EVERY JEWISH CHILD IS A POTENTIAL VICTIM OF PEDOPHILIA
THE RELIGION OF PEDOPHILIA
“THE JEWISH TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD”!
The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was “Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices” by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.’, Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the “Foreword” for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.
The world’s leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic “The History of the Talmud,” Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:
“THE JEWISH TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence…IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time.
IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH…”
The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions.
— Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson (1)
Or consider this from The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, in the entry
“PHARISEES”:
The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.
Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.
— R. Travers Herford for the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. (2)
Rabbi Dr. Louis Finkelstein, Instructor of Talmud, and later president of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, writes:
Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew reads his prayers, he is reciting formulae prepared by pre-Maccabean scholars; when he dons the cloak prescribed for the Day of Atonement and Passover Eve, he is wearing the festival garment of ancient Jerusalem; when he studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies.
— Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein (3)
SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: “What is meant by this? – Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? – Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”
This “divine truth” which “a whole people venerate” of which “not a single letter of it is missing” and today “is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history” is illustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:
SANHEDRIN, 69b “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’ “.
(footnotes) “(5). Lit., `says’. (6) Lit., `here’, that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.
KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood(a dildo).”
(footnotes) “(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”
ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. “R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it…From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.
SOTAH, 26b. “R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) – the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)…As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?
SANHEDRIN, 55b: “A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea).”
(footnotes) “(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving. (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew. (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction `to his wife but not to his neighbor’s wife’ is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse.”
Of the “sacred” Talmudic teachings of the “Sages,” preserved since 500 A.D. and taught more widely today than ever before in Talmud-Torah schools in the U.S.A., perhaps nothing better illustrates “fools” with “reprobate minds” than the teaching in the Talmud book of Yebamoth that spittle on the top of the bed curtain proves that a wife has been guilty of adultery, as only lying down face upwards could she have spit up on it. Spitting several feet straight up!
The Talmud states:
“When a peddler leaves a house and the woman within is fastening her sinnar [breech-cloth] … . If spittle is found on the upper part of the curtained bed she must, said Rabbi, go.”
Footnote: “Even if there were no witnesses that misconduct took place.”
Further footnote: “Only the woman lying face upwards could have spat on the spot. Intercourse may, therefore, be suspected.”
THREE YEAR OLD BRIDES
Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia — permitting molestation [raping] of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.”
(1) Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah”, or binding Jewish law.
(2) Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamo
THE PHARISEES ENDORSED CHILD SEX
The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hair-splitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.
Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” (3)
In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia: “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” (4)
Endnotes:
1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
3 Sanhedrin 76a.
4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
OUT OF BABYLON
It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it. [Ashkenazik Shinar (‘sin’) was a stone throw away from Sodom and Gomorrah – Any questions?]
As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married [raped] a three year old girl.
But with expulsion of the Jews [‘Edomites, Pharisees, Ashkenazim, Khazars, Sephardim’] in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.
Still, a shocking contradiction lingers:
If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.
SEX WITH A “MINOR” PERMITTED
What exactly did these sages say?
The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,
“All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” (5)
Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature,he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. (6)
A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” (7) The Talmud also says, “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” (8) Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
Endnotes:
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
SEX AT THREE YEARS & ONE DAY
In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape. [these were the ‘precursors’ of Hillary, Pelosi, Kagan, Napolitano, Ginsburg, Boxer, Albright, Abzug, Goldman, Livni, ad nauseam]
R. Joseph said: “Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.” (Sanh. 55b)
“A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation …” (Yeb. 57b)
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated:
“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them.” (Yeb. 60b)
[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] “… fit for cohabitation … But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.” (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)
The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”
The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” (9) But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.
The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage.
“At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”
NO RIGHTS FOR CHILD VICTIMS
The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age.
“As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” (10)
The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,
“When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.”
The footnote says that as:
“tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” (11)
In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.
Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.
PEDOPHILIA WIDESPREAD
Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism .
This is illustrated from Yeb. 60b:
“There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.”
The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” (12)
These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yeb. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” (13) This passage says:
“… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”
The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.
Endnotes:
9 Sanhedrin 55a.
10 Kethuboth 11a.
11 Kethuboth 11b.
12 Yebamoth 60b.
13 Sanhedrin 76b.
A FASCINATION WITH SEX
Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.
The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known [!!!]. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.
THE CHILD-RAPE ASSEMBLY LINE
In Ritual Bathhouses of the Jewish Orthodoxy, Children Are Systematically Abused
By Christopher Ketcham Nov 12 2013
Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg, the lone whistleblower among the Satmar, a powerful Hasidic sect, who recently was the victim of a bleach attack in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg—who is 63 with a long, graying beard—recently sat down with me to explain what he described as a “child-rape assembly line” among sects of fundamentalist Jews. He cleared his throat. “I’m going to be graphic,” he said.
A member of Brooklyn’s Satmar Hasidim fundamentalist branch of Orthodox Judaism, Nuchem designs and repairs mikvahs in compliance with Torah Law. The mikvah is a ritual Jewish bathhouse used for purification. Devout Jews are required to cleanse themselves in the mikvah on a variety of occasions: Women must visit following menstruation, and men have to make an appearance before the High Holidays, such as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Many of the devout also purify themselves before and after the act of sex and before the Sabbath.
On a visit to Jerusalem in 2005, Rabbi Rosenberg entered into a mikvah in one of the holiest neighborhoods in the city, Mea She’arim.
“I opened a door that entered into a schvitz,” he told me.
“Vapors everywhere, I can barely see. My eyes adjust, and I see an old man, my age, long white beard, a holy-looking man, sitting in the vapors. On his lap, facing away from him, is a boy, maybe seven years old. And the old man is having anal sex with this boy.”
Rabbi Rosenberg paused, gathered himself, and went on:
“This boy was speared on the man like an animal, like a pig, and the boy was saying nothing. But on his face—fear. The old man [looked at me] without any fear, as if this was common practice. He didn’t stop. I was so angry, I confronted him”.
He removed the boy from his penis, and I took the boy aside. I told this man,
‘It’s a sin before God, a mishkovzucher. What are you doing to this boy’s soul? You’re destroying this boy!’
He had a sponge on a stick to clean his back, and he hit me across the face with it.
‘How dare you interrupt me!’ he said.
I had heard of these things for a long time, but now I had seen.”
The child sex abuse crisis in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, like that in the Catholic Church, has produced its share of shocking headlines in recent years. In New York, and in the prominent Orthodox communities of Israel and London, allegations of child molestation and rape have been rampant. The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, uncles—figures of male authority. The victims, like those of Catholic priests, are mostly boys. Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn’s Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders. Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage.”
Ultra-Orthodox Jews who speak out about these abuses are ruined and condemned to exile by their own community. Dr. Amy Neustein, a non-fundamentalist Orthodox Jewish sociologist and editor of Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communities and Child Sex Scandals, told me the story of a series of Hasidic mothers in Brooklyn she got to know who complained that their children were being preyed on by their husbands.
In these cases, the accused men “very quickly and effectively engage the rabbis, the Orthodox politicians, and powerful Orthodox rabbis who donate handsomely to political clubs.” The goal, she told me, is “to excise the mother from the child’s life.” Rabbinical courts cast the mothers aside, and the effects are permanent. The mother is “amputated.” One woman befriended by Dr. Neustein, a music student at a college outside New York, lost contact with all six of her children, including an infant she was breastfeeding at the time of their separation.
SEX ABUSE, SHONDA AND CONCEALMENT
IN ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITIES
Michael Lesher, McFarland & Company, 287 pps. $45.
By Steve Lipman March 3, 2015, 12:00 am 0
The disgrace of sexual abusers (nearly entirely men) who identify themselves as Orthodox Jews is a well-known subject, covered extensively in recent decades in the Jewish and general media.
Lesher, an attorney whose specializes in this part of family law, is a longtime community activist on behalf of the victims of sexual abuse. He is an outspoken critic of what he sees as a failing of the Orthodox community he came to as an adult. His book concentrates on one disturbing aspect of the phenomenon – the propensity of Orthodox Judaism’s leaders and rank-and-file members, in the United States and Israel, to defend and support the abusers, at the expense of the victims and the victims’ families.
He writes, as he summarizes in the book’s introduction, about:
“how influential rabbis and community leaders have sided with the alleged abusers against their victims; how victims and witnesses of sexual abuse have been pressured, even threatened, not to turn to secular law enforcement for help; how autonomous Jewish ‘patrols,’ displacing the role of official police in some large and heavily religious Jewish neighborhoods, have played an inglorious part in the history of cover-ups; … how some Jewish communities have even succeeded in manipulating law enforcement officials to protect suspected abusers.”
This makes for a hard read, a searing indictment of putative religious Jews – from Modern Orthodox Jews to chasidic and the black hat, yeshivish community – who have in effect reintroduced a system of child sacrifice, sacrificing the interests of children (young boys and girls are overwhelmingly the victims of Orthodox Judaism’s sexual abusers) to those of the accused abusers and to the Orthodox community’s perceived image in wider society.
According to Lesher, the children and their family members who take steps against abusers are usually regarded as traitors who unfairly harm the lives of the abusers and the abusers’ families; it’s “blame the victim” to an unconscionable degree.
Lesher painstakingly documents case after case of a communal mentality of Shah! What will the goyim think? It’s a mentality that bullies and ostracizes and often silences the victims who dare bring the crimes of Orthodox Jews to the secular criminal justice system and to any type of media. He writes of the indifference and hostility that the victims encounter. He covers the familiar territory of a corrupt beit din (rabbinic court) system and cites the self-serving misuse of Jewish law and of Jewish history to justify Orthodox Jews turning their backs on the victims. He describes, in the words of one chapter’s title, a “culture of denial,” an Orthodox community in which accusations against victims have become orthodox behavior.
Lesher names names – among them, the revered leaders of the Orthodox community – who, he claims, almost without exception help foster a cover-up of sexual abuse committed by ostensibly Orthodox Jews.
“’Cover-up’ is the only appropriate name for the deliberate evasion of a highly topical reality,” he writes. “I must add, sadly, that few in Orthodoxy have broken this code of silence.”
The Jewish media are culpable, Lesher writes. He is critical of Jewish newspapers that steer clear of these stories or publish them sparingly. The book has mostly praise for this newspaper, which broke the story of the Orthodox Union’s Rabbi Baruch Lanner 15 years ago, but Lesher also takes issue with what he sees as undue caution in some instances. (Full disclosure: I, an Orthodox Jew, formerly lived in Passaic, N.J., Lesher’s home community. I have known him for several years and have written about sexual abuse many times in these pages.)
Lesher writes about a few maverick Orthodox Jewish leaders who have challenged “the toleration of abusive sexuality,” but he finds far more villains than heroes.
Not surprisingly, Lesher has come under frequent criticism in parts of the Orthodox community for bringing the subject of sexual abuse, and its cover-up, to light. “Writing this book is, among other things, an act of faith on my part,” he writes.
“Call it the concrete expression of a belief – that I will yet have some sort of answer from those who, like me, see religion as a way to strengthen the innocent, and perhaps also as an aid to giving some of the world’s ugliest crimes against the most defenseless victims their true names.”
HOW PEDOPHILIA CAME TO HOLLYWOOD
BY BILLY WILDER
Screenwriter and director, Billy Wilder, has had an enormous impact on the public, as substantiated by his numerous Oscars and other film awards. Responsible for famous films like Hold Back the Dawn, Five Graves to Cairo, Double Indemnity, The Lost Weekend, Sunset Boulevard, Stalag 17, Sabrina and The Apartment, Wilder’s cinema successes were granted him as he was just another pawn who was utilized with satanic acumen to help abolish society’s established code of ethics. His own authorized biographer who worked closely with him, Maurice Zolotow, wrote:
“Of course, I did not know what I was getting into when I had started this. It became, as all such journeys have become, a journey to find out the secret springs of this most devious and perverse of Hollywood’s personalities.”
Wilder loved to transport the viewer into the depravity of his own heart and did this by tricking the censors who sought to enforce the old Hollywood Production Code of Hollywood’s “Golden Age.” Wilder recalls, “We had to operate cunningly to outwit the censors and this made us write more subtly.” What subtleties did he scatter throughout his films? Perversion. In his movie, The Major and the Minor, Wilder admits that the motif was child sexuality, stating:
“Ray Milland falls in love with Ginger as a twelve year old child. We had here the first American movie about pedophilia. The Major is sexually aroused by her. He can’t help himself. I was worried that audiences would be shocked by this story, but it seems that they were not.”
This goes to show that if a story is entertaining and “cute,” it can bypass the normal reaction to such filth and translate into apathetic disregard on the slippery slope of corruption. Where did this movie minister of perversion receive his material? Wilder was given his creative material by another supernatural force. In addition to stating that he is “demonically possessed and slightly crazed,” Zolotow reports of Wilder:
“He could not stop his creative machinery from functioning. He was enslaved by his art…One sometimes felt as if one were moved by powerful invisible forces. I forgot to tell you that Wilder never starts a new screenplay without typing two words on the first page: Cum Deo (‘With God’). He has a pantheistic feeling about the universe.”
Demon possession leads many from the truths of God to the pantheistic lies of the New Age movement because Satan uses those who will serve him most faithfully in preparing humanity to embrace him as the god of this world. Wilder’s responses upon completion of his show make it readily apparent which god he aligned himself with. Scientologist screenwriter of the Sound of Music, Ernest Lehman, recalls:
“He looked at the heavens and screeched F— you!”
It was…a victory cry, as if he were calling out to God and saying,
‘I completed this picture despite everything you did to make me surrender.'”
Dr. Lycurgus Starkey rightly announced on the NBC network:
“His movies have overturned all the sexual mores, glorified promiscuity, glamorized prostitution and elevated adultery to a virtue.”
Dr. Starkey was prophetically right in predicting the social effect and outcome of Wilder’s films that we currently face in our day. The atheist author of communism, Karl Marx, explains the reasons why this is so:
“The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the dominant material force in society is at the same time its dominant intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production.”
The gross immorality in Hollywood that makes its way on the screen and thus influences the masses reflects the lives of those who operate within it. An intimate friend of the late Steve McQueen related:
“He’d kill for a part in a movie…he’d suck anyone’s [expletive]…he’d get f—– or f— anyone who’d get him a part in a show…then he’d wish-he’d pray- that person would have a heart attack or a stroke and die, and then there would be no way for anyone to know how McQueen had got the part.”
This disgusting ambition is what keeps the infamous casting couch warm and desirous hopeful actors willing. Hollywood insider, Phyllis Diller, clarifies this fact:
“The casting couch is the name of the game in Hollywood. I know there are stars, especially women, who have made a career from sexual favors.”
Would you invite a person whom you knew to be ethically bankrupt and an absolute moral degenerate into your home to influentially instruct your wife, your husband, and your children or loved ones? These are the very ones that America invites into their home every night via the television to submissively share their lives with.
Condemned spiritual conundrums regularly occur in Hollywood. Faye Dunaway said that the ghost of Joan Crawford is haunting her. Actress Jean Seberg believed that her “devils” kept her from ever being free. She stated:
“The devils will stop that sort of stuff in a second. They ride right here. (Touching her collar bone with her fingers) Sitting here and here. There’s one on each side…these are both unfriendly influences. They tell me to run my car into other cars, or drive off a cliff.”
A friend later reflected on her life and pin pointed the cause as the:
“acting classes at Columbia Studios…[which] had the power to influence Jean’s devils.”
Like countless others in the Hollywood movie star system, this lead to psychiatric hospitals and suicide. Actor Sal Mineo was in regular contact with psychics and spoke of the “vibrations” of James Dean’s spirit that haunted him, stating,
“I’ve got to get him off my back because I don’t want to join him down there.
Mineo was murdered under mysterious circumstances. Is fame worth the extorted fees that Satan demands of his servants of the silver screen?
As Alan Alda declared:
“There’s plenty of money to be had…But you also lose your soul.”
WHO RUNS HOLLYWOOD? C’MON
December 19, 2008|JOEL STEIN
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant; I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.
So I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including:
“Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”
I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition; saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs “do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,” and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to “weaken the influence of religious values in this country.”
That’s a sinister canard, Foxman said. “It means they think Jews meet at Canter’s Deli on Friday mornings to decide what’s best for the Jews.”
Foxman’s argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter’s more often.
“That’s a very dangerous phrase, ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” he said. Instead of “control,” Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry “happen to be Jewish,” as in “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”
But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. “I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They’re disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well,” he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I’ve noticed, aren’t so big on circumcision
I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.
STATEMENT ON SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN
By Rabbi Zev. M. Shandalov
May 22, 2006
Over the past few days, there have been a number of items that have been printed in the mainstream press and in the “Jewish” press regarding stories of sexual abuse of children and alleged cover-up of said abuse and the perpetrators. The purpose of this email is to address this situation.
Abuse: I am not going to discuss any of the allegations in the articles or those that are floating around on the Internet. I do wish though to comment in general terms.
ANY abuse perpetrated against a child no matter how “minor” or seemingly “insignificant” can be damaging for life for the child; is illegal; is assur (prohibited by Torah law) and can potentially be actionable in a court of law. In addition, anyone seeking to protect the abuser, including but not limited to rabbis, professionals, community leaders, institutions, etc. are themselves culpable in the crimes that the alleged perpetrator commits after discovering the crimes and seeking to cover them up. The covering up of such offenses not only is in itself a Chillul Hashem (a profanation of the name of Hashem) but also adds to the abuse of the victims after the fact. Delivering information to the police in order to remove the offender from the streets and to protect further abuse is a Mitzva incumbent upon all who have knowledge of abuse. Additionally, the Mitzvah of “Al ta’amod al dam re’acha” (One may not stand idly by while another is being injured) is found in the Torah to make it everyone’s responsibility to help another in jeopardy.
I hope that this has helped to clarify a very disturbing issue.
WE MAY NOT REMAIN SILENT WHEN ANYONE IS BEING ABUSED AND CERTAINLY NOT WHEN THE PERSON BEING ABUSED IS A CHILD!
Rabbi Zev M. Shandalov
Congregation Kehilath Jacob Beth Samuel (KJBS)
Chicago, IL