The Jewish Pornification, Eroticization, and Moral Corruption
of Germany and America Since 1919

Jonas E. Alexis • February 6, 2026

It is within the realm of the historical data to assert that Nazi Germany became a sort of defense mechanism— a counter-response to Jewish revolutionary activities perceived to be dangerous for Germany and much of Eastern Europe. Several Jewish scholars and historians agree on this point. Martin Bernal for example mentions that from 1920 to 1939, “Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.” Sarah Gordon declares:

Hitler’s hatred of the Jews was based on his belief that they fomented wars that were against the national and racial interests of the countries involved, and that Jews were the only gainers from these ‘unnatural’ wars that resulted from conspiracies of ‘international Jewry.’ To Hitler Jews were not merely ‘diverting’ other nations, but they were a positive threat to both their internal and external security…According to Hitler, the failure of nations to recognize their true interests by waging war against the Jews would result in apocalyptic consequences. As he put it, “If the Jew with his Marxist creed remains victorious over the nations of this world, then his crown will be the wreath on the grave of mankind, then this planet will once more, as millions of years ago, move through the ether devoid of human beings.”

Even Lucy S. Dawidowicz would somewhat agree. Hitler, according to Dawidowicz, “had discovered that Jews dominated the liberal press in Vienna and the city’s cultural artistic life, that they were behind the Social Democratic movement—Marxism. Triumphantly he had at last found an answer to the original question he had posed about the Jew: ‘The Jew was no German.’” To quote Hitler, “In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the press, in art, in literature and the theatre.” He later described how the Jewish elite in the theatre were corrupting the morals of the culture. He also complained that some of the materials produced in the theatre were of a pornographic nature.

Theatre in Germany began to produce films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), directed and written by Jewish producers Robert Wiene and Hans Janowitz. Other films of the same genre included Carl Mayer’s The Last Laugh (1924), Madchen in Uniform (1931), and Kuhle Wampe (1932). Madchen in Uniform was an explicitly pro-lesbian film, something that was completely contrary to the Prussian education system at the time, and many of the cast in the movie were Jewish. Film scholar Richard W. McCormick of the University of Minnesota declares that this film “threatened the status quo” of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. McCormick continues, “Madchen in Uniform is a film that is implicated within a number of progressive and emancipatory discourses of the late Weimar Republic: the movement for homosexual rights and the flourishing of urban, queer subculture; ‘New Objectivity’ and other avant-garde tendencies in the arts and popular culture; and the intersection of modernity, the movies, and the democratic egalitarianism.”

Paul Johnson tells us that films like Blue Angel were so corrupt that they “could not be shown in Paris. Stage and night club shows in Berlin were the least inhibited of any major capital. Plays, novels and even paintings touched on such themes as homosexuality, sadomasochism, transvestism and incest; and it was in Germany that Freud’s writings were most fully absorbed by the intelligentsia and penetrated the widest range of artistic expression.” Many of these films were labeled “decadent” as soon as Hitler rose to power, and many of the producers fled Germany.

Madchen in Uniform became a symbol for feminist movements in the 1970s, one of the weapons used against the existing culture. Actor and director Paul Wegener understood how to change the cultural landscape by changing its arts. “The real creator of the film must be the camera,” he said. “Getting the spectator to change his point of view, using special effects to double the actor on the divided screen, superimposing other images—all this, technique, form, gives the content its real meaning.” Cinema was widely used as a form of subversion of the German culture, traditions, and mores. Even Eric D. Weitz declares that during that period in Germany, “Many artists, writers, directors, and composers jumped at the chance to work in the new media precisely because they signified a break with the past and provided one more way to express rejection of pre-1918 imperial Germany with its kaisers, generals, nobles, and stuffy, rigid and outmoded art academies.”

Johnson writes that during the 1920s in Germany, “The area where Jewish influence was strongest was the theatre, especially in Berlin. Playwrights like Carl Sternheim, Arthur Schnitzler, Ernst Toller, Erwin Piscator, Walter Hasenclever, Ferenc Molnar and Carl Zuckmayer, and influential producers like Max Reinhardt, appeared at times to dominate the stage, which tended to be modishly left-wing, pro-republican, experimental and sexually daring.” Art is one of the main vehicles that would later be used to bring about what Nietzsche would call the transvaluation of all values. Films and movies were one of the largest business enterprises in 1920 Germany.

Hitler, throughout Mein Kampf, seems to have been aware of Jewish revolutionary activities, and even declared that “the part which the Jews played in the social phenomenon of prostitution, and more especially in the white slavery traffic, could be studied here better than any other West-European city, with the possible exception of certain ports of Southern France…A cold shiver ran down my spine when I first ascertained that it was the same coldblooded, thick-skinned and shameless Jew who showed his consummate skill in conducting that revolting exploitation of the dregs of the big city. Then I became fired with wrath.”

This anger began to escalate after World War I when he saw what was happening in the press and theatre in Germany, when art in general was being used to denigrate the German culture. What perhaps moved Hitler’s anger to a new height was that the Jews were less than three percent of the population, yet they largely controlled the theatre and were promoting what he would call “filth” and “pornography.” For Hitler, these acts “must have been definitely intentional.”

For example, Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935), a German-Jewish physician and sexologist, used his medical training as a pretext to promote homosexuality and, in 1897, built his own system of “the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, the first organization anywhere devoted to the protection of homosexual rights.” Hirschfeld was also “the primary inventor of marriage counseling, Gay Liberation, artificial insemination, surgical gender ‘reassignment,’ and modern sex therapy…His goofy persona and conscientiousness transformed Sexology from an anthropological curiosity into a popular German science. The Berlin monthlies, starting in the mid-twenties, referred to Hirschfeld solicitously as ‘the Einstein of Sex.”

Hirschfeld was the Einstein of Sex because he “embraced a doctrine known as ‘sexual relativity.” While biological imperatives dictate that there are only two sexes—male and female—Hirscheld postulated another doctrine, one more congruent with his revolutionary ideology. Hirschfeld “wrote that it was ‘unscientific’ to speak of two sexes. Between ‘full man’ and ‘full woman’ was an infinite string of sexual/gender possibilities.” The only force capable of constraining Hirschfeld’s project was the moral law, understood as ingrained in the human conscience. Hirschfeld clearly recognized that Christianity functioned as a primary institutional and cultural guardian of this moral framework. Consequently, he directed sustained criticism toward Christianity prior to advancing his program of sexual reform. “The Christian supporters of the idea that any intercourse not serving procreation ‘is sinful fornication’ are not always proceeding logically,” he wrote. “Otherwise they would not only have to reject contraceptives but consequently would also have to forbid intercourse with a woman from the beginning of pregnancy up to the end of the nursing period; thus the man who soon after the wedding impregnated his spouse should not touch her for a year and half.” Hirschfeld spent a large part of his 1200-page book The Homosexuality of Men and Women deconstructing the Christian principles about sex.

Hirschfeld was the Alfred Kinsey of his day, and actually put his doctrines into practical use. This began to take place in 1919 when Hirschfeld opened the Institute of Sexology in Berlin. Jewish scholar Mel Gordon of the University of California tells us that the institution “quickly became one of the city’s most curious attractions. The Institute’s buildings, including a former mansion, were divided into areas for lectures, consulting offices, study rooms, laboratories, medical clinics, and a museum space devoted to sexual pathology.” Paul Johnson commented, “The Foxtrot and short skirts, the addiction of pleasure in ‘the imperial sewers of Berlin,’ the ‘dirty pictures’ of sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld or the typical man of the times took on in the minds of the average citizen a repugnance that is difficult to recall in hindsight without some historical effort. In a number of highly celebrated provocations, the stage of the ‘20s dealt with topics like patricide, incest and other crimes and the deepest inclination of the times tended to self-mockery.”

A number of Jewish icons such as George Gershwin, Ben Hecht, Douglas Fairbanks, and Sergei Eisenstein visited the school.Eisenstein “enjoyed the Institute’s collection of sailor-dolls—homemade paper toys that German homosexuals fashioned during the Great War.” The library of the school, “which contained the largest sex and pornographic book collection in Europe, remained accessible to all readers… Politically, the Institute provided a forum for progressive lawyers and government officials who sought to eradicate the laws against homosexuality and defend Germany’s legal abortion rights from the growing onslaught of fascist and religious parties. Most of the legal work involved suits protecting gay men against threats of petty blackmail….The Institute itself was a font of sexological activity. Pediatric care, abortions, ‘sexual rejuvenation’ and sexual ‘correction’ operations were conducted on the lower level of the main building.” The building contained all sort of sexual devices in order to advance the sexual revolution in Berlin.

Glass cases of fetishistic objects and sex aids from preliterate, Asian, and European cultures filled two other rooms. In the open counters and boxes were collections of Mandigo dildos that squirted a milky solution, Moche water bottles with penis-shaped spouts, Sanskrit sex manuals, miniature shoes worn by bound-foot Chinese courtesans, medieval chastity belts, torture instruments from a German brothel, sadistic drawings and assemblages created by Lustmord convicts, an entire picture window of ankle boots donated by a local fetishist, antique steam-driven vibrators, fake rubber breasts and vaginas taken from transvestite prostitutes, lacy panties found on the corpses of von Hindenburg’s heroic officers, and other such incontrovertible evidence of Hirschfeld’s new calculus of desire.[

This was the sexual decadence of the Weimar republic during the early years in the twentieth century before Nazi Germany, where sexual fetishism of all sort was widespread. Even D. H. Lawrence, himself a proponent of sexual liberation, knew that the Weimar Republic had become a place for sexual debauchery, writing in a letter that “at night you feel strange things stirring in the darkness…There is a sense of danger…a queer, bristling feeling of uncanny danger.” Later, Christopher Isherwood, a homosexual and proponent of sexual liberation, went to Berlin to immerse himself into the gay bars, writing later, “There was terror in the Berlin air.” During that era, the Weimar Republic “stimulated all the external tics of sexual perversity. In the center of Europe, mesmerized audiences were warned, sits a nightmare municipality, a human swamp of unfettered appetites and twisted prurient proclivities…With Babylon and Nero’s Rome, Weimar Berlin has entered into our topological thesaurus as a synonym for moral degeneracy.”

Gordon goes so far as to say that during that period Berlin “would have to be considered as one of the most faithless—or heathen—cities in the Western world.” Why? Because sexual decadence and perversion were widespread—so widespread in fact that Jewish revolutionaries used a “scientific” pretension to promote pornography. Gordon writes, “Clinical studies of sexual perversion, such as von Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis (Leipzig, 1901) and [Wilhelm] Stekel’s Sexual Aberrations (Vienna, 1922) were printed by scientific publishing houses and produced principally for therapists and legal scholars in Central Europe.”

Wilhelm Stekel was an important figure in this movement because he not only advanced sexual fetishism, but also collaborated with Sigmund Freud. Ernest Jones, a Gentile disciple of Freud during Freud’s early years, noted that both Freud and Stekel were the original founder of the first psychoanalytic society. Though the two men separated later, they were working toward a common goal: sexual revolution. Stekel ended up playing semantics in order to deconstruct what Western civilization considered perversion— he replaced the word “perversion” with his own term “paraphilia” in his book Sexual Aberrations. Peter Gay notes that Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams makes references to Stekel’s use of symbols in dreams. Stekel later wrote in his autobiography that Freud was not only Stekel’s “apostle” but also “my Christ!”

Psychoanalysis, from its inception, was a largely Jewish movement and was later called a “Jewish science.” What Gay refers to as the “nucleus” of the Psychoanalytic Society in Vienna in 1908 included people like Max Kahane, Stekel, Rudolf Reitler, Alfred Adler, and of course Sigmund Freud. Yet Freud, for fear that this would provoke anti-Jewish backlash, distanced himself from psychoanalysis as a Jewish science and even admitted that what Stekel was promoting was sexual perversion. Yet Freud knew that he too was promoting the destruction of sexual taboos, most particularly in his Three Essays on Sexuality, implying things such as perversion is just a different form of sexuality and that all mankind at some point desire some form of sexual perversion. With this sexual revolution taking place, the Weimar Republic was basically establishing reasons for Nazi Germany:

The numerous copies in multiple editions of [Psychopathia Sexualis and Sexual Aberrations] revealed an unintended secondary readership: other perverts. The salacious case histories of sadists, fetishists, Algolagnists, flagellants, and the like, formed a novel province in Weimar pornography. Under the guise of psychological research, graphic photographs and illustrations were added to still other strange biographical confessions and fantasies. Berliners seeking stronger erotic sensations and instruction for weird sex scenarios merely had to peruse Galante journals for the current ‘scientific’ offerings. Virtually every deviant practice had a layman’s society and private publishing arm.

One ‘physician,’ Ernst Schertel, headed a hypnotic ‘Dream theater’ and several book clubs devoted to whipping and buttock fetishism. Schertel’s serialized periodicals explored the dark fantasy games and dramatics of animal lovers, worshippers of obese Dominas, sadistic teachers, bare-hand flagellants, incestuous necklas fetishists, urine drinkers, bondage freaks, high-heel stompers… German authorities attempted to shut down his Parthenon-Verlag in 1931 and Wilhelm Reich publicly opposed the perverse Dream Theater. But Schertel, working under foreign pseudonyms like Dr. F. Grandpierre, outwitted them all.

Of course Mel Gordon plays down the participation of Jews in the business, saying that while the Jews “dominated certain cultural fields in pre-Nazi Berlin, especially publishing, law, medicine, theatre, graphic art, cinema, music, architecture, and popular entertainment, relatively few Jews were still involved in common prostitution with the exception of two picturesque types: Kupplerinnen (procuresses) and Chontes—zaftig whores from southern Poland.”

It is understandable that Gordon is trying to dismiss a body of scholarship, since that would eventually lead to a reevaluation of at least one reason why Nazi Germany was completely against Jewish revolutionary activity. Gordon tells us that Wilhelm Reich, another Jewish sexual revolutionary (whose work I examined in the first volume), believed that Hirschfeld’s work would advance the cause of fascism. Gordon also tells us that as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933, “the Institute of Sexology was one of his first targets.” Nazi Germany quickly placed the graphic paintings of George Grosz, Jankel Adler, Rudolf Bauer, Cesar Klein, Max Pechstein, Ludwig Meidner, Otto Dix, Rudolf Schlichter, among dozens of others, under the heading of “degenerate art” because of their pornographic imageries. Throughout his own work, Gordon tells us how the Weimar Republic sought to refashion Germany through sexual revolution.

Prostitution lost its exact meaning when tens of thousands were involved in complex sex attachments, all of a commercial nature. The vaguely Wilhelmian underpinning of middle-class Berlin slowly cracked and, over time, collapsed. Venereal disease, not flesh-peddling, threatened the immediate well-being of the capital. Syphilis and gonorrhea spread at an alarming rate. The city fathers, once proud watchdogs of the moral code, turned to Berlin’s public officials and social workers for help…Public and habitual masturbation, manifestations of shell-shock, grew to epic proportions, shaking morals as well as becoming an embarrassing disciplinary problem. In the countryside, the brutal corralling and rape of foreign women, usually peasant girls, by German recruits was reported with some frequency in the early dispatches…

Roman-style orgies became synonymous with Etappe life…Sex, the historical lubricant for rallying a nation to armed conflict, was destroying the Kaiser’s war. A dizzying panic overtook Berlin in October 1919. Not since Paris in the 1860s had a European city experienced the Edenic flush of total erotic freedom. With prostitution and all-night dancing already accepted features of contemporary Berlin life, what else could be added. Drugs and over-thecounter pornography appeared first…The most sought-after pornographic postcards and films had been imported from Paris and Budapest before the war. Now Berlin was patriotically producing its own brands in oversized graphic portfolios, ‘bachelor’ Galante magazines, photo-sheets, and smokers…The sweet qualities of Gallic porno were supplanted in Berlin studios by the psychopathic scenarios from Krafft-Ebing. Forced, intergenerational, scatological, and obsessive fetish sex prevailed…

The distinct erotica of Berlin was sold in specialized bookstores and here and there on the street… Wild sex and all-night antics could be made anywhere. In private flats, hotel rooms, and rented halls, drug parties and nude ‘Beauty Evenings’ were constantly announced and held. A gala atmosphere enveloped 1919 and 1920…In postwar Paris, a traveler could engage the services of a streetwalker for five or six dollars; but during the inflation in Berlin, five dollars could buy a month’s worth of carnal delights…Sex was everywhere and obtainable on the cheap… Child prostitution was a searing social issue long before and after the inflation era. It involved both female and male children, sex-workers’ progeny, runaways, and troublesome adolescents. There seemed to be almost no bottom age for those seeking physical companionship with children. And virtually no end to willing girls and boys.

As Jewish historian Edward J. Bristow shows, Jews were considered a small number of the population in Germany in the early part of the twentieth century, yet they were the largest ethnic group to promote and profit from white slavery and prostitution. It is important to make this distinction: Jews were the largest group owning whorehouses, but as far as pimps or whores in those houses, there were other groups as well. When things began to get rough, many Jews changed their names in order make things complicated for the police. What was even more troublesome during that era was that sexual magic was used as a form of revival; it was viewed as a form of religion and prayer.[Gordon states that sex magic was used as a “bodily manifestation of lost esoteric wisdom, techniques of Gnostic faith, flipped transmogrifications of flesh, even divine rungs for ultimate human salvation…Sexuality was the fuse and hidden spring of Weimar Germany’s newest dogmas.”

Yet by 1932, the power of sexual eroticism began to decline during the rise of Nazi Germany—most pornographic publications were banned and nudist clinics such as Koch’s were shut down. By 1933, Hirschfeld’s Institute of Sexology was ransacked and vandalized by SA-men and students. Archival files were destroyed, and thousands of books and manuscripts were burned. “Berlin’s sex industry contracted and nearly disappeared throughout the summer months of 1933.”

Hitler moved from deep-seated wrath to actions taken against what he called “intentional acts.” “I had now no more hesitation about bringing the Jewish problem to light in all its details. No. Henceforth I was determined to do so.” By the summer of 1933, “Berlin’s sex industry” almost disappeared, and by the spring of 1934, approximately 20 brothels were left in Berlin. Since Nazi Germany drew out of neo-Paganism, the movement was bound to fail. Many popular historians, even though they discuss the Weimar Republic, seem to stay away from addressing these historical issues.

The same corruption and pornification has been going on in America. For example, Jewish scholar Nathan Abrams declares in his book The New Jew in Film that “older generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work, but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”Abrams does not stop there. Within the book, he dedicates numerous pages to an extensive examination of both major and minor pornographic or sexually explicit films, contending that there exists a Jewish element or ideological underpinning behind the majority of them.

Abrams continues to surprise readers by maintaining a dual perspective: he subtly suggests that “anti-Semitism” is generally unrelated to Jewish behavior, while concurrently asserting throughout the book that Jewish actors, actresses, and filmmakers contribute to the debasement of culture by producing pornographic and subversive films. For example, he writes that “the character of Victor Ziegler in Jewish director Stanley Kubrick’s final film Eyes Wide Shut (1999) is the embodiment of a ‘menacing hypersexuality.’ [Scholars] Gene D. Phillips and Rodney Hell describe Ziegler as ‘sinister,’ while James naremore refers to him as ‘the most morally corrupt character.’”

How is it possible for Abrams to simultaneously maintain these two positions? How can he assert that anti-Jewish reactions have very little or nothing to do with Jewish behavior while, at the same time, argue that Jewish contributions to certain films are subversive? This appears to be a challenging intellectual puzzle, and it doesn’t require a logician to notice that Abrams is obviously engaging in internal inconsistency. We do know why.

In an essay included in his 2008 book Jews and Sex, Abrams reasoned that “many anti-Semites are eager” to display the negative side of Jewish pornography. He cited people like David Irving and David Duke who used his essays to promote what he called anti-Semitism. “All of these websites are anti-Semitic in intent. Where Duke is a neo-Nazi, Irving is a convicted Holocaust denier. Their websites are a montage of extracts culled primarily from the print media to prove that Jews are corrupting pure, white Christian society…they unfortunately used my original article to this end, particularly in light of the fact that since it was written by a Jew it provides some sort of legitimacy to their claims.”

Abrams could not make up his mind because he is living in a contradictory world, one which keeps him in intellectual bondage. At the same time, he continues to suggest that Jews play an enormously powerful influence in the pornographic and erotic world which Hollywood, the ministry of propaganda, disseminates through films. He writes,

Sex is even more radically foregrounded in Superbad, which follows a similar trajectory to American Pie in its shadowing of three Jewish teenagers’ attempts to lose their virginity, but whose language is much more obscene. The film opens with a long, serious, detailed and matter-of-fact dialogue about hardcore pornography between the two Jewish protagonists. This explicit and sex-fixated language continues in a similar vein throughout the Film. Likewise, Funny People, which depicts the sex lives of a group of Jewish stand-up comics, is literally peppered with sex, penis and testicle jokes. Another sign of increased confidence of the younger generation of Jewish directors, screenwriters and actors is not only their increased openness about the consumption of hardcore pornography but also their drawing attention to it in their films. Jim in American Pie and American Pie 2 is seen consuming adult material, as is Darren in Saving Silverman. Archie Moses in Bulletproof is a self-proclaimed adult-film aficionado. The Wiseman brothers in A Mighty Wind open a sex emporium. In Being Ron Jeremy, Brian Pickles is shown returning a pile of some dozen porn videos after one ‘busy’ weekend. In Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle/Get the Munchies, Rosenberg and Goldstein refuse to go out because they are staying in to watch nudity on television, prompting Kumar to ask, ‘Is that all you Jews ever think about? Tits?’ Meanwhile Goldstein wears a T-shirt emblazoned with the words, ‘Ass—the other vagina.’ Thus we are witnessing two new trends in contemporary cinema, particularly in the United States, in which porn stars are becoming increasingly open about their Jewishness, while male Jewish directors, actors and screenwriters are likewise becoming more open about their sexual and pornographic obsessions.

Abrams appears to contradict his own thesis, which posits that anti-Semitism was primarily the result of European animosity toward Jews, by stating “Drawing upon films of the past, the New Jew exhibits menschlikayt, and it is this characteristic that allows him to mock the dominant value of goyim naches. The code of menschlikayt was developed in response to anti-Semitism, as a means of articulating Jewish superiority through a refusal to share the aggressive values of the Jews’ oppressors.”

Quoting Jewish scholar Paul Hyman, Abrams unhesitatingly included this in his writing: “Jewish men, first in the countries of western and central Europe and later in America, constructed a modern Jewish identity that devalued women, the Other within the Jewish community… The negative representations of women they produced reflected their own ambivalence about assimilation and its limits.”

However, if non-Jewish individuals make similar statements or reference figures like Abrams, he might label them as anti-Semites. Abrams seems to suggest that had there been no anti-Jewish backlash, his article on the Jewish participation in pornography would still have been valid. Abrams would have been in a much safer position intellectually and honestly if he had done what many rabbis in New York did when Jews began to dominate the obscenity scene. Jewish historian Andrea Friedman tells us: “Rabbis entered into the anti-obscenity activism in the attempt to counter Christians’ perceptions of Jews as a different, alien, and more primitive people, by demonstrating that they shared the ‘Christian’ morals of their Protestant and Catholic brethren and by trying to control the behavior of other Jews. Prompted by the concern that Christian condemnations of obscenity might fuel anti-Semitism (and vice versa), they sometimes joined in such condemnation in self-defense…Jewish fears that anti-obscenity activism could become anti-Semitic activism were founded in an amalgam of prejudice and fact regarding the place of Jews in the American entertainment industry.”

Rabbis such as Stephen Wise, Sidney Goldstein, and William Rosenblum all allied with the Catholic and Protestant groups to found “an Interfaith Committee on Decency to support the legion’s work in New York City.” Goldstein did not deny the disproportionate number of Jews in the film industry: “If motion pictures are not kept unobjectionable, it is a species of national disgrace for us, in so far as Jews are responsible.” Goldstein was not alone. Samuel Marcus, a rabbi and an attorney for the Society for the Prevention of Crime, said that he and another individual “had visited one of the theaters in an attempt to induce the Minsky brothers, as fellow Jews, to cease ‘the commercializing of filth.’” When that didn’t work, Marcus tried “to persuade government officials to put the Minskys out of business.”

When the play The God of Vengeance came out (produced by Harry Weinberger), it was defended by rabbis Stephen Wise and Abraham Cahan. But the plaintiff before the grand jury was Rabbi Joseph Silverman. The motive again was quite clear: “Those who opposed [the play] feared that its portrayal of Jewish prostitution (and perhaps, perversion) would undermine their efforts toward assimilation by reinforcing ancient prejudices l inking Jews and immorality.” The rabbis involved in the anti-obscenity activism were largely Reformed individuals who did not draw their objections from rabbinical laws but from their own opinions. Friedman declares, “As learned men, New York’s Reform rabbis might provide guidance and inspiration, but their authority to tell Jews how to behave was minimal.” (This is clear from their liberal political leanings; Goldstein for example was a member of the American Birth Control League and the National Council on Freedom from Censorship.

In Stanley Kubrick: New York Jewish Intellectual , Abrams argues that Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut, etc., are essentially a projection of Kubrick’s fascination with his Jewish roots and mysticism, particularly the Kabbalah. Jewish scholar Joshua Lambert declares that Jews use pornography and most specifically obscenity “to fight anti-Semitism…” He adds that people like Larry David and Sarah Silverman “are challenging America’s powerful religious, family-friendly culture and asserting their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity.” Back in 2004, Abrams unequivocally declared:

Jewish involvement in porn…is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion…Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged.

Abram’s work has been published by academic centers like Rutgers University Press, and no one has ever accused him of being an anti-Semite. I n fact, he has gotten great accolades for writing provocative works. In a similar vein, in his New York Times bestselling book Born to Kvetch, Jewish writer Michael Wex unflinchingly declares: “The Jews are not merely out of step with Christian civilization, they hold it in utter contempt. They might borrow the occasional concept or practice—what can you expect, it’s goles—but the general context turns them sick… There is no chance of reconciliation. Right cannot be reconciled with wrong, nor can truth make peace with lies; All can never agree with Nothing.”

Scholar Laurie Marhoefer, in her penetrating study, Sex, and the Weimar Republic: German Homosexual Emancipation and the Rise of the Nazis, provides compelling evidence which indirectly shows that polite people of this world were surreptitiously destroying the German culture through moral corruption and degradation, though Marhoefer herself would call corruption sexual freedom and democracy. One of those polite people was none other than Magnus Hirschfeld.

Hirschfeld was introducing sexual liberation, which, according to Marhoefer, everyone should applaud, but the German traditionalists thought he was bringing disaster. T his was one reason why Hirschfeld was vehemently browbeaten, not because the traditionalists were by nature anti-Semites. Hirschfeld attempted to use “science” to perpetuate the idea that homosexuality is “purely biological, not pathological,” and that again put him in conflict with the German culture, which viewed the issue as moral and not biological.

Marhoefer writes: “Thus laws like Germany’s Paragraph 175, which banned sex between men, conflicted with science. ‘What is natural cannot be immoral,’ Hirschfeld wrote. ‘When state and society, family and individual persist in their old prejudice against homosexual men and women, a prejudice that is based on ignorance, then injustice is done, one that has only a few parallels in human history.” Hirschfeld “called on his allies in the new government, the Social Democrats, to quickly repeal the sodomy law. They declined to do so.” Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science “championed the principle that science rather than religious morality ought to dictate how state and society responded to sexuality.”

Cinema, then, was widely used as a form of subversion of the German culture, traditions, and mores. Harvard scholar Maria Tatar writes in Lustmord: Sexual Murder in Weimar Germany :

George Grosz, who painted more than his share of what he called “ladykillers” (in the literal sense of the term) and of their mutilated victims, once had himself photographed in the pose of Jack the Ripper. Menacing his victim with a knife pointed at her genitals, he transforms himself from the creative artist who frames, contains, and appropriate the seductive appeal of his model into a murderer prepared to destroy the source of male heterosexual desire and of artistic inspiration.

Tatar moves on to say: “That Grosz not only drew and painted mutilated female corpses but also felt compelled to act out the role of murder seems telling, particularly when we consider that there was a real erotic tie between the Grosz in the photograph and his model.” Grosz, Tatar suggests, was waging a “violent” war against aesthetic. “Classic nude studies, street scenes showing prostitutes haggling with their clients over price, brothel settings, and domestic vignettes might seem artificially prudish without exposed bodies. But in leafing through Grosz’s oeuvre, the regularity with which the bare female body is presented in grotesque detail is astonishing.” Grosz was essentially “de-forming naked bodies,” which in the end turned out to be “repulsive.”

Grosz, according to some critics, was breaking down “the barriers between the ‘secret’ realm of pornography and the public realm of high art.” Grosz himself declared: “We worshiped Zola, Strindberg, Weininger, Wedekind—naturalistic enlighteners, anarchistic self-tormenters, devotees of death, and erotomaniacs.” Grosz’s prevailing maxim? “People are swine.” Tartar declares that Grosz began to see himself as a person who is possessed by satanic forces at the age of fourteen. Grosz detailed this account in his own autobiography, A Little Yes and a Big No.

No document sheds more light on Grosz’s obsession with the naked female body and his personal stake in its representation than a chapter of his autobiography, A Little yes and a Big No. in it Grosz describes in arresting detail a scene that he allegedly witnessed as a fourteen-year-old boy. Arriving at a friend’s house to pick up an adventure story, he ‘innocently’ took a peek into the boy’s room from outdoors, and—startled by the sight of the thirty-eight-year-old aunt living with the family—realized that he had gotten the wrong window.

The young Grosz was, however, riveted to the spot: ‘something powerful seized hold of me and made me feel weak….A mysterious craving to see had me in its devilish grip…. As if pricked by tiny burning needles and driven by a passion I had never before experienced, I stood there and watched the woman.’ Gross is not himself; he is whole disempowered by the woman and engulfed by feelings entirely alien to his being (a mysterious craving’ and a passion he has ‘never before experience’). I n this retrospective account of the childhood event, the adult Grosz portrays himself as the overwhelmed victim of a power beyond his control, a force that issues from the site of the female body and is at once sexual (‘driven by a passion’) and satanic (‘had me in its devilish grip’).

In his artistic production as in his personal life, Grosz never ceased to link sexual desire with demonic powers that transform, paralyze, or otherwise overwhelm men. His autobiography, for example, describes his disciplined efforts to resist the desires aroused by the seductively voluptuous daughters of a landlord. When he looks at their breasts, he feels possessed by a ‘sensual devil’ and bemoans the ‘devil of sensuality pursuing him.

In short, “Grosz reveals himself to be what Angela Carter has called the ‘pornographer as terrorist.’” Grosz’s work, in Tatar’s own word, was “subversive.” In a similar vein, Otto Dix, Grosz’s revolutionary partner, immediately started a sort of aesthetic war right after World War I was over. “What we find in Dix’s postwar artistic production might be called a continuation of war by other means and with a very different adversary. It is as if the war function as an event that released the creative energies of artists and legitimized the representation of brutal violence directed at the female enemy on the domestic front rather than the male adversary on the military battlefield.”

Dix’s Walpurgis Night (1914), says Tatar, is a classic representation of “erotic energy with demonic sexuality,” and “the drawing represents both female sexuality as both seductive and threatening.” It was threatening because it is full-blown pornography. Tartar agrees that Dix’s Walpurgis Night displays “a pagan fertility rite at the site of a licentious, self-indulgent orgy.” Dix himself admitted that he was essentially waging a war on the German culture and ultimately on Logos. “In the final analysis,” Dix pronounced, “all wars are waged over and because of the vulva.” Dix’s Flares (1917), Sexual Murder (1922), Portrait of the Painter Karl Schwesig with His Model (1925), Metropolis (1927-1928), The Seven Deadly Sins (1933), were all aesthetic weapons which were directly aimed at the moral fabric of Germany. And Berlin was the site “of a battlefield on which men surrender to a squalid life of mute passivity and a demeaning death. Berlin as Whore of Babylon, as the incarnation of voracious sexuality, was precisely what captured Dix’s imagination.”

But Tatar, like many cultural historians and writers of the Weimar Republic, dares not to mention that Grosz, Otto Dix, among others, were Jewish revolutionaries whose intellectual antecedents have been waging war against the West since the dawn of the Christian movement. Tatar seems to avoid this issue obviously for political reasons. Jewish scholar Josh Lambert could have easily been spoken to people like Tatar when he writes in Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture:

Cultural and legal historians and literary scholars who have studied literary obscenity in the United States and England have tended to avoid the question of the relationship of Jewishness to their subject. Not wanting to reproduce the nativist anti-Semitism of Comstock and other antivice crusaders or to provide support for the racist claims about Jewish sexuality trumpeted by avowed anti-Semites, serious scholars of American law and culture tend not to dwell on the Jewishness of so many of the figures who played key roles in the history of obscenity and pornography in the United States, even while these same scholars do attend scrupulously to the religious and ethnic affiliations of Protestants and Catholics. Jewishness is typically mentioned in the finest books on this subject only when it is raised unavoidably by the participants themselves, and scholars then typically eschew any commentary.

Lambert continues elsewhere:

Many defendants in crucial, precedent-setting Supreme Court obscenity cases were Jewish men, specially in Burstyn vs. Wilson (1952), Roth v. United States (1957), Freedman v. Maryland (1965), Mishkin v. New York (1966), Ginzburg v. United States (1966), Ginsberg v. New York (1968), Cohen v. California (1971), and Miller v. California (1973). As conventional and mail-order publishers, editors, film distributors, newsdealers, and social protester, the men named in these cases tested the limits of the American law of obscenity and of the First Amendment….

American Jews played crucial roles in obscenity controversies not just as defendants but also as lawyers, judges, and witnesses. Jewish lawyers were often willing to defend people accused of obscenity even when their liberal non-Jewish colleagues were not…In the postwar decades, many of the most influential lawyers who took on obscenity cases were also Jewish: Charles Rembar advised his cousin Norman Mailer to bowdlerize ‘fuck’ to ‘fug’ in The Naked and the Dead (1948) and served as lead counsel for Rosset’s Grove Press… Stanley Fleishman was the most prominent First Amendment lawyer in Los Angeles for several decades; and Ephraim London argued key film-censorship cases in front of the Supreme Court.

In addition to their legal work, these lawyers also wrote or edited books and essays for popular audiences in which they agitated against the suppression of literature and art, presenting relevant arguments to authors, publishers, and general audiences who were unlikely to consult articles in legal journals. Some Jewish judges also exerted substantial influence on the development of the law of obscenity.

What we are seeing here is that E. Michael Jones was right on target when he wrote more than twenty years ago:

Pornography is just one weapon in a panoply of cultural warfare which gets waged half in self-defense, half in residual animus against traditional majority Christian cultures, even when, as is the case of the United States, the original prescription no longer fits the actual situation…This is the historic modus operandi of the Jews. They are outsiders everywhere except in Israel, and when they first appear in any Gentile society and begin reaching for power they are resisted. The society treats the Jews as outsiders, as aliens, and attempts to keep them from gaining control. The Jewish method of countering this opposition is to work quietly to accumulate as much wealth as possible. At the same time they work to corrupt the society’s leaders with money and to sow dissension among the masses, to set one social class against another, to break up the society’s solidarity and its cohesiveness, so that there will be less resistance to their penetration of the society.

During the latter half of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century fomenting class warfare has been their most successful technique in Europe. Jewish involvement in pornography, in other words, goes deeper both commercially and philosophically than Abe Foxman is willing to admit. Once the majority of American Jews defined themselves as sexually deviant, pornography, along with homosexual rights, feminism, and New Age goddess worship, would become a natural expression of their worldview, and since they controlled Hollywood, they were in the position to make their worldview normative for the culture at large. The traditional animus against majority culture combined with a decline in moral scruple would naturally lead ‘the advocates of Woody Allen’ to become involved in pornography as a form of cultural warfare.

Jewish revolutionaries persist in disseminating pornography under the guise of art across a substantial portion of our culture. If you believe that they have ceased the business of sexualizing much of the Western world or perpetuating stereotypes, you might want to reconsider episodes such as “The Idol.” This series, created by Sam Levinson, Abel “The Weeknd” Tesfaye, and Reza Fahim, has been described as a “rape fantasy” and is attributed to the “sick and twisted minds” of its creators. According to one account in the Rolling Stone, the series is labeled “torture porn.” USA Today criticizes it as “sexist, gratuitous,” “exploitative,” further noting its use of nudity, profanity, drugs, semen, sadism, masochism, mental illness, and excessive cigarette smoking in an overt attempt to appear edgy and subversive.

The Weeknd is not the only TV show contributing to the moral corruption of the culture. Similar concerns about moral decay are evident in works such as Eric Kripke, Seth Rogen, and Evan Goldberg’s The Boys and Gen V. Kripke, Rogen, and Goldberg appear to have a particular focus on corrupting teenagers through Gen V . If Eli Roth is right, that his movies intend to “fuck up an entire generation,” then Gripke, Rogen, and Goldberg are doing exactly that through both The Boys and Gen V.

It has become increasingly evident that revolutionary movements have employed pornography as a deliberate instrument to undermine the moral foundations of cultures grounded in the moral law or in principles of practical reason. As we have argued, this strategy can be traced back at least to 1919, and metropolitan centers such as New York were by no means exempt from these developments. If Alexander Solzhenitsyn is correct, however, truth will ultimately prevail despite sustained opposition. His assertion that “one word of truth outweighs the whole world” underscores the idea that truth does not require institutional power or mass mobilization to endure. Even when articulated by a single individual, truth retains its capacity to challenge falsehood. It is precisely this enduring power that helps explain why voices appealing to the moral law, practical reason, and objective truth are so often marginalized or suppressed in contemporary discourse.