitzvot is a ger toshav, “resident alien.””

…It is true that verse tells us that “one Torah and one law shall there be for you and the stranger who comes to live with you.”23 However, the prophet also proclaims:

Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to G‑d for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.24

This implies that we must not only conform to the laws of the city to where we migrate, but also to devote ourselves actively to its welfare, not just merely comply with its rules. As Rabbi Yehuda Loew (Maharal of Prague) puts it:

“Since the prophet commanded us to pray to G‑d for the place to which we were exiled, how could we ordain something the opposite of that, G‑d forbid, thereby transgressing the prophet’s words? To the contrary: the sages warned us to accept the sovereignty and the rule of the nations. After G‑d decreed that we should be under their authority, it is proper for us to accept their rule, and not to act as if the decree were void.”

* New Yorker: “Birth of a White Supremacist: Mike Enoch’s transformation from leftist contrarian to nationalist shock jock”

The media pretends to be fascinated, or is genuinely fascinated, by the process that produces “white supremacists.” To me, marginalized people join marginalized movements.

* Andrew Joyce – banned in the USA. I doubt this would have happened if James Alex Fields had not driven his car into the Antifa protesters in Charlottesville. Andrew is about to become a father for the fourth time. I wonder if he circumcises his sons? Andrew replies: “Lol fuck no. We’re European.”

* Mark Oppenheimer Writes For Tabletmag: ‘THE SPECIFICALLY JEWY PERVINESS OF HARVEY WEINSTEIN’

* Orthodox rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz has a PhD in Ethics from Columbia. He writes:

Were Adam and Eve Black transgender refugees?

It would be blasphemous for one to apply one’s chosen construction of what is “normal” or “natural” to marginalize another. Doing so would be nothing short of challenging the full Divine potential of the first human who subsequently encapsulates all future human natures. Denying that any unique permutation was fully created in the image of God is akin to denying God.

I fear that today, with the lingering effects of racism, xenophobia, and the stigmatization of gay and trans people, humanity is still needlessly looking for reasons to divide itself. While I may not understand or approve the underlying reasons why each person chooses their particular lifestyle, as a Modern Orthodox pluralistic rabbi guided by the Torah, I feel it is my obligation to seek out those who are most vulnerable and advocate on their behalf. It is not enough to tolerate differences, but to cherish and nurture individuals so that they have the fortitude to go out into the world to live an actualized life. The raison d’être of the Torah is to enhance human dignity and freedom and never, God forbid, to diminish it.

* James Kirchick: Can American Jews Be White Nationalists?”

Posted in Homosexuality, Nationalism, Torah | Comments Off on Parasha Noach (Genesis 6:9–11:32)

Why Aren’t There Great Jewish Minds Debunking The Alt Right?

Posted on October 11, 2017 by Luke Ford

The truth about Jews and non-Jews has to be somewhere in between the critics and the advocates. The Alt Right can’t be 100% correct. The Jewish establishment can’t be 100% correct either. I know Kevin MacDonald, Richard Spencer, Andrew Joyce, Greg Johnson and company are not 100% correct about Jews. On the other hand, I know that Jewish advocates can’t be 100% correct either.

There’s no way that the comforting conventional wisdom that each group tells itself is 100% correct.

So the truth has to be somewhere in between the critics and the apologists, right? Well, given that Jews are more successfully navigating reality, the truth might be more on our side.

What troubles me is that there are no great Jewish minds debunking the Alt Right right now. Those Jews who do engage with the Alt Right throw slurs, but no formidable Jewish intellect is doing battle with the Alt Right solely on the fields of fact and logic. So why is that? Is it because there’s no battle that can be waged against Kevin MacDonald and company on purely factual and logical grounds? No way. Is it because there are no incentives (whether money or status) for Jewish/black/latino introspection? I think that’s it.

Look at what happened to poor Mark Oppenheimer this week. If he does this again, his career will be finished. Nobody messes with the Jews in America today and comes out ahead. All you’ll get is tsures for any publicly declared negative generalizations about protected groups.

In the 19th Century, Jews competed powerfully against Christianity in the realm of apologetics. Frankly, I think we won (after all, I grew up Christian and converted to Orthodox Judaism). We should muster our resources now and sally forth against the Alt Right using nothing but facts and logic. There is no other honorable form of argument.

Posted in Alt Right, Jews | Comments Off on Why Aren’t There Great Jewish Minds Debunking The Alt Right?

Moses Wouldn’t Expect ‘China’ to Change

Posted on October 11, 2017 by Luke Ford

Chris* writes: In fact, no rational observer since Hegel has doubted his incisive judgment that nothing fundamental has changed in China over a span of three-plus millennia (‘Lectures on the Philosophy of History,’ ca. 1830). Hegel didn’t make it perfectly clear whether it was “nature” (race) or “nurture” (culture), but reading between the lines shows he believed the former.

Therefore, scientifically, and also informally, the fundamental question about the intractability of “China” remains. Is it because “Chinese leaders” have never and do not now see any advantage to their own status and the situation of their countrymen, as writer Christopher Balding suggests? Is it merely their inscrutably obtuse pragmatism? (Baldwin ignores the vast sweep of Chinese history.)

No, the reason why the Asian (or Mongolid) mind won’t change is simply that it is incapable of fundamentally changing–that is how it is made or, in modern terms, is “wired.” Thus arises its notorious ANCESTOR WORSHIP and its well-documented, bloody disposition to kill anyone who steps spiritually or “corporeally” out of line. RESPECT THE ELDERS, it teaches every generation. Violation of the rules means ostracism or death.

All this implies that Caucasid and Negrid brains are also hard-wired differently, each from the other. In fact, modern science is on the verge of showing at last that this is CORRECT. Neuroscience can easily falsify this prediction simply by stepping out from behind its paralyzing “political correctness.” The answers it is likely to find will surprise it.

High-density EEG (“hdEEG”) and task-based response regimes can now establish precisely how the three races neurophysically use their brains in three different ways, with serious cognitive consequences. It is NOT A QUESTION OF SUPERIORITY but, rather, EACH RACE IS DEFECTIVE IN ITS OWN WAY. (We must pass by the supremely interesting question of precisely WHY the three races were each created DEFECTIVE.)

We also must pass by an adequate neuropsychological characterization of the Caucasids and the Negrids, except to assert that, in the deep theory of all three races, one can find the ultimate explanation for the palpable and quite obvious political-historical differences in their “achievements” over historical time. (Classic authors, such as Gobineau, and recent authors, such as John Baker, Nicholas Wade, and Kevin MacDonald, may be consulted, though each of them falls short of the fundament outlined here.)

Notwithstanding the obvious, it is still not likely that Bloomberg.com will appreciate this wonderfully deep problem rationally, given its uncritical Hebrew bias towards VICTIMHOOD and towards hiding behind race differences in order to disguise RELIGIOUS differences (specifically the 3,500-year-old Hebrew ethnic war against the goyim). We state our unbiased position: Hebrews are racially Caucasids and sons of Shem (see below).

This is the way it is, gentlemen: When one speaks of “China” one is really speaking of A RACE. When one speaks of RACE (if one refers to Hebrews) one really is speaking of a RELIGION and of a RELIGIOUS FEAR going back to Abraham. (To speak of these fears is not “racist.”)

Moses, however–blessed of God–was spiritually big enough to see through the smoke and did so in ‘Genesis’ with his story of Shem, Japeth, and Ham. One only has to understand him deeply enough.

Modern science indeed has the power to truly understand Moses and to isolate the biased (anti-mosaic), unreconstructed Hebrew position at last, while simultaneously UNBIASING modern science’s proclivity to avoid the highly important concept of the RACES and their actual neurocognitive differences. (To reconstruct the relentlessly faithless Hebrew mind and make it beloved of Moses again is a heavenly prospect.)

We can imagine what the arch-liberal Michael Bloomberg would think about these ideas. Hence, we can imagine what his employee-writer Christopher Balding will say in response–nothing. But perhaps we underestimate Balding’s love of reason and truth? Can Balding learn to read and comprehend Moses aright, and understand the scientific consequences of doing so? Happy day!

…The deep theory of the races, in addition to what has been suggested between us, is likely to demonstrate further that “race mixture” does not somehow make the defects of the pure-blooded races better. On the contrary: the result is worse.

Michael Levin suggested, as you may remember (on p. 57 of his book ‘Why Race Matters’) that definitive proofs could be obtained with modern neurophysiological and/or neurocognitive methods, which is absolutely true and MUST BE DONE sooner or later.

As for the general problem of presentation of the deep theory, given the hugely difficult problem of “political correctness” afflicting the entire world of politics as well as science as a whole, I would welcome your ideas and/or solutions.

Posted in China | Comments Off on Moses Wouldn’t Expect ‘China’ to Change

The NFL Controversy

Posted on October 11, 2017 by Luke Ford

Joe* says: I see no point in weighing in on the NFL controversy.

However, I observed when Trump first made his comments about firing players who took a knee that after decades of wrapping itself in the flag, and seeing the mostly negative response to Kaepernick’s protests last year, it was eminently foreseeable that to whatever extent the protests of the players are considered legitimate expression, the number of person who do not usually attend football games or watch them on television who might as a result of the protests, show up or tune in, would be significantly fewer than the number of NFL attendees and television watchers who would stop attending games or watching them on TV.

What we see in our society is that everything is political. Liberals/progressives/leftists try to quell conservative radio hosts by organizing advertising boycotts. They have done the same thing with Breitbart. And conservatives are not above this as well when looking at programming that ideologically they find offensive.

Here the NFL learned the hard way (although anyone really could have foreseen this even before the first Trump tweet) that it is best to steer clear of political controversy in that you will alienate some portion of your audience Even if the NFL fans who end up permanently deserting professional football is only 5% (and from the TV ratings appears to be much higher) that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in television revenue to the NFL. They may have long term contracts now, but if networks are forced to give back ad buys for failure to deliver the promised audience, that will quickly make its way down to the players.

That is the reason that Roger Goodell (the son of former liberal New York Senator Charles Goodell) put out the letter yesterday that everybody must stand. Ideologically Goodell is sympathetic to the protests of the black players, but as someone who works at the behest of the owners to maximize profits for the league, he was in an untenable position This is the only position he should have taken immediately, instead of now after the damage is done. Look for him to lose his job and look to the NFL to have a heart to heart with its players explaining that their principles (or posturing if you feel that way) simply must take a back seat to keeping the customers coming in for entertainment spectacles. The players will get the message, as this is not a life or death matter of principle, but rather something discretionary that they want to promote.

Again this is not taking sides on whether Trump properly tweeted, or whether Pence properly walked out, or whether the protesters (and coaches and owners) were acting out of deeply held principles protesting something that should have been protested. It is simply an application of (1) how the NFL has branded and marketed itself, (2) the general propensity of NFL fans to be more patriotic (in a traditional sense of honoring the flag and national anthem) than non fans, (3) that the NFL is a business depending on maintaining a high fan base and viewership.

Posted in Football | Comments Off on The NFL Controversy

Dreammakers and Predators-Thoughts on Harvey Weinstein

Posted on October 10, 2017 by Luke Ford

Robert Oscar Lopez writes:

I don’t remember the date, but it must have been around June, 1996, because it was before I got transferred to Miami Beach the following October. It was sunny and hot out, because I remember wearing loose-fitting shorts, sandals, and a T-shirt. It was Nickelodeon, the Manhattan office, and in the 1990s “casual” wear meant dressing up like we were still en route to college keg parties. My Yale degree, fluency in foreign languages, and trove of original fiction had not really been the key to landing a job at MTV Networks and the famous tower of 1515 Broadway. I’d gotten the job because some employees of the company knew me as the cute little gay boy working the towel desk at the New York Sports Club Crowne Plaza, a few blocks away. I’d managed to get my resume passed on to some higher ups at MTV Networks, and I’d wormed my way in to an entry-level job.
“Pretty little slut boy,” was a phrase one lecherous homosexual used to use, in reference to people like me. “Young, dumb, and full of [—],” another slang term often surfaced. I had started in as a dubbing & acquisitions coordinator, so at least I was on the buying end rather than the selling end. If you were trying to break into ad sales, and all you had was your youth and ambition, the pressure was even higher on you to work around the usual rules of ethics to get ahead. Like many young workers in the company at that time, I was not “staff.” I was working under a temporary labor category and “promoted” to coordinator so I could get neither health insurance nor overtime.
I was lithe and had an athletic build, plus I was obviously Puerto Rican. The market niche in which I would fit was quite predictable. What went on, back then, explains the origination of my obesity later in life, after I got out of the Army. Once I was in my late thirties, a part of me hated everything that came with having a “good body.” I hated men looking at me. I hated being reminded of past times when all people saw was the shape of your torso. I started putting on weight and loving the anonymity and even invisibility of obesity. It freed me, for a time, of being targeted by creepy men. That was all okay until the doctor told me I was at risk of diabetes, so then with God’s help I lost a lot of the weight this year.
But if I can go back in my mind to the 1990s, before I reached the breaking point and decided, consciously, to become fat, I recall a lot of experience pertinent to the whole Harvey Weinstein controversy. On that summery day in 1996 a tall, overweight guy in management, who was in his late thirties, had noticed me when I first got there. “Noticed” might not be the right word. Apparently, from what I understand, he’d “heard” about me from some people who remarked that I cut a nice figure at that towel desk before someone scored me the job in MTV. This guy was “staff.” He was rich. He seemed to have come from a rich family. Like most of the men who were circulating in the TV industry and had professional favors to give, he was attracted to men; I think he was gay but many of them were bisexual.
He asked me to step into a conference room that wasn’t being used, so he could talk to me about opportunities in the company. I was dumbstruck and a little shy, so I didn’t know what to say. I was twenty-five years old. Despite having finished an Ivy League degree, I had been working at only $7 an hour for some time. When I started at MTV Networks it was $30,000 and that seemed like gold to me. I wanted to get ahead. I knew that for every job opening or opportunity in the industry, there were hundreds of posers, parvenus, and “climbers,” people trying to do whatever they could to get ahead. In programming, the area where I worked, people wanted to get into writing and creating their own material. That was all the big status. Like me, lots of them were creative writers who’d gone to college and dreamed of becoming storytellers, somebody famous, the postmodern version of an oracle. I knew I wasn’t going to be known to history as the next Thomas Aquinas. But maybe I’d sell a script.
I stepped into the empty conference room, which I remember had glass windows so everyone in the work area outside could see what was happening. The tall, overweight guy on staff stuck his hand up my shorts and grabbed my private parts. “Just let me explain,” he said. This was clearly the usual routine.
I knew he’d introduce me to people and get me meetings if I just stood there and let him fondle my genitals in full view of a whole office of people working. The complete contempt gay men had for other gay men in that era was stunning. If you were a self-identified homosexual in the industry, the assumption was you had no qualms about being used and sleeping your way to the top. You wouldn’t get as much blowback as straight women, and there was no risk of getting pregnant. But the downside was, back then, that you had to accept a public identity of a highly paid whore, one of the thousands upon thousands of gay men with low self-esteem wanting to overcome their lack of masculinity by making it big in entertainment.
By grabbing me in a conference room with glass partitions that everybody could see, this person was obviously playing a game. He wasn’t actually trying to keep anything secret. He was marking his territory like a terrier urinating on a fire hydrant. Other gay men could go after me if they wanted, but he wanted credit for being the first to draw me into the way things worked in entertainment.
I understand how women can feel oppressed and exploited by men in entertainment. As an industry it’s completely exploitative and fake, full of users and glorified pimps. But I can’t pretend that these women are all victims. Because I remember this moment very clearly–and I remember that I made a CHOICE. I knocked this man’s hand out of my shorts and pushed him off me. I didn’t care if that meant I would not have a huge future in the company. I had already accepted money for sex from disgusting old men more than once by this stage in my life. Forget being famous. I just wanted to wake up feeling like a decent, whole human being instead of feeling like a cheap piece of meat.
There is no way Harvey Weinstein could have racked up this much bad blood, unless multitudes of women decided in moments like the one I faced, to just let the guy get his thrills in the hopes of a big break. It wouldn’t be that hard. You just close your eyes, think about other things, and “reclaim” the whole episode like a badge of honor. Like the sassy widow in “Harper Valley PTA” you could just carry yourself with an heir of “honi soit qui mal y pense.” The thing is, you know what the game is. You choose whether to play the game or not. At the juncture when many of these actresses were faced with the choice of how to respond to Harvey Weinstein, they were young enough to have bright futures in other careers ahead of them, if they chose to get out. They could have reported him ages ago.
Harvey Weinstein’s conduct was horrible but he’s only one player in a very dirty game. If you don’t like what you hear about him, don’t just banish him from the game. You have to put an end to the whole system of shallow fame and meaningless glory. Boycott Hollywood.

Posted in Abuse | Comments Off on Dreammakers and Predators-Thoughts on Harvey Weinstein

The Guardian: ‘The rise of antisemitism in Australia has a distinctly American tone’

Posted on October 10, 2017 by Luke Ford

The Guardian:

A few years ago, I sat in the office of a rabbi in Perth discussing the state of the local Jewish community. The rabbi spoke with effusive pride at the academic success of the city’s Jewish high school, the warmth and charity of his small but sturdy flock, and the overall security and comfort in which the community lived and worshipped.

Then his tone became grave. He recalled how a short time before, a group of Holocaust survivors arrived at his synagogue for a special sabbath service and was confronted with neo-Nazi slogans and swastikas emblazoned on the walls of the building. The rabbi shed tears as he recalled the horror on their faces in what he termed “an attack on the souls” of people who had already experienced the limits of human suffering.

The community had previously experienced a campaign of attacks in the 1980s and 1990s at the hands of a white nationalist gang led by Jack Van Tongeren, that was also responsible for firebombing Asian restaurants and plotting to assassinate the state’s attorney general.

In other states, a Tasmanian woman, Olga Scully, distributed offensive antisemitic literature through letterboxes in 1995, while Fredrick Toben published material on his Adelaide Institute website denying material aspects of the Holocaust, including the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. Both incidents resulted in successful actions brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the peak representative body of the Australian Jewish community, under provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act.

These incidents, which represented the most visible and egregious examples of far-right or neo-Nazi activity targeting Australia’s Jewish community, were exceptional and were perpetrated by people on the extreme fringes of Australian society. But in the past 18 months, there has been a wave of activity and racist campaigns by new far-right groups.

Since February 2017, a neo-Nazi group called “Antipodean Resistance” has daubed synagogues with swastikas, and plastered posters across university campuses, public transport and schools with messages including, “legalise the execution of Jews” and “reject Jewish poison”.

Earlier this year, a group called Chemtrails Geelong distributed leaflets at five Australian universities calling the Holocaust a “gigantic political and financial swindle”.

Groups like Battalion 88 and the United Nationalists Australia became active online at the beginning of last year. The Dingoes, an Australian “alt-right” group with links to American neo-Nazis including Mike Enoch, host of The Daily Shoah, began broadcasting around the same time. Former Labor leader Mark Latham and Nationals MP George Christensen both gave interviews on The Dingoes’ podcast.

The notorious “echoes”, triple parentheses placed around names or words on social media posts to denote their Jewish origin, and Pepe the Frog, both ubiquitous markers among the American hard-right, began to enter the lexicon of Australian white nationalists. The usually civilised social media channels of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry have recently been targeted with messages containing the phraseology of American neo-Nazis. Suddenly a succession of posted comments ended with references to the “goyim” and “oy vey,” a snide distortion of common Yiddish words.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Australia | Comments Off on The Guardian: ‘The rise of antisemitism in Australia has a distinctly American tone’

How To Live As A Jew

Posted on October 10, 2017 by Luke Ford

I just read an essay, “How to Live as a Dissident.”

It reminds me of how Jews have often felt. You could change a few words around in this piece and it would fit the situation of Jews in vulnerable places.

In some circumstances, Jews are the persecuted. In other circumstances, we are the persecutors.

No people are inherently good or evil, superior or inferior. Our fortunes wax and wane depending on our make-up and our circumstances.

Life is a spiral staircase. At one moment we’ll feel grandiose, in the next vulnerable, in the next small, and in the next masterful. We circulate between these four states throughout our lives. The one thing we can do at any time is to increase our mastery.

At some points in my life, I’ve felt like a vulnerable 22yo Gwyneth Paltrow fending off Harvey Weinstein’s advances. At other times, I’ve acted like Harvey Weinstein. Most men would act like Harvey Weinstein if they could get away with it. A stiff prick has no conscience.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on How To Live As A Jew

Pro Jewish Vs Anti-Jewish

Posted on October 10, 2017 by Luke Ford

A friend of mine is an Orthodox Jew and a professional. When she was in graduate school, she was assigned various anti-Jewish writings for a week. A few days into the ordeal, she found she had started to think of Jews as evil. She empathized more with the critics of Jews than with her own people. She started to look at the world through the prism of these enemies of the Jews. All it took was a few hours of reading.

I think most people are this suggestible. Feed them enough images and memes and ideas and movies and TV and writings and you can shape how they view any group, including their own.

There was a famous Holocaust survivor in Israel who was haunted nightly by his memories until he went to Holland and was treated with LSD and saw that in different circumstances, he would have been the guards and other people the inmates.

That’s how the world works. Change the circumstance, and you would be the persecutor. In another circumstance, you would be the persecuted.

Nothing in life is personal.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Pro Jewish Vs Anti-Jewish

How Come We’re Not Getting Articles About The Sexual Predations Of The Hollywood Gay Mafia?

Posted on October 10, 2017 by Luke Ford

The New York Times and the New Yorker have compelling articles about the brutal behavior of Harvey Weinstein. How come nobody publishes stories about the brutal behavior of David Geffen, Barry Diller and company?

The back issues of the influential Spy magazine are now online. You can read Mark Ebner’s 1995 piece on the Hollywood Gay Mafia on page 44.

Rachel Shukert writes for Tabletmag in 2012:

…the press has been all abuzz over the lawsuit recently slapped on John Travolta by a masseur claiming the star attempted to coerce him into unwanted sexual acts during a session at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Two steps forward, one step back. That’s progress, I guess.

Of all the tabloid press coverage on Massage-gate, there are two details that, er, popped up at me. One is the employment of positively J.K. Rowling-esque adjectives regarding the area in question: “solid eight inches … springy” making it sound like Hollywood’s second-most famous Scientologist purchased his, ahem, wand straight from Mr. Ollivander’s. (It chooses the wizard, you know.) The second is the still-unnamed masseur’s assertion of how Travolta explained how he learned to Stop Worrying and Love Transactional Same-Sex Liaisons: By accepting that Hollywood is controlled by “homosexual Jewish men” who expect sexual favors in return for career-related ones.

Back in December of 1998, I interviewed a videotape editor who talked about Geffen and his friend Barry Diller, another leading homosexual power in Hollywood. Shortly afterwards my website was hacked and I was off the air for a couple of weeks. About $40,000 damage was done to the company who hosted my site.

A well placed source told me soon afterwards that Geffen and Diller were responsible for the hacking of my site. The host of my website, Ron Levi, told me, “You have some powerful enemies.” He booted my sites off his servers and severed his business relationship with me (that was putting about $3,000 a month in my pocket).

SCSI Post editor Montel Bradford told me Friday, December 4, 1998 (and I published the interview that day):

“I’m the nicest guy in the world. I have nothing against gay people. But I didn’t want to blow the gay mob. I do have a problem with people discriminating against people based on their sexuality. The gay mob employ the boys who are in the know. Barry Diller is another huge gay mafia guy. He hit on me at the premiere of Grease [Greg was a background dancer]. The Grease producer, Carr, was my manager. He was the one David Geffen told me that I had to blow.

“I used to star in films with Patrick Swayze and stuff, but unfortunately the mainstream is just as seedy. Unfortunately, when you star in a major movie, guys like David Geffen come up to you and hit on you and say, ‘if you blow this guy, then you’re going right to the top.’ So I’m basically blacklisted from the mainstream industry [because he wouldn’t blow the gay mob].

“I starred in the movie Skatetown USA. My real name is Greg Bradford but in adult I use Montel Bradford. I did the TV series Facts of Life, and I did the movie Zapped where I played Heather Thomas’ jerk boyfriend. I got Willie Ames’ part.”

The Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) lists Greg (Montel) Bradford for the following:

1.Vendetta (1986) …. Joe-Bob
2.Lovelines (1984) …. Rick Johnson
3.Let’s Do It! (1982) …. Freddie
4.Zapped! (1982) …. Robert Wolcott
… aka Wiz Kid, The (1982) (USA: working title)
5.Skatetown, U.S.A. (1979) …. Stan
Notable TV guest appearances
1.”CHiPs” (1977) playing “Chad Sullivan” in episode: “11-99:
Officer Needs Help” (episode # 4.11) 1/18/1981
2.”CHiPs” (1977) playing “Bart” in episode: “Valley Go
Home!” (episode # 3.3) 9/29/1979
Montel Bradford: “I’m working in adult because it is the only avenue left for me to be creative. I see lots of crap but I believe that adult can become a mainstream thing if they make sure that the sex scenes advance the story line and develop the character.”

On December 28, 1998, I faxed a copy of Bradford’s interview to David Geffen’s office. The next day I received this letter, via messenger, to my largely hidden home address:

Law Offices Of Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA, 90067-4590
Re: David Geffen.

Dear Mr. Ford:

We represent David Geffen. I have received an e-mail message that you sent to Mr. Geffen’s office on December 28, 1998, regarding “Greg Bradford.” Mr. Geffen does not know, has never met, and has never heard of you or Mr. Bradford.
The entire statement you attribute to Mr. Bradford in your e-mail is unequivocably false, and is both personally and professionally defamatory to Mr. Geffen.
Please be advised that if you or Mr. Bradford publish such false and defamatory information in way, or attempt to provide such information, or do provide such information to any media or publishing source, in print or otherwise, we will immediately file a civil action against you, Mr. Bradford, and the media source or publisher who publishes the false and defamatory information, and will seek compensatory and punitive damages.
Finally, should you propose to write or issue any other story about Mr. Geffen, please check with this office so that we may ascertain and advise you as to its truth or falsity. If you fail to accept this opportunity to check the facts, malice will be demonstrable.
cc: Bertram Fields, Esq.

Hollywood's "gay mafia" or "velvet mafia" or "lavender mob" has long been the subject of gossip, with occasional blips into the mainstream press.

Terms such as "Gay mafia" refer to a group of powerful homosexuals who exercise extraordinary influence in the entertainment industry.

"Gay mafia" is not a term used publicly or within polite company. It's not something we're supposed to talk about it. To do so, according to conventional wisdom, is to engage in homophobia or paranoia. It is the moral equivalent of anti-Semitism.

The back issues of the influential Spy magazine are now online. You can read Mark Ebner's 1995 piece on the Hollywood Gay Mafia on page 44.

The arts community has long had a disproportionate number of homosexuals and Jews. More than half of the leading power brokers in Hollywood are Jewish, and about a third of the powerful are homosexual, including David Geffen, Ray Stark, Calvin Klein, Aaron Spelling, Steve Tisch, Barry Diller and agent Sandy Gallin. This creates an atmosphere conducive to pushing "gay rights" and inimical to "gay bashing."

In his 1999 book "Tabloid Baby," Burt Kearns, former managing editor for such tabloid TV shows as A Current Affair and Hard Copy, writes about the clash between his Australian tabloid buddies and Fox's head at the time, Barry Diller and his "Velvet Mafia."

To Diller, "the Aussies were unwashing homophobic ruffians… Hollywood was a place where untold secrets unfolded in the back of limousines and behind the walls of cloistered mansions, where rubber sheets covered priceless bedspreads…

"The manly men from Down Under had little reverence for the pampered poobahs of screenland and the secrets they held. They laughed at the Diller crowd and their fancy-pants airs. To be blunt, the Aussies regarded Barry Diller and many of his young male executives to be gay, and the Aussies referred to gays as "poofters." Diller…hated A Current Affair…"

A Current Affair planned to do a story claiming that homosexual Cary Grant was straight. Their ad, written by Greg Snead, read: "Cary Grant: No More Fairy Tales."

Diller phoned: "The…word…fairy…makes…my…BLOOD…BOIL!"

Diller cancelled the entire month of A Current Affair's TV Guide ads and demanded to see copies of every promotional item Greg Snead had written in the past two years. (Tabloid Baby, pg. 46)

Kearns hired homosexual Paul Nichols, to directed a pilot of FUNY, as in F— You New York. Paul couldn't understand a heterosexual funny bit with a beautiful woman doing a US weather map while wearing a spandex miniskirt.

Gordon Elliott read his script as sportcaster Adrian L. Adrian in a lisping effeminate voice of the stereotypical Aussie "poof." Paul got mad and walked out of the control room. Everything stopped until Elliott agreed to read it "straight." (Tabloid Baby, pg. 112)

Spy magazine published Mark Ebner's controversial essay on the gay mafia in its June 1995 issue. For years afterwards, Ebner was blackballed in Hollywood. It was not until about 1999 that he started selling scripts again.

From Taki's column in the 3/7/00 NYPress.com: I’m not at all surprised to read that Hollywood is dominated by a Velvet Mafia of rich homosexuals who demand sexual favors in return for work in the movies. In fact I would have been surprised if it were the other way round. Those old Mittel-Europa Jews who ran Tinseltown in its heyday established the casting-couch practice long ago; but, as they say, at least they did it with style and with the opposite sex.

The Operator: David Geffen Builds, Buys, and Sells the New Hollywood is the title of an upcoming book by Tom King, a respected Wall Street Journal reporter who it seems has hit pay dirt–and it’s dirt, all right–with his exposé of the unspeakable Geffen. Actually it’s poetic justice. Geffen invited King to write a book about his amazing rise to the top, and allegedly named dozens of former boyfriends, many of them now famous stars. Indiscretion aside, Geffen is a lowlife sans pareil. I haven’t read the book, but I am sure that some of the so-called boyfriends did it with His Grotesqueness out of burning ambition and despite their heterosexuality.

I do not exactly hang out with scum like the Velvet Mafia, but about 10 years ago I got some firsthand information about how they operate. Libel laws do not permit me to name names. One of Europe’s greatest directors of opera, stage and screen gave a letter of introduction to an ex-assistant (and boyfriend) addressed to a very rich and particularly well-known tycoon, a member of the VM. I know both the director and his younger ex-assistant and they are gentlemen of the old school. Both are gay. As the assistant presented himself to the tycoon, he offered his CV and gave the director’s regards. "Screw the regards and the CV, let’s see if you know how to…" came the answer. My friend fled in disgust.

But what bothers me is not the bestiality and arrogance of the Velvet Mafiosi. It is the message they send out through their movies. American Beauty, for example, is said to be a well-made film–I haven’t seen it–that will probably win many Oscars, but carries a subliminal message against the family. (Geffen, as rumor has it, is supposed to have been thrilled that in the movie a homophobe father beats up his son when he suspects him to have had a gay affair with Kevin Spacey’s character, and even more thrilled when it is later revealed that the homophobe was actually a repressed gay.) Geffen, of course, denies there is such a thing as a homosexual cabal, and, typically, charges anti-Semitism.

According to King’s book, friends like Barry Diller, Sandy Gallin and Calvin Klein, among many others, keep a lower profile but apparently indulge in the sexual bacchanals that go with the territory. Alleged weekend-long orgies fueled by drugs at which Geffen and his powerful buddies run a " meat market" selecting young men for sex are apparently described in detail in King’s opus. Here is one of Bill Clinton’s close supporters, one who had a free run of the Lincoln bedroom, and was, I believe, once even called an adviser to the Draft Dodger, pushing a gay agenda of promoting stars and directors who make movies and records sympathetic to the gay lifestyle. Geffen is a natural for the Clinton White House. Sleaze is the operative word. Just think what Sid (the scumbag) Blumenthal would have done to Geffen if the tycoon were straight and a Republican. Has anyone in the Clinton administration–and that includes Al (the Liar) Gore–bothered to ask whether the Geffen agenda undermines our most important values? If anyone has, I’m Monica Lewinsky.

Which brings me to the point I wish to make. Political correctness is the best way the left has to stamp out thought it doesn’t agree with. As the Spectator of London wrote recently, "If it’s impossible to say or write certain things, then it becomes impossible to think them and conformity is guaranteed for ever and ever." George Orwell’s 1984 is alive and thriving with p.c., except that this time it’s for real.

What the left and its p.c. adherents have managed to do is to turn everyone who is not mainstream into a persecuted racial minority. As Paul Craig Roberts (the best columnist by far) pointed out in the John Rocker case, "Bud Selig thinks that kids with purple hair, repeat felons, welfare moms and homosexuals with AIDS are ‘ethnicities.’" Selig, in his haste to please the politically correct, misinterpreted Rocker’s remarks. Most kids with purple hair are white, not black, and repeat felons are criminals, not a racial classification. There are many white immigrants who don’t speak English–as in Russians–but try to explain this to p.c. commissars. Geffen and his ilk know all this. Ergo the anti-Semitism defense.

Hollywood has never exactly been a moral place, far from it, but until the 60s and 70s it preached a hell of a moral lesson. God, the family, patriotism, even Mom were sacrosanct. Now it’s the exact opposite. Criminals are sympathetically portrayed, cops always negatively; people who think same-gender sex is wrong are fascists; businessmen are all crooks, while crooks are nice and quaint; drug-takers are cool, drinkers are fascist bullies. Well, you get the point. AIDS ribbons are in, while battle decorations are a real no-no. HIV, like lung cancer, is a lifestyle disease, but HIV carriers are celebrated in the manner winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor used to be.

It is a topsy-turvy world, Hollywood, and I can’t wait to read Tom King’s book. In the meantime, don’t hold your breath before the Geffen spin machine, in cahoots with such Clinton flacks as the grotesque Geraldo Rivera, go to work on the author. After all, if a phony like Jeffrey Toobin can demonize Starr and acquit Bill Clinton, think what his kind can do in defense of the ghastly Geffen.

………………….

The word "outing" refers to the publicizing of a person's homosexuality. "Outing" as in "out of the closet." "Outing" became widely used during the 1990s.

Michelangelo Signorile, author of "Queer in America: Sex, the Media and the Closets of Power," is one of the leading advocates of "outing." But the outing pioneer is San Francisco Chronicle homosexual columnist Armistead Maupin who "outed" actor Rock Hudson.

"When I came out of the closet (in 1973), I came to the revolutionary conclusion that there was nothing wrong with being gay and that included everyone else as well," Maupin told the LA Times. "It became clear to me that the only way to lift the onus was being as matter of fact about it as I possibly could. I've never accused anyone of being gay because I don't think it's worthy of an accusation."

After Hudson, the next celebrity revealed to be homosexual was publisher Malcolm Forbes. A month after Forbes' death in February, 1990, Signorile wrote a cover story for the now-defunct magazine Outweek, "The Secret Gay Life of Malcolm Forbes."

Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner was written up in early 1995 for taking up with a male companion, following Wenner's divorce.

5/14/95 Toronto Sun

MINNIE KNOWS: Is there a corporation anywhere on our corrupt planet more obsessed with fostering and maintaining a straight-arrow, family-values image than Disney? Of course not. But Buzz, a lively monthly out of Los Angeles – it's sort of like Toronto Life but more fun – says in its cover story that a lot of people who push the squeaky-clean, mom-dad-two-kids-plus-dog, relentlessly upbeat Disney image are more than just cheerful, gang: they're gladly, joyously gay. Yes, kiddies, as many as 40 per cent of Disney's 63,000 troops are gay. Yeah? Who says so, I can hear you asking. Well, how about Disney chairman Michael Eisner, who gave this estimate to a gay-rights activist. Working for the far-flung Disney kingdom is "magic," says one gay employee. Recently, a gay and lesbian pride day was held at Walt Disney World and 12,000 showed up, walking down the streets of the Magic Kingdom "holding hands, embracing, and kissing." And in yet another example of synchronicity, Spy has a story on Hollywood's 'Gay Mafia,' a group that packs a tremendous punch in the movie industry's boardrooms.

The big piece on "The Gay Mafia" in the June issue, for example, is ridiculous. Writer Mark Ebner mixes rumor with nasty, unattributed quotes about people like David Geffen, Sandy Gallin and Barry Diller, presenting it all as the final truth. Says "an actor with 20 pictures to his credit" about Geffen: "He probably wouldn't remember me because he's slept with so many people. . . . He had matchbooks with guys' phone numbers on them, and when he got home, he listened to messages filled with guys." This gay mafia makes and breaks careers, you see, and of course it's all sexually motivated. And are we supposed to think Neil Jordan is gay simply because he has directed movies with gay, lesbian and bisexual characters?! Maybe Spy should merge with the National Enquirer and call it a day.

"Forrest Gump" producer Steve Tisch, a married father with children, isn't put out by his inclusion in a Spy magazine photo titled "The Gay Mafia." (Also in the picture: David Geffen, Calvin Klein and Sandy Gallin.) Last year, Tisch was named "Hetero Hero" by the gay magazine Advocate for his anti-AIDS action. "The only thing is," said Tisch, "I was 65 pounds heavier when that picture was taken."

San Francisco Chronicle

1/28/96 No one denies there's still a closet on-screen in Hollywood films — certainly for leading men. Off-screen, though, gay movie industry executives agree that the closet is indeed in many ways dead. Hollywood has always been accepting of homosexuals. Everyone in town who was even the teeniest bit hip probably knew Rock Hudson's secret, just as today everyone knows, or thinks they know, who paid whom how many millions to marry him and be his ''beard'' and not say anything about the boyfriend ensconced in the guest house.

''The closet exists for actors, absolutely, but I don't believe it exists for writers, directors and producers,'' says Rick Leed, president of Wind Dancer Production Group. ''If you're talented and you can deliver to a studio a quality movie — and, hopefully, a quality movie that makes money — nobody cares.''

Homosexuality can also be a common bond in an industry where contacts and information are everything. Everyone knows Hollywood is a ''boy's club,'' meaning straight men run it, but even if the straight boys don't accept someone, there are plenty of gays and lesbians to bond with, and there has even arisen, in the media, a phrase, ''the gay Mafia.'' It's a term one reads in the press but one seldom hears it in the business. It's a sneaky, double- edged coinage.

On one level, ''gay Mafia'' pays homage to the supposed ''gay power'' in Hollywood, but on the other it makes that power seem sinister. One of the unspoken implications of ''gay Ma fia'' is that gay actors are sleeping their way to the top with gay executives. ''I don't know if it's to the top, but there are many who have slept their way to the middle,'' Leed says.

It's nothing new. Gore Vidal's recently published memoirs report that way back during the making of ''Rebel Without a Cause,'' Sal Mineo was fooling around with the director Nicholas Ray. Ray had been married to Gloria Grahame, an actress who specialized in dangerous allure and played the town tramp in ''It's a Wonderful Life.'' She also turns up in ''The Celluloid Closet,'' getting a massage from a big, mannish masseuse in a scene from ''In a Lonely Place,'' also directed by Ray.

Hollywood's Heterophobia

I found this article by Daniel Jeffreys in the 4/1/00 Daily Mail.

AT THE start of the film American Beauty, Kevin Spacey's character, Lester Burnham, says: 'In a year, I will be dead' – and by the movie's end, he is, killed by his repressed homosexual next- door neighbour. In the meantime, his middle-class life implodes as he falls in love with his teenage daughter's best friend and his wife finds comfort in the arms of a reptilian estate agent. We are left feeling that suburbia is a hellish place where happiness will for ever be absent.

Everyone in the film is explosively dysfunctional, except for the Burnhams' other set of neighbours, an affluent gay couple who float through the mayhem with disarming serenity.

To some, the film is a thought-provoking lesson in the importance of not taking stereotypes at face value and of seeking out the joy and wonder we otherwise take for granted in modern life.

To the more sceptical, its main mesage seems clear: if only we could all be gay and out of the closet, we would be happy. The flip side to that message is that, as heterosexuals, we are doomed to unhappiness and strife. If we are lucky, the best we can achieve is manic depression. At worst, we will be murdered by some causality of heterosexual deviancy.

The film that dominated the Oscars is a triumph of dark cynicism with some wonderful acting and direction, but I believe that it was only made because of what I call its 'heterophobia' – the systematic denigration of heterosexual lifestyles – that has become part of the Hollywood mainstream.

American Beauty is heterophobia's propaganda masterpiece.

Its sweep of the Academy Awards' top categories thrilled Hollywood's gay community, who have been trying to prove for a long time that heterosexuality is a sad form of sexual dysfunction.

American Beauty is now regarded as a classic in the same mould as The Graduate, but far more interesting are the characters behind the movie and the agenda they hope to promote.

In the Seventies, homosexuals had legitimate grievances. They were persecuted for their sexuality and discriminated in ways that were repellent.

THE GAY rights movement that became increasingly vocal in the Eighties won deserved new freedoms for homosexuals.

Nobody should be persecuted for their sexuality, except those who prey on young children.

Yet at some time in the past ten years, a new theory gained currency among gays, especially in the entertainment business. This held that heterosexuality was a curse to be denigrated and mocked wherever possible, and that gays could never win the power they craved in society without undermining heterosexuals whenever possible.

At the same time, gays who held this view began agitating for homosexuality to be accepted as a form of behaviour on a par with heterosexual activity.

This was to be done in two ways.

On the positive front, these radical gays argued that homosexuals should be entitled to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples, and that schools should teach about gay sex as if it were no more normal or abnormal than male-female intercourse.

Academics began writing papers arguing for gay parenting, using statistics to suggest that children of gay couples had no more emotional problems that the average child of a 'straight' family.

On the negative end, gays began countering undesirable images of homosexuality – such as the spread of Aids – with a bleak picture of what they derisively called 'straight sex'. Lesbians began affirming that any woman who had a sexual relationship with a man must, at some point, submit to rape.

Workplace behaviour, such as mild flirting, once regarded as innocent, was lumped together with flagrantly intrusive and unacceptable advances, and all of it labelled 'sexual harassment'.

The point of this exercise was to demonise normal heterosexual behaviour, and to make the ordinary rituals of attraction and relationships seem aberrant, so that gays could advance their own cause by claiming 'straights' led lives that were much worse than theirs.

Along the way, sexual harassment law, and the industry which has developed around it, distorted from a sensible set of safeguards into something which could be used to attack heterosexuality at its roots, effectively conveying the idea that a heterosexual male was inherently dangerous and needed to be constrained by Draconian laws just as bars might hold back a rabid tiger.

Into this picture enter the men responsible for American Beauty, who must be stunned that their insidious attack on heterosexuality has not only become an Oscar-winner but has broken box office records.

The screenwriter, who won an Oscar for Best Screenplay, is Alan Ball. He grew up in the American South, in Georgia.

Ball's family life was, by his own admission, dysfunctional. He compares his childhood to American Beauty's Ricky, the son of Lester Burnham's mad neighbour and eventual nemesis.

Ball's home included a father who was remote and distant, plus a mother who suffered severe depression after Ball's sister died in a car accident.

Ball says he did not even know he was homosexual until he went to university, but claims to have suffered enough persecution at the hands of heterosexuality to believe it is inherently evil.

At school, he was weedy and bespectacled. He played in the school band and was bullied by members of the school football team, who always dated the prettiest girls. He recalled recently that it was a time when homosexuality was so taboo he could not even acknowledge to himself that he was gay.

Once Ball arrived in Hollywood, he became successful writing scripts for TV comedies and it was here his contempt for heterosexuality hardened.

He wrote American Beauty while working for Cybill Shepherd on her show Cybill. It was a relationship forged in hell. Shepherd, a vivacious blonde, is an aggressive heterosexual.

If her new autobiography is to be believed, she once had group sex with her personal trainer and his best friend because she wanted all her pleasure points stimulated simultaneously.

She is also the kind of girl who would have spent time with football players at school – the kind of guys who used to slap Ball around.

BALL has made no secret of his hatred for Shepherd, and sources say much of the shrillness in Lester Burnham's wife – played by Annette Bening – is based on Ball's antipathy towards a woman who made no secret of her unalloyed enjoyment of the kind of macho hunk Ball has never been.

American Beauty provided Ball with another opportunity to promote his agenda. Last year, he wrote and produced a TV series called Oh, Grow Up, which featured two straight men sharing a house with a gay man, who, predictably, has much the better life.

The series did not do well but in his film Ball was able to make his anti-heterosexual themes work with more power. In American Beauty, Ball's central characters, Lester and his wife, by focusing their sex drives on a teenage girl and a married man, are ciphers for the idea that heterosexuality must always mutate and become something damaging or perverse.

The Fitts, who live next door to Lester, have different problems. Mr Fitt is a violent ex-Marine who persecutes his wife – making the point that heterosexuality always tends to become abusive – and beats his son.

Mr Fitt's problems, of course, stem from the fact that he is gay but cannot accept it. When Fitt mistakenly decides Lester Burnham is also gay, he makes a pass. Spurned, he shoots Burnham in the head.

The only battle Ball lost with his English director, Sam Mendes, and star, Spacey, as the script was filmed, tells much about Ball's motivations.

In the final cut, Burnham stops just short of consummating his desires for his daughter's Lolita-like friend. Ball wanted the consummation to happen so that, according to sources, Burnham, the dark soul of heterosexuality revealed, could be seen as completely irredeemable.

But Burnham is allowed to show a sudden emotional maturity, rejects this chance of a seedy seduction and dies gazing lovingly at a picture of his wife and child. The revised ending weakens Ball's attack on heterosexuality, but by then the main damage has been done.

Were Ball the only prosletysing gay character in this off- screen drama, the case against American Beauty could not be made, but that is far from the truth.

LONG before it became an Oscar hit, Ball's script was picked up by Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, who eventually produced the film and were on stage last Sunday to collect the Oscar for Best Picture.

These two men got to know each other in 1995 when Cohen invited Jinks to be on the steering committee of Out There, an activist group of gay entertainment executives that he had co-founded.

Sources say that one of Out There's key objectives is to promote the gay lifestyle within films and members talk openly among themselves about how best to mock heterosexuality.

Members of Out There have been actively involved in films like American Pie, which makes adolescent heterosexuality seem like a monstrous affliction, and the U.S. TV series Will And Grace, whose two leading gay men always seem to get the best lines, usually at the expense of a hapless heterosexual.

Given their Out There affiliation, Jinks and Cohen knew just where to take the American Beauty script to get it made – to fellow Out There sympathizer David Geffen, Steven Spielberg's partner in Dreamworks.

As, The Operator, a new biography of Geffen makes clear, Geffen is a predatory homosexual who has devoted considerable energy to projects that target heterosexuality.

He is allegedly the main force in the Velvet Mafia, a loose association of powerful gay men who use their influence in Hollywood to advance gay issues.

Sources say Geffen has frequently changed scripts if they seem to be too sympathetic towards heterosexual love or if they show any hint of antipathy towards gays.

In 20 years of filmmaking, Geffen has become infamous for making or breaking careers based on whether the people involved are gay and willing to be part of his extremely active sex life.

His summer parties at Fire Island, a gay resort 30 miles outside Manhattan, are legendary as the place the Velvet Mafia meet to indulge in extraordinary bacchanals.

HIS GUEST list begins with designer Calvin Klein and includes other Velvet Mafia members such as Barry Diller (who helped create The Simpsons), George Michael and Sandy Gallin, the super-powerful talent agent who discovered Madonna, Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts.

In recent years, several guests at Geffen's Fire Island house have described weekend-long orgies, fuelled by drugs, at which Geffen and his powerful friends ran a 'meat market', selecting young men for either sex or stardom.

'If you weren't incredibly handsome and well-built, there was no way you would get in,' says a New York movie agent who has been to several Geffen parties. 'Dress was minimal or nonexistent, and Geffen would prowl with his friends, squeezing men like they were cattle.'

When Jinks and Cohen took American Beauty to Geffen, the billionaire producer was ecstatic.

He rushed the script through the approval process – virtually unheard of for a screenplay by a writer with no previous movie hits – and maintained a close personal interest in casting.

Geffen, Jinks, Cohen and Ball all attended half a dozen Oscar parties after the triumph of American Beauty. One producer who is close to Ball said they had good reason to be happy.

After all, he said, they have created a film that is both a masterpiece and the most corrosive satire of heterosexual life that has ever made $100 million from the very people it vilifies.

And that is the hard truth about American Beauty. It exists and triumphed because, for some gays, it is not enough to win civil rights and equality of opportunity.

They want more: a society in which heterosexuality is so condemned that homosexuals can win any increases in power they might choose.

…………….

Camille Paglia writes 5/26/99 in Salon.com: Would an admission of gayness hurt a young male singer's career? Of course it would: This junior Adonis type requires the electric charge produced by the mass projection of adolescent girls in erotic hysteria. Elton John, after his sham marriage, could afford to be openly gay because he caricatured himself as a sad-sack clown, crying through his sequins. Pretty boys, with their androgynous glow, have a more direct and dangerous sensual appeal. If Ricky Martin turned out to be just another buff gay clone, he'd cut himself off at the knees as an international artist. Current gay male culture is too shallow to provide the kind of psychological development that a performer needs.

'Gay Mafia' Takes Over Control of Hollywood

by Paul Richert (from the May/June 1995 issue of The Nationalist Times)

If you're wondering why homosexuals have skyrocketed in recent years to join blacks and feminists at the top of liberalism's hallowed list of "minority groups" entitled to special rights and privileges, look no further than Hollywood — Tinseltown is controlled these days by the "Gay Mafia." The Gay Mafia is dominated by three individuals — Sandy Geffen, Barry Diller, and Sandy Gallin. Geffen is a billionaire mogul who has recently joined forces with Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg to start "Dreamworks," a new studio which may well come to surpass all the other studios, given the resources and clout of its partners.

An expose of the Gay Mafia in the May/June issue of Spy magazine by Mark Ebner states that Geffen "can end a career with a phone call." Geffen "married" Bob Brassel, a Warner Bros. vice president, at an est outing, in a ceremony replete with wedding bands. But Geffen is known for sleeping with countless male Hollywood executives and actors.

Diller is another superrich Hollywood executive. Ebner calls Diller the "smartest don in the Mob," noting that he has made "gods" out of those loyal to him — people like Michael Eisner, Katzenberg, Peter Chernin, Sherry Lansing, and Dawn Steel, among many others. Although Diller still refuses to publicly acknowledge his homosexuality, according to Ebner he was known for cruising the dorms at UCLA and holding homosexual parties.

Gallin is a 54-year-old agent, manager and TV producer. According to Ebner, Gallin has had more plastic surgery than Michael Jackson, in an effort to perpetually look like a 30-year- old.

Beyond the three "dons" of the Gay Mafia, there are of course many film executives, agents, and actors — and the mafia acts in concert to protect each other and their images. Agent Steve Dontanville was sued by a man for sexual harassment, but the mafia has kept the story hushed up. Another agent, Scott Zimmerman, was caught having sex with his male personal trainer in his office at the same time he was divorcing his wife. Zimmerman did not receive so much as a reprimand.

The Spy article notes that "straight agents, or any mid-level industry powers for that matter, would have — and have been — fired, blasted in the trade press, and sued for such indiscretions." A very powerful agent was Stan Kamen, employed by the William Morris agency, who died of AIDS a few years ago. His clients included Barbra Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford and Goldie Hawn. About his homosexuality, "[T]he straight guys who came off his desk idolized him, and wouldn't mention [his sexuality], or even [kid] around about it. It was just not spoken about — ever. It's fear, and a reverence built out of fear . . . It's not based on intellect, but based on what will happen to you," according to a former employee of Kamen's.

Jann Wenner, the founder and publisher of Rolling Stone, the far- left, pro-corporate music magazine, recently left his wife for a man. Every single U.S. publication blacked out the story, until it was finally printed by The Mail, a British paper with a circulation of over 2 million. Geffen made sure the movie "Interview With a Vampire," directed by the homosexual Neil Jordan (who also directed the perverted movie "The Crying Game") had its homoerotic undertones removed. This was also insisted upon by lead actor Tom Cruise, who has been the subject of much speculation about his sexual orientation. Cruise "squirmed around" that subject area when interviewed by Vanity Fair last year.

The Disney studio, once an icon of American wholesomeness when it was run by Walt Disney, has five top executives who are homosexual.

Even the Los Angeles Police Department has decided to leave the super-powerful Geffen alone. The LAPD recently busted David Forest, the head of a male prostitution ring on a par with the one run by Heidi Fleiss. According to Spy, Geffen's name was at the top of Forest's client list. But the LAPD refuses to use Geffen's name as evidence during the trial, a detective being quoted as saying, "We don't wanna touch Geffen."

Ebner also writes about the "Circle of Fire," a group of young, good-looking guys who are flown around the country to the "big orgy parties" held by homosexual power brokers. Even the existence of the Lavender Mafia is denied by most of the principles involved. The incessant need to not only advance their fellow homosexuals but to zealously protect each other from public scrutiny is because the "need to maintain America's wholesome image of them is something that connects Hollywood gays at all levels — whether one is a struggling (or a mega- star) actor, writer, agent, or producer," Ebner writes.

Virtually all of the "Gay Mafia" are Jewish. Vicious character attacks are always leveled at anyone who has noted the undeniable fact that Hollywood has been Jewish dominated since its inception — yet most Americans are aware of that fact. Probably very few are aware yet of the rise within that subculture of a homosexual subculture to dominance. Many critics of the current System note that even as Americans seem unable to influence the political process with their votes for two essentially similar, bureaucratic political parties, they have absolutely no sway over powerful institutions like the media, who hide behind the smokescreen that they are "objective" and that the ideology and agenda of those who control the most powerful instruments of persuasion ever invented are never to be subjected to close scrutiny..

Homosexual militants demand that their "lifestyle" be treated as equal to the traditional family, yet most still scrupulously hide their identity, preferring to do their subversive undermining of American culture as "closeted" revolutionaries. A Nationalist government will regulate the media, by ending the media dictatorship currently exercised by the radical left, and making sure that what Americans see and hear is commensurate with this country's heritage and values."

In the Flesh: Undressing for Success

From New York Daily News 1/7/98: Members of Hollywood's Velvet Mafia may be quivering in their Lear jets now that a long-delayed tell-all is headed for bookstores. Almost eight years ago, Putnam bailed out of publishing "In the Flesh: Undressing for Success," the memoir of former gay porn star Gavin Geoffrey Dillard. But Barricade Books renegade chief Lyle Stuart has pushed the work into print by giving fig-leaf names to the two major moguls who Dillard says were his boyfriends.

"Success," is the memoir of former gay porn star Gavin Geoffrey Dillard. But Barricade Books renegade chief Lyle Stuart has pushed the work into print by giving fig-leaf names to the two major moguls who Dillard says were his boyfriends. Among the juicier passages in Dillard's tome, which has already drawn a warning letter from Dolly Parton's lawyers:

"He was small say five-six about ten years my senior, nice- looking, dark-haired, Jewish, but no one to die over . . . I became accustomed to waking up there each morning, yawning while Mr. Mogul attended to his array of early morning phone calls. It amused me no end to lie there teasing his sensitive parts while he schmoozed and cavorted with Paul McCartney, John and Yoko, Paul Simon, Cher.

"He was paying for my voice lessons, but I steadily refused to sing for him. . . . One particular morning I heard `Sam' scream from the bathroom. I ran in to find him flushed with anger and confusion. Did I know if I had the clap? "

`The Bear' and I were introduced through `Sam" . . . This was Mr. Hollywood . . . His kisses were timid, but direct. He was elegant, commanding, yet, I was sure, yearned to become putty in someone else's hands. I came to learn that Bear lived both in New York and Beverly Hills. In New York, he was seen publicly with a fashion {designer}; she rarely came out West. . . . I would spank his bottom that very night!

"Bear and I spent our afternoon at the casual mountain lodge of {a major Hollywood star and noted partyer} . . . we settled into the cushy sunken livingroom floor, where {the actor} dipped liberally into the cereal-size bowl of white crystal powder as though it were a heap of pretzels."

Posted in Abuse, Hollywood, Homosexuality | Comments Off on How Come We’re Not Getting Articles About The Sexual Predations Of The Hollywood Gay Mafia?

The Ethno-Nationalist Paradox

Posted on October 10, 2017 by Luke Ford

It’s not really a paradox. In some circumstances, nationalism leads people to go to war with their neighbors. In other circumstances, it leads them to bond with their neighbors.

In some circumstances, a strong Jewish or Christian or white or black identity will cause you to hate out-groups with whom you must compete for scarce resources. When this competition for resources is not intense, however, the need for hating out-groups is reduced.

New York Times:

This ethno-nationalist renaissance presents an odd paradox. European nationalists who at one time might have gone to war with one another now promote a kind of New Right rainbow coalition, in which sovereign states steadfastly maintain their ethnic and cultural identities in service of some larger “Western” ideal. This “ethno-pluralism,” as New Right activists call it, is not based on Western liberal notions of equality or the primacy of individual rights but in opposition to other cultures, usually nonwhite, that they say are threatening to overtake Europe and, indeed, the entire Western world by means of immigration. The threat to the West is also often cast in vague cultural terms as a kind of internal decay.

The stronger your in-group identity, the more likely you are to have negative feelings about out-groups. This social identity theory applies to almost all groups be they Jewish or Christian or Muslim or racial.

That question has deep roots in Germany. In 1918, the German philosopher Oswald Spengler published the first volume of “The Decline of the West,” arguing that cultures decline as regularly and predictably as any other organic entity — and that Western civilization was near the end of its cycle. Germany had just lost a war, and Spengler’s book struck a chord with disillusioned Germans looking to explain their sense of downfall. Spengler belonged to a loosely defined group of German thinkers called the Conservative Revolutionaries, who argued that Western decline was the inevitable result of materialism and soulless democracy. They opposed the fractious parliamentary democracy of the time, the liberal values of the French Revolution and ultimately modernity itself. They called for national revival by way of an authoritarian leader who could bring about an almost-mystical regeneration of the Volk — in part by pitting them against the Volk of other nations. “A people is only really such in relation to other peoples,” Spengler wrote, “and the substance of this actuality comes out in natural and ineradicable oppositions, in attack and defense, hostility and war.”

…But the German New Right has other influences as well. Nils Wegner, a young writer who translates English-language books into German for Kubitschek’s publishing house, follows the American alt-right scene with great interest — listening, for example, to podcasts by Richard Spencer, the white-supremacist leader who once declared before a crowd of acolytes: “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” Wegner told me that the American idea of a “racially defined ethno-state” would “come across as pretty weird over here,” because Europeans are not comfortable putting identity matters in racial terms. I asked him if this discomfort was substantive or merely semantic, and his answer was surprisingly forthright. “I would say that the main difference is the semantic difference,” he said. “Also, the modus operandi is not really the same.” Unlike alt-right activists in the United States, he went on to explain, activists on the European New Right tend to avoid appearing alongside “orthodox” right groups — neo-Nazis — because “the look” would impede their effort to appear as a “new kind of postmodern” patriotic movement.

Wegner said another difference was a matter of intensity. The Americans, he said, see their country as collapsing, and therefore they advocate revolutionary action — the creation of a white ethno-state in the Pacific Northwest, for example. European New Right activists don’t see their circumstances as that dire, he continued. They would be content with a “roll back” on immigration.

…One sympathetic teacher suggested that Kubitschek read the work of the historian Ernst Nolte, known for a controversial essay he wrote around that time titled “The Past That Won’t Go Away.” Nolte portrayed Nazism as a reaction to the “existential threat” posed by Bolshevism and suggested Bolshevik “class murder” was comparable to the Holocaust, calling it the “logical and factual predecessor to the Nazi ‘racial murder.’ ” Nolte’s revisionism sparked a divisive debate in Germany known as the “historians’ dispute,” and though Nolte was denounced as a Hitler apologist, several conservative German historians and journalists supported him. For Kubitschek, Nolte’s work has been a lifelong influence.

…The source of the contempt, according to Kubitschek, was Germany’s “memory politics,” the effort by Germans to confront their Nazi past, which involves tempering any nationalist urges. New Right thinkers see that restraint not as a virtue but as a symptom of a deeply ingrained self-hate — a hatred that must be overcome for Germany to be great again.

In January, Björn Höcke, the AfD leader, voiced a similar lament in a speech at a beer hall in Dresden, and much more caustically. Germans are “the only people in the world who have planted a monument of disgrace in the heart of their capital,” he said, referring to the Holocaust memorial near the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. German history was being made “rotten and ridiculous,” he said. “It cannot and must not go on like this! There is no moral duty to dissolution!” The speech provoked a national uproar, and even some politicians within AfD criticized it.

Kubitschek saw it as a tactical error. Höcke’s comments, he said, were “correct in substance but wrong in tone.”

…Kubitschek casually mentioned that he would not mind at all if a strongman came to replace Merkel, if that was the only way to correct her decision to allow the migrants to enter Germany. In a time of great peril, he noted soberly, a leader must act beyond the law. He cited Carl Schmitt, the conservative political theorist who criticized parliamentary democracy and aligned with the Nazis after they took power: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” Merkel herself had acted outside the law by opening the border, Kubitschek said, and that proved she was sovereign. And yet, he continued, “I’d have absolutely nothing against it if someone came along and with the same sovereignty did the opposite. Someone who would say: ‘The experiment is over. The Parliament won’t be consulted. I will prop up with my power the administration, the organs of the state, the police’ — who would in any case be supportive — ‘the border patrol, the military, and we will end this experiment.’ That means: borders shut. Test to see who can be assimilated; they can stay. Those who can’t be assimilated, they’ve got to go.”

This is an amazingly fair and even-handed article from the New York Times.

Life is frequently a war over scarce resources and different groups have different interests and different understandings about what is good and right and Godly.

Posted in Germany, Nationalism | Comments Off on The Ethno-Nationalist Paradox