Posted by: John Phoenix
Jews used deceitful tactics to ensnare the Goyim in Poland into debt through means such as Vodka, ultimately leading to their enslavement.
We have previously noted that Christmas has long been considered an integral part of American spirit and tradition, closely associated with the celebration of Christ’s birth. Christmas trees displayed around public buildings have traditionally been seen as a reflection of that spirit.
In fact, Christmas, as scholar Karal Ann Marling puts it, is “America’s greatest holiday.” This is also true in many European countries and much of the Western world.
If Christmas has historically been associated with Christ in America, and if Jews have historically attacked Christ from the first century to our modern time, it is perhaps not surprising that there could be opposition to Christmas traditions from the Jews who dominate the media and film industry.
If you think this is mere conjecture, you may want to reconsider and pay closer attention to the following: “Jonathan Sarna, a preeminent historian of American Jewry, argued that American Jews have a ‘Christmas problem.’”
Jewish scholar and Rabbi Joshua Eli Plaut declares that American Jewry wants to “coop the Christmas season by reshaping it to reflect uniquely Jewish ideas, concerns, and practices and by developing a variety of strategies directed toward neutralizing Christmas in America.”
Plaut continues,
“Befitting their status as one of America’s most successful constituent groups, Jews have reshaped Christmas and challenged society to broaden the December season to recognize festivities sponsored by secular and minority groups. Writing in 1990, Jonathan Sarna argued that Christmas is one barrier that Jews cannot overcome in their quest to be regarded of equal status with their American neighbors who celebrate Christmas.”
Plaut has seen the Jewish subversion of Christmas in his own life:
“In 1995, during my tenure as the rabbi of the Martha’s Vineyard Hebrew Center, a local public school advisory committee, which included residents of the Jewish faith, advised the local public schools board to eliminate the public celebration of Christmas in the Vineyard Haven public school.”
This is not just the public schools that had to be subverted—the U.S. Postal Service also had to change their stamp:
“In 1993, Myrna Holzman, a retired public school teacher in New York and an avid stamp collector, started a crusade to convince the U.S. Postal Service, a quasi-federal agency, to produce a Hanukkah stamp. Initially rebuffed by the Citizen’s Stamp Committee of the Postal Service on grounds that the U.S. Postal Service does not consider religious themes, Myrna reacted with skepticism. She counted many stamps that featured Christian icons, such as the Madonna and Child. Myrna then suggested that the postal service consider selecting a secular symbol such as the dreidel to commemorate Hanukkah….Ironically, Myrna Holzman’s Hanukkah stamp campaign, not the assorted legal battles that were being waged in the court system, finally resulted in the U.S. Postal Service’s released of a Hanukkah stamp in 1996. The postal service invited Holzman to the launching ceremony for the new Hanukkah stamp, the first stamp to be a joint-issue between the United States and Israel… In 2004, the postal service released another Hanukkah stamp, this time featuring a dreidel, as Myrna had originally suggested. And in 2009, the postal service issued a stamp bearing a more traditional menorah design.”
Furthermore, the influence of Jewish traditions on Christmas extended even further. When Christmas trees were no longer permitted in public buildings, menorahs were introduced as replacements. Plaut writes:
“The purported winner in these and other court cases appeared to be the Chabad-Lubavitch group, which now possessed the legal foundation to seek enforcement of its right to place menorahs in public places of its own choosing.”
By the time Jewish attack on Christmas reached Hollywood, films quickly became powerful tools in shaping cultural narratives. Many in Hollywood recognized that movies had the ability to reshape the social fabric of America. For example, Barbra Streisand,
“when asked whether she might consider running for office so that she could bring about change, responded that she felt she could do more politically through her films than as an elected official.”
By the 1970s and 1980s, Hollywood began to portray Christmas as synonymous with pornography, prostitution and horror, as seen in movies such as Don’t Open Till Christmas, Silent Night—Bloody Night, Silent Night—Deadly Night, Black Christmas, Christmas Evil, etc.
By the 1990s and beyond, Jewish subversion of Christmas in movies such as Santa Claws, Santa’s Slay, and of course Silent Night (the remake of Silent Night—Deadly Night) was in full bloom. By the time Jerry Seinfeld gained popularity, sending Christmas cards to relatives and friends had come to be indirectly associated with revealing women’s nipples.
But how do Jewish ideologues and magazines frame the discussion around the war on Christmas? They repeatedly claim that it is not organized Jewry subverting Christmas, but rather Islam. In 2009, Joe Kaufman of FrontPage Magazine wrote an article entitled, “Radical Islam’s Defiling of Christmas.” The argument and evidence? Listen to Kaufman:
“[W]hile Christians around the world are celebrating Christmas, radical Muslims will be gathering in Atlanta, Georgia for the beginning of their annual hate fest. The irony of this cannot be overstated, as the group sponsoring the event, ICNA, and its followers openly denounce Christians and propagate material cursing and calling for violence against Christians.”
Where is the evidence that the ICNA and its followers “openly denounce Christians and propagate material cursing and calling for violence against Christians”? Kaufman provided none. His thesis indirectly proves that he believes evidence is unnecessary to support his claims. He seems to think all he needs to do is assert a radical premise—no matter how absurd—and build his argument from there.
Kaufman fails to acknowledge that the key organizations driving the war on Christmas have largely been of Jewish origin, including the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and the ACLU, as well as Jewish producers in Hollywood. Celebrities such as David Steinman, Brett Ratner, and Bill Goldberg, for example, are not Muslims.
Let us hear from Jewish scholar Benjamin Ginsberg of the Johns Hopkins University:
“Religious symbols and forms of expression that Jews find threatening have been almost completely eliminated from schools and other public institutions. Suits brought by the ACLU, an organization whose leadership and membership are predominantly Jewish, secured federal court decisions banning officially sanctioned prayers in the public schools and crèches and other religious displays in parks and public buildings.”
Jewish legal scholar Stephen M. Feldman makes similar references in his book Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas.
Jewish columnist Burt Prelutsky wrote in 2005 in his article “The Jewish Grinch who Stole Christmas” that Christmas was never celebrated in his family, but he indeed enjoyed the Christmas season and spirit. Looking back at the roots of the problem, Prelutsky saw that organized Jewry was the culprit:
“But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society – it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity… It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America.
“It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ actually exists somewhere in the Constitution…
“I am getting the idea that too many Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.”
The war on Christmas, argues Prelutsky, is spearheaded by
“my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront.”
Decent rabbi and scholar Jacob J. Petuchowski, who died in 1990, was appalled at how Jewish organizations relentlessly wanted to wage a frontal “battle against Christmas symbols in public places.”
Petuchowski lamented that the “battle waged each winter by various Jewish organizations” against Christmas symbols was unnecessary. Petuchowski queried, why does the “celebration of the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth, including the public display of replicas of the Bethlehem creche, arouse such Jewish animosity?”
According to what he found, “the sign of the Cross is still a reminder of pogroms and persecutions.” Petuchowski continued to say,
“Such Jews seek alliances with all the other secularist forces in the country that want to denude the ‘public square’ of every last trace of religious influence. They keep insisting upon a strict enforcement of the separation of church and state–enforcement to a degree certainly never anticipated by the founders of the republic.”
This leads us to the recent film Terrifier 3, written and directed by Damien Leone, starring David Howard Thornton as Art the Clown and Lauren LaVera as Sienna Shaw.
The entire film aligns with the broader theme of the Jewish war on Christmas. Damien Leone first introduced Art the Clown in the 2008 short film The 9th Circle, where the character abducts a woman named Casey and delivers her to a satanic cult to be sacrificed to Satan. This film gave Leone the momentum to produce more movies in a similar genre, eventually evolving into Terrifier, Terrifier 2, and now Terrifier 3.
Once again, the themes of these movies are quite clear: they focus on the destruction of social and family norms. Terrifier 3 is undeniably a blasphemous film that also attacks Christmas. When asked, ‘Is there ever a moment when you’re writing a kill scene where you think, “This is going too far?”, Leone responded:
“I would say there’s no subject matter that’s too taboo that I won’t tackle it, if I really feel it’s necessary to the story or something. But then if I decide to go in that direction, it’s my responsibility to execute it in a tolerable way and to see if I could still make it palatable somehow—because we could certainly make these scenes 10 times worse than they are. But then you’re really going to alienate everybody. And ultimately, I want this to be a fun experience for the audience, even though that’s—of course, taste is subjective and we’re clearly going beyond the boundaries of what some people feel is accessible, acceptable, and what their taste is.”
When people began to pass out while watching the Terrifier series, Leone said that it was “a badge of honor” for him. Why?
“Because it’s a testament to the filmmaking. The practical effects are very effective. It means they’re working. It means the way it’s edited and the sound design, it’s all creating this very visceral experience. And that’s what we’re aiming for…. I don’t want the audience to be comfortable with this character. I wanted to present him being crueler than ever, darker, creepier than ever, because he should ultimately always be unsettling, even though we have a lot of fun with him. First and foremost, he should be just cruel, sadistic, and evil. And I think the moment we lose sight of that, I don’t think anything works anymore.”
If there were a figure like Joe Breen in Hollywood today, would Damien Leone and Jewish producers be able to release films like Terrifier 3?
The answer is again no. As film scholar Jody W. Pennington puts it, “Studios feared Catholic boycotts if their films did not abide by the norms of the [Production] Code… the threat of boycotts by Catholics or other groups led to a prevalent belief that any film released without a Seal of Approval could not be profitable.” Joe Green declared in 1934: “Cockeyed philosophies of life, ugly sex situations, cheap jokes, and dirty dialogue aren’t wanted. Decent people don’t like this sort of stuff, and it is our job to see to it that they get none of it.” Breen also said: “The vulgar, the cheap, and the tawdry is out! There is no room on the screen at any time for pictures which offend against common decency—and these the industry will not allow.”
When the only force capable of countering the darkness in Hollywood collapsed, chaos ensued. The New Yorker calls Breen an Anti-Semite for saying things like, “people whose daily morals would not be tolerated in the toilet of a pest house hold the good jobs out here and wax fat on it. Ninety-five percent of these folks are Jews of an Eastern European lineage. They are, probably, the scum of the scum of the earth.”
Breen would not allow perversion being displayed as sex, and the New Yorker quoted Breen saying that Hollywood should do well if “The history, institutions, prominent people, and citizenry of all nations shall be represented fairly.” Ask yourself this question: Are Christmas and even Christ presented fairly in Terrifier 3? Breen wrote:
“Because of the large number of Jews active in the motion picture industry in this country, the charge is certain to be made that the Jews, as a class, are behind an anti-Hitler picture and using the entertainment screen for their own personal propaganda purposes.”
Once again, consider this question: Wasn’t Joe Breen right? Isn’t it true that Hollywood has repeatedly used films to emphasize the so-called Holocaust and Jewish suffering, often overshadowing other tragedies, such as the suffering of German civilians after World War II?
If the Jews in Hollywood genuinely cared about the suffering of all people, why don’t we see films about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the Communist Revolution in China, which resulted in the deaths of over 30 million people in less than six years? Why is it that every year or so, audiences are presented with another Holocaust movie focused on Nazi Germany?
Writers of various stripes have condemned Breen because they view him as an anti-Semite. Gregory D. Black, for example, said that Breen was “a rabid anti-Semite.” What Black and others are may be unwilling to acknowledge is that Breen was not condemning Jews in Hollywood for their identity, but rather for the content they were producing. Richard Barrios, another writer, characterized Breen as being extreme in his anti-Semitism, yet he did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Barrios quotes Breen saying:
“[The Jewish moguls] are simply a rotten bunch of vile people with no respect for anything but the making of money. . . . Sexual perversion is rampant [and] any number of our directors and stars are perverts. . . . These Jews seem to think of nothing but making money and sexual indulgence [and] are [also] the men and women who decide what the film fare of the nation is to be. They and they alone make the decision. Ninety-five per cent of these folks are Jews of an Eastern European lineage. They are, probably, the scum of the earth.”
Breen was correct in his time, and his stance against the Jewish elite in Hollywood remains relevant today. Will Hays and others believed that without accountability for the Jewish elite in Hollywood, young and psychologically vulnerable individuals would ultimately bear the consequences. Archbishop Cicognani, for example, believed that “a massacre of innocent youth is taking place by the hour,” and “ that have their direct source in motion pictures.”
Isn’t this an apt description of what is happening in movies like Terrifier 3? Do we not have enough evidence to clearly show that violent movies and media increase aggressive behavior in the young and defenseless? Psychologist John Murray declared in 2008:
“Despite the fact that controversy still exists about the impact of media violence, the research results reveal a dominant and consistent pattern in favor of the notion that exposure to violent media images does increase the risk of aggressive behavior.”
Scholars Glenn Sparks and Cheri Sparks wrote similar things in their work. Criminologist Jacqueline Helfgott wrote: “There have been over 1000 studies on the effects of TV and film violence over the past 40 years. Research on the influence of TV violence on aggression has consistently shown that TV violence increases aggression and social anxiety, cultivates a ‘mean view’ of the world, and negatively impacts real-world behavior.”
If sociological studies are clear on this issue, shouldn’t we all put pressure on the Satanic elite in Hollywood to stop producing filth in the name of art, which ultimately enslaves the young and defenseless? Wasn’t Joe Breen correct in calling these individuals out? Is it anti-Semitic to name those responsible and ask them to stop their harmful content?
If doing so is considered anti-Semitic, then these individuals are, in effect, legitimizing anti-Semitism, which would have very negative consequences for them.
These individuals suggest that Jews have been persecuted for centuries not for their identity but because of their engagement in immoral, and at times Satanic, activities, which they argue has incited hatred among non-Jews. This perspective was notably expressed by Bernard Lazare, the French Jewish writer, in his 1894 book Anti-Semitism: Its History and Causes.
Lazare wrote:
“If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local causes of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all the nations amidst whom it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to diverse races; as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any subject, it must needs be that the general causes of antisemitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it.”
This understanding again has been pointed out by Jewish historians such as Heinrich Graetz, particularly with respect to the relationship between Jews and the Poles in the 1600s. Graetz wrote of those Jewish merchants then:
“A love of twisting, distorting, ingenious quibbling, and a foregone antipathy to what did not lie within their field of vision, constituted the character of the Polish Jews. Pride in their knowledge of the Talmud and a spirit of dogmatism attached even to the best rabbis, and undermined their moral sense…Integrity and right-mindedness they had lost as completely as simplicity and the sense of truth.
“The vulgar acquired the quibbling method of the schools, and employed it to outwit the less cunning. They found pleasure and a sort of triumphant delight in deception and cheating against members of their own race; cunning could not well be employed, because they were sharp-witted; but the non-Jewish world with which they came into contact experienced to its disadvantage the superiority of the Talmudical spirit of the Polish Jews.”
Other scholars have noted that Jews used deceitful tactics to ensnare the Goyim in Poland into debt through means such as Vodka, ultimately leading to their enslavement. If resisting this madness is considered anti-Semitic, then the rational world may be deemed anti-Semitic for legitimate reasons.
First published on October 22, 2024.
Notes:
See for example Penne L. Restad, Christmas in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
Karal Ann Marling, Merry Christmas!: Celebrating America’s Greatest Holiday (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000).
See for example Mark Connelly, Christmas: A History (New York: I. B. Tauris, 2012).
Joshua Eli Plaut, A Kosher Christmas: ‘Tis the Season to Be Jewish (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012), 3-4.
Ibid., 4.
Ibid., 6.
Ibid., 8.
Ibid., 163-164.
Plaut, Kosher Christmas, 171.
Eric A. Goldman, The American Jewish Story Through Cinema (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013), 128.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhIMV3lu6Qg.
Joe Kaufman, “Radical Muslim’s Defiling of Christmas,” Frontpagemag.com, December 25, 2009.
Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: The Jews and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 2.
Stephen M. Feldman, Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (New York: New York University Press, 1997).
Burt Prelutsky, “The Jewish Grinch who Stole Christmas,” Worldnetdaily.com, December 7, 2005.
Ibid.
“Final Plea for Jewish, Christian Accord: Christmas: Rabbi dies after expressing his puzzlement over the fact that some Jewish groups protest public religious displays during the holiday season,” LA Times, December 21, 1990.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid
Jody W. Pennington, The History of Sex in American Film (Westport and London: Praeger, 2007), 8.
Quoted in Richard Barrios, Screened Out: Playing Gay in Hollywood from Edison to Stonewall (New York and London: Routledge, 2003), 123.
Ibid., 137.
David Denby, “Hitler in Hollywood,” New Yorker, September 9, 2013.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Gregory D. Black, Hollywood Censored: Morality Code, Catholics, and the Movies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 170.
Will H. Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays (New York: Doubleday, 1955), 450.
All the quotes can be found in Nickie D. Phillips, “Violence, Media Effects, and Criminology,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology. Retrieved 21 Oct. 2024, from https://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-189.
I have discussed Lazare’s work in Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. 1.
Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol. V (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1894), 4-6.
See for example William W. Hagen, Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1914–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).