…by Jonas E. Alexis
In the previous article, we have argued that Nathan Abrams’ thesis—that anti-Jewish reactions have virtually nothing to do with Jewish behavior and have much to do with people just hating Jews—simply does not hold up rational scrutiny.
As we have seen in numerous articles, Jewish behavior and anti-Jewish reactions go hand and hand. Even if we use standard Jewish historiography, Jewish behavior always leaps up as the most logical explanation for anti-Jewish reactions.
For example, in 115 A.D. Jewish revolutionaries slaughtered 240,000 Greeks on the island of Cyprus; the Greeks in return slaughtered virtually every Jew on the island.
Moving on to the twentieth century, it was the Bolshevik revolution that led many serious individuals to keep an eye on Jewish radical movements both in Europe and in America.
Both Churchill and Dutch diplomat Oudendyke came to the same conclusion, that Bolshevism was “the greatest issue now before the world…” Alexander Solzhenitsyn noted that in London alone, ten thousand Jews strongly desired to return to Russia soon after the revolution began.
In a similar vein, noted Oxford Jewish historian Goldwin Smith (1823-1910) declared that Rabbinic Judaism, at its essential core promotes nihilism and is therefore dangerous. Moreover, says Smith, “Israel” is actually
“a tribe scattered but united, sojourning in all communities, blending with none, and forming a nation within a nation….
“The Jew has thus worn everywhere the unpopular aspect of an intruder, who by his financial skill was absorbing the wealth of the community without adding to it. Not to produce but to make a market of everything has been his general tendency and forte. Among other things he has made a market of war…
“He has constantly followed in the wake of armies, making his profit out of the havoc and out of the recklessness of the soldier.”
Smith wrote those words at the end of his life, and the war in war proved him right. As we have seen, the war itself is going to cost tax payers at least six-trillion dollars.
And by 2008, the economic collapse hit America hard, while Jewish companies like Goldman Sachs continued to cheat the system. Whistleblower Carmen Sagarra found that out the hard way:
“She was fired in 2013 after, she claims in a lawsuit, she tried to get Goldman to toe the line on regulations. .. On her first day on the job, Segarra was assigned to Goldman…
“At one of her first meetings, a senior compliance officer at Goldman said certain consumer laws didn’t apply to the bank’s wealthier clients.” 
Segarra was actually stunned to see how government supervisors were scared to death “to ask tough questions of the biggest banks on Wall Street.” Sagarra quickly realized that there Goldman Sachs had literally created “conflicts of interest” in America. According to her, the government “is in the bankers’ pockets.”
In short, the Dreadful Few control the banks and at the same time continue to produce perpetual wars in the Middle East. And this time they are determined to share more bloodshed in Syria. It has been reported that
“The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.”
In other words, if cities are in ruin, if houses and public buildings are reduced to ashes, if the blood of civilians starts flowing on the streets of Damascus and elsewhere in Syria, it is a small price to pay:
This brings us again to our central thesis here: whenever Talmudic ideology is consistently or subtly applied, anti-Jewish reactions are right behind it.
It was essentially Talmudic implications which led many Jewish pimps, radicals, and even degenerates to produce a flood of pornography at the dawn of the twentieth century nearly all across Europe and Asia, which eventually gave rise to Nazi Germany.
If the West is to survive, then what Israel Shamir calls the “Jewish paradigm” must always be confronted. As Shamir puts it,
“One should make a clear distinction between Jews as persons, and the Jewish paradigm as ideology. Jews are just human, and deserve to be treated and accepted as human.
“The Jewish paradigm should be confronted and counteracted. Two important issues were confused: the question of external relations, human and civil rights, human dignity on one side and ideological difference and variance, on the other. They can and should be treated separately.”
This is an important point, and if a person is to be engaged in vital issues such as this, he or she needs to recognize that there is a difference between confronting a wicked and diabolical ideology and hating a person or a group of people. People should be cherished for who they are, but ideology should be confronted and challenged.
Furthermore, if an ideology leads to a six-trillion dollar war, to multiplied millions of deaths, and to the economic and moral collapse of a nation and culture, then those who follow that ideology even in the face of incontrovertible evidence should be trialed and, if found guilty, should be punished and sent to their padded cells.
The “Jewish paradigm” was alive and well during the centuries, most particularly during the medieval period, where Jews used to refer to Christendom in some of their writings as “Esau,” or “Edom,” or even “Amalek.”
These ideas seemed to have been preserved in the works of Rashi, Don Isaac Abrabanel, and R. Abraam Ha-Yarhi. For many of those writers, “God would remain restless until Esau (which for medieval Jews meant Christendom), rather than merely Amalek, was utterly defeated and destroyed.”
Misapplying the Old Testament to Christendom or Esau, Maimonides also declared,
“We are commanded to remember what Amalek did to us in attacking us unprovoked [and to hate him always]. We are to speak of this at all times, and to arouse the people to make war upon him and bid them to hate him, and that hatred of him be not weakened or lessened with the passage of time.”
The Jews of Spain, Babylon, and Southern France during the Middle Ages viewed “Edom” as Christendom, while the Ashkenazim viewed it as Rome.
This tendency is found in a prayer (the Kaddish prayer) that was usually recited in the synagogue, which reads,
“And thus we pray yitgadal ve-yitkadash, meaning: Let it be the will of He through whose word the world was created that He redeem us from among the nations and destroy the memory of Amalek and His name will be hallowed to be complete.”
Rashi’s students picked up where he left off and announced that God “swore by His right hand and by His throne that His name would not be complete…until He avenged Himself against Amalek.”
Noted Jewish scholar Elliott Horowitz of Bar-Illan University, Israel, made the case that this teaching “made its way southwest to the Jewish communities of Provence and Christian Spain, who also saw themselves living among the descendants of Esau.”
“In the fourteenth century two influential Spanish authors, R. David Abudarham and R. Jacob b. Asher, included similar interpretations of the Kaddish in their works…
“By stressing Amalek’s ancestry, Abudarham, like R. Abraham ha-Yarhi before him, evidently sought to signal to his co-religionists that the Kaddish should be seen (and experienced) as part of the cosmic struggle between their God and the evil empire of Esau/Edom.
“After the ‘Amalek-oriented’ interpretation of the Kaddish spread from Franco-Germany to the Hispano-Provencal world, there were thousands of Jews across late medieval Europe who prayed several times daily for God to avenge Himself against the archenemy whose continued existence kept His name sundered—and thus painfully postponed their own redemption.”
After sifting through many historical and Rabbinic accounts, Jewish scholar Israel Jacob Yuval finds that
“The desire for vengeance may also be found in Eleazar Ha-Kallir’s lamentations for Tish b’Av. He asks that the evil of the Gentiles be revealed, so that God may take vengeance on Edom.
“In a recently published siluq for Tisha b’Av by Ha-Kallir, the editor noted ‘a veritable outburst of curse and hatred’ against the Christians.”
As a supplement to this vengeance, a unique ritual of cursing non-Jews was quite “widespread in Ashkenaz during the Middle Ages,” most specifically against Christians. As Yuval writes,
“Birkat ha-Minim (Malediction Against the Heretics) was well-known, and its origin may perhaps be traced back to the curses of the Judaean Sect against those who did not abide by the laws of the sect.”
The prayer says in part that “the community will gather and curse all those ‘who veer right or left from the Torah.’”
Jewish historian Ruth Langer declares the same thing in her recent work Cursing the Christians? She went so far as to say that “every single European Jewish community” in the Middle Ages “adopts the basic form” of the “birkat haminim,” which is “fully a curse of Christians.”
In many countries this was done explicitly, where in many cases it became a cultural phenomenon among the Jews. Other curses
“are attributed to Rabbi Kalonymus the Elder and include sharp condemnations of and curses against the Gentiles and a plea to God to bring destruction upon them.
“Surprisingly, historical scholarship, which openly discusses all aspects of anti-Jewish hatred, has passed over these poems [which specifically discuss the curses against Christians and Gentiles] in almost total silence.
“These are texts that demonstrate the abyss of hostility and hatred felt by medieval Jews toward Christians.
“And we have here not only hatred, but an appeal to God to kill indiscriminately and ruthlessly, alongside a vivid description of the anticipated horrors to be brought down upon the Gentiles.
“These pleas are formulated in a series of verbs—‘swallow them, shoot them, lop them off, make them bleed, crush them, strike them, curse them, and ban them…destroy them, kill them, smite them…abandon them, parch them.””
For Daniel Goldschmidt and others, all of this is a reaction to Jewish persecution! Yuval, in response, argues that these curses not only predate anti-Jewish reactions, but were widespread among rabbis, going all the way back to the tenth century.
“These and similar liturgical poems were used by those who sought vengeance as having active messianic significance and should not be seen solely as a spontaneous emotional response.
“We are dealing here with a comprehensive religious ideology that sees vengeance as a central component in its messianic doctrine.”
This hostility toward Christians and Gentiles is indeed “part of an entire messianic teaching,” spread from many rabbis in the Middle Ages.
As we have seen in the previous article, this “messianic teaching” has its theological basis in Rabbinic Judaism which is first and foremost a rejection of the moral and political order.
Moreover, for many rabbis of the same era, “killing the Gentiles is part of the uprooting of evil in messianic time” and the Gentiles who will be saved are “those who convert to Judaism.” We find this attitude in a somewhat similar fashion in 1806 France.
In short, whatever ideology that will bring the Gentile world to its knees, then the Dreadful Few will try to use it. And pornography, as we have seen, is one of the biggest ideological weapons that can literally damage an individual, a family, and even a whole culture. If you doubt this, listen to Ted Bundy:
Jewish filmmaker David Cronenberg, who has been producing pornography in virtually all his films—including his most recent films Cosmopolis (starring Robert Pattison) and Maps to the Stars (starring Robert Pattison and Julianne Moore)—made this admission way back in the early 1990s:
“I’m positing art as a means of coming to terms with death. Yes. I’m putting art in opposition to religion—or as a replacement for religion, in the sense that if religion is used to allow you to come to terms with death, and also to guide you how to live your life, then I think that art can do the same thing. But in a much less schematic way, in a much less rigid and absolute way.”
Pornography, according to this interpretation, ceases to be an abstract principle as in Freud’s psychoanalysis, but is a psychological weapon aimed at the heart of the moral order and Western civilization.
We all know this by now, and when Israeli military forces took over Palestinian TV stations in Ramallah in the West Bank in 2002, they immediately shut down all other TV stations and started broadcasting pornography.
Whether he likes it or not, Cronenberg is a revolutionary in the sense that he uses pornography to attack the moral order.
So the logic is pretty clear: by attacking the moral order Cronenberg invariably ends up attacking Western culture and the people who cherish Western culture and would fight to the death to have it preserved.
By logical deduction, Cronenberg—like Eli Roth (who declared that his work will “fu$k an entire generation”), Gordon Stewart, Darren Aronofsky, among others—is directly or indirectly responsible for anti-Jewish reactions.
Yet in order to free himself from any responsibility to his audience and to himself, Cronenberg postulated this nonsense:
“Nothing is true. It’s not an absolute. It’s only a human construct, very definitely able to change and susceptible to change and rethinking. And you can then be free. Free to be unethical, immoral, out of society and agent for some other power, never belonging.
“Ultimately, if you are an existentialist and you don’t believe in God and the judgment after death, then you can do anything you want: You can kill, you can do whatever society considers the most taboo thing.”
Poor Cronenberg. He perhaps could not recognize that his own statement is fraught with vital contradictions. He has been ideologically hoodwinked by the Talmudic shackle and therefore sound logical reasoning seems to play no role in his moral process.
Furthermore, one needn’t be an intellectual or philosopher to see that Cronenberg’s reasoning is quite dumb.
If “nothing is true,” then the statement that “nothing is true” is by definition not true! And if it isn’t, then Cronenberg’s intellectual feet are firmly planted in (Talmudic) mumbo jumbo, not in logical deduction.
But Cronenberg ended up rejecting his own premise by saying that a person can actually be “free to be unethical, immoral…” That is an interesting value judgment, which implies that some things are unethical and immoral.
And if some things are unethical and immoral, then this logically leads to the conclusion that some things are true or objective.
Cronenberg simply cannot escape that moral dilemma, but since he is morally and intellectually blind, he has no other choice but to live by his mumbo jumbo. As E. Michael Jones rightly puts it,
“The Jews, who have abandoned the light of reason, the Logos, have no control over their passions. They will leave in the darkness of unreason and, as a result, pursue their desires without restraint.”
If you think that Jones is just pulling your leg, listen to Cronenberg again as he was trying to wrestle with the question, “Does the artist have any moral or social responsibility?” He responded,
“No…Your responsibility is to be irresponsible. As soon as you talk about social or political responsibility, you’ve amputated the best limbs you’ve got as an artist. You are plugging into a very restrictive system that is going to push and pull and mold you and is going to make your art totally useless and ineffective.”
And then this:
“I think we start off with what Freud called a polymorphous perverseness.”
I thought that “nothing is true”? If “a polymorphous perverseness” is meaningful, then some things are actually true. And if it is not meaningful, why should we listen to Cronenberg?
Cronenberg again got into trouble when he was asked about why he was attracted to sexual violence. He responded: “I don’t think I am…I’m definitely not.”
In other words, there is no sexual violence in Cronenberg’s films such as Videodrome, Crash, A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, A Dangerous Method, Cosmopolis, Naked Lunch, and most recently Maps of the Stars. They are just plain art.
But no serious person with an ounce of two brain cells knocking together will buy this essentially Talmudic reasoning. As William Beard of the University of Toronto points out, sexual perversion as a means to personal growth is one of the driving ideas behind Cronenberg’s movie Spider (2002).
Beard writes, “Already in 1979 in The Brood, we can see that it is not simply destructive powerful sexuality that is invested in the female, but all sexuality.”
And even in the 1977 movie Rage (originally titled Rabid), Cronenberg carries on Freud’s sexual ideas that “incestuous desire of the father for the daughter seems to be the obvious explanation.”
Cronenberg, the quintessential figure for producing blatant pornography in Hollywood, is in denial, which is another way of being in moral and intellectual bondage.
Cronenberg, however, is far from alone. Frank Miller and Lars Von Trier are among many of the Jewish brethren who simply cannot get enough of pornography.
But before we move on to examine Miller’s and Trier’s work, always keep in mind that the moral and spiritual battle is being waged not just in the West. And people like Cronenberg have huge following in Asia.
For example, Takashi Miike, Japan’s most provocative filmmaker and a man who “has garnered international notoriety for depicting shocking scenes of extreme violence and sexual perversions” and who has been known for “for pushing the boundaries of censorship as far as they will go,” most exclusively when it comes to sexual perversions in films such as Ichi the Killer, “admires film directors” such as David Cronenberg, David Lynch (Lost Highway), and Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct).
What we are seeing here is that Hollywood sets the sexual standards, and people like Miike follow suit. It is the same thing with the sex industry. The United States sets the standards, and countries like South Korea follow suit.
What we continue to see over and over is that Yuri Slezkine is right, that the “twentieth century” is the “Jewish century.”
Jewish comic book writer and director Frank Miller proves that there are more to the culture war than meets the eye and ear. Miller talks about “a clash of civilizations” and how “superheroes should be the front and center.”
Miller even believes that Jewish comic book writers like himself should use their medium as “the biggest megaphone” and blatantly states, “I am out to provoke.” The million-dollar questions are simply these:
What kind of provocation? Is Miller upset about how the poor is being treated? Is he angry because Jewish intellectuals like Bill Kristol and others continue to perpetuate bloody wars in the Middle East and end up sending a six-trillion dollar bill to American tax payers for just the invasion in Iraq?
Before we explore some of those questions, let us hear from Peter Sanderson of Publishers Weekly. He writes that Miller
“pointed out that all of the major superheroes of the 1940s were created by Jews during a time of anti-Semitic persecution: ‘Superman was a golem.’
“And while he said that he ‘won’t tell Jeff Smith that Bone has got to [go on a political] crusade,’ Miller nonetheless issued a call to his fellow comics pros: ‘Let’s revive our tradition and get back on the job.’”
In Jewish folklore, a golem is a Frankensteinian monster brought to life to strike out at all perceived enemies of the Jewish people.
This theme of the golem wreaking havoc on all enemies has emboldened Miller and other comic book writers to provoke anything they perceive as a threat to the Jewish people. Journalist Geoff Boucher writes,
“Much has been made of Miller’s politics in the wake of [the film] ‘300.’ The deliriously violent and stylized sword film is based on a Spartan battle in 480 B.C., and although Miller wrote and drew the story for Dark Horse comics a decade ago, in film form it was received by many as a grotesque parody of the ancient Persians and a fetish piece for a war on Islam.
“Miller scoffs at these notions. ‘I think it’s ridiculous that we set aside certain groups and say that we can’t risk offending their ancestors. Please.’”
Miller’s dedication to taking down anything he sees as a threat to his brethren is revealed throughout his work, especially in his graphic novel Sin City, which he brought to the big screen in 2005 and then in 2014 in collaboration with Robert Rodriguez.
Both the book and the movie are laden with nudity, pornography, and pervasive, graphic violence. Miller is right: he is out to provoke. But this provocation is most often aimed at the moral and social order in particular.
Remember that Freud made it clear that he would conquer Rome through psychoanalysis—or, in plain language, through sexual perversion? Well, Wilhelm Reich, one of Freud’s devoted disciples, took Freud’s thesis and spread it on the culture.
Hollywood picked that theme up and then spread that pornographic thesis in the form of “art.” And Frank Miller and Liar von Trier are no exceptions.
Just to show you that, at the metaphysical level, the real issue is between those who uphold the moral and political order and those who don’t, Jewish writer Liel Leibovitz has published an article saying that von Trier’s Nymphomaniac is actually “a defense of Jewish theology.” What does Leibovitz mean?
Well, Leibovitz elaborates that underneath Trier’s pornographic imagery and sexual perversion, which is foundational throughout the two-part film, there is a theological substratum which can only be perceived or detected by those who have meticulously studied the historical conflict throughout the ages.
Leibovits tells us that the movie, whose trailer was “accidentally” shown to children “waiting to view the hit Disney animation Frozen” in Tampa, Florida,
“is also a profoundly theological work of art and one of the most passionate apologias of Judaism ever attempted.”
Leibovits put the manner into proper perspective when he unequivocally declared,
“We’ve witnessed it before: It is, with only very few stretches of the imagination, the conversation between Judaism and Christianity, and lest you think that von Trier is making some kind of essentialist argument here, he casts the quintessentially non-Semitic Skarsgård as the Jew and Serge Gainsbourg’s daughter as the Christian.
“Or, more accurately, the Christ: Audaciously, perversely, blasphemously, Joe is Christ inverted. At 12, she experiences an out-of-bodyish involuntary orgasm that mirrors the transfiguration of Jesus.
“Instead of being accompanied, as was Jesus, by Moses and Elijah, Joe sees visions of Messalina—the sexually insatiable wife of the Roman emperor Claudius—and the great whore of Babylon.
“That erogenous revelation sets the tone—Joe’s entire life becomes a quest for more perfect forms of transcendence. More than comforting Joe, then, Seligman is rebuking St. Paul. ”
As a matter of fact, the entire movie is a repudiation of what St. Paul taught. “The alternative to Christ,” Leibovitz writes, “is Seligman,” a Jew who is a “perfect embodiment of Jewish eschatology” and who believes that
“there aren’t any fundamental differences between our own time and the days of the Messiah to come and that all attempts at redemption must focus not on some desperate thrust heavenward but on a series of small and incremental earthly steps.”
In the end, Leibovitz continues, Von Trier and the characters in Nymphomaniac are product of Talmudic metaphysics, which is the embodiment of moral and esthetic and intellectual chaos.
Since the Talmud is also anti-Christ, by definition it is also anti-humanity, anti-morality and anti-order. Leibovitz again got it right: Nymphomaniac is theological in its orientation and therefore pornographically Talmudic. Almost two thousand years ago, St. Paul added this theological dimension to the debate. The “Jews,” says Paul,
“killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out. They don’t please God, and they are hostile to the entire human race” (1Thessalonians 2:15).
Continuing to discuss Nymphomaniac, Leibovitz writes,
“If you believe this—if you believe that everything you do is an important step toward salvation—interpretation becomes your steeliest sword. If you are your own savior, and if every one of your acts facilitates the saving, you are likely to read a lot into everything.
“That’s how we got the Talmud, the ultimate book of ordering the world, and that’s how we got a grinning Seligman, alone in his apartment with his books, trying to do the same.”
In short, the West, as von Trier has shown us, is largely a conflict between two poles: those who accept and respect the moral order and those who attack it viciously and pervert it through sexual manipulation and other means. Von Trier has been using sexual perversion in the culture war for years.
In 2009, Trier released the explicitly pornographic AntiChrist, which glorifies satanic sexual magic and portrays the Garden of Eden as a place where orgies are held beneath a tree of knowledge.
USA Today declares that “AntiChrist is probably the most disturbing, bleak and self-indulge film ever made…It seems intent on making the audience miserable.”
Yet, “reports of fainting and vomiting at early screenings have only increased AntiChrist’s notoriety.”
Trier’s inspiration for the movie was August Strindberg, the turn-of-the-century Swedish playwright, essayist, and painter. “I read Strindberg when I was young,” Trier tells us.
“I read with enthusiasm the things he wrote before he went to Paris to become an alchemist and during his stay there, the period later called his ‘Inferno Crisis’—was AntiChrist my Inferno Crisis?…
“I think I am very close to Strindberg…I consider him to be very serious, but very funny as well.”
He goes on to say in another publication,
“During the 1970s I read an awful lot of Strindberg, and Nietzsche, of course. During Strindberg’s crisis in Paris—which is always called the ‘inferno crisis’—he signed his letter ‘Rex,’ the royal signature. I thought that was pretty funny.
“I like that—both the craziness and the arrogance of it. So I started adding ‘von’ to my name.”
During an interview, Trier also seems to indicate that he is quite familiar with the work of Marquis de Sade:
Like Strindberg, Trier suffered depression, and “has been under therapy for several years.”
During his depression, Strindberg produced his book Inferno/from an Occult Diary; during his period of depression, Trier produced AntiChrist, a title that is appropriate for the movie. Strindberg’s works
“shifted from a political emphasis on the dynamics of social interaction to what he termed the ‘battle brains,’ an arena in which incessant psychological warfare disrupted and corrupted the relations within and between the sexes.”
Strindberg also contributed to the occult French journal L’Initiation. Scholar Harry G. Carlson writes:
“During Strindberg’s Inferno years he took at least some interest [in the occult]: alchemy, number symbolism, spiritism, the tarot, and the mystical systems of Theosophy, Gnosticism, and the Kabbalah…Strindberg’s work for L’Initiation did not mark his first acquaintance with the world of the occult.
“Records of the Royal Library in Stockholm show that he borrowed books on the subject as early as 1876, and knowledgeable references to alchemical ideas, experiments, and potions figure prominently in his 1883 novella Development.
“Hans Lindstrom has shown that Strindberg’s interest in occult subjects was continuous in the late 1880s and was renewed in Berlin in 1892, where his regular drinking companions at the Schwarzen Ferkel tavern included fellow Occultists Edvard Munch and Polish playwright Stanislaw Przybyszewski…
“Indeed, Przybyszewski was the most prominent Polish satanist of the turn of the century, practicing black magic and devil worship…Strindberg allied himself openly with the [Theosophical Society], not only writing for L’Initiation but corresponding at length with several of its leaders.”
In short, Trier’s work is a combination of what he had learned from occult writers and cabbalists. And there is no doubt that he and his crews know what they are doing. Stacy Martin, the dumb shiksa who plays Joe in Nymphomaniac (as a young girl), told a reporter,
“I’m quite nervous about my parents seeing the film. My mum is naturally feeling quite protective. It’s quite embarrassing for me to see myself have sex. I might be hiding my eyes.”
She is embarrassed to watch herself producing pornography as art, but she wants her viewers to swallow her poison. At another occasion, she even declared that she “was shocked” about the sex scene. Charlotte Gainsbourg actually said the same thing.
When she was asked, “Is it more uncomfortable for you watch yourself in graphic scenes or to actually film those scenes?,” she responded,
“No, and it’s quite weird because I am embarrassed watching myself when I see other films that I’ve done. I don’t believe in what I do. I’m embarrassed in that sense, that I see myself acting, and I don’t like that.”
Gainsbourg’s and Martin’s moral psyche is telling them that their pornographic scenes are definitely immoral, but they want an entire culture to embrace their “artwork” because that is how they can make money.
Martin (who is just 23 years old), in that sense, has sold her moral soul and being for Jewish power, money, and sex. What a sad story.
Shia Labeouf, who plays Jerome in Nymphomaniac, told us a few years ago that selling your soul for money and power has never been a good deal—at least for him. He declared,
“The good actors are all screwed up. They’re all in pain. It’s a profession of bottom-feeders and heartbroken people. Actors live dependent on being validated by other people’s opinions.
“I don’t understand what it is I do that people want. I don’t know what an actor does. I have no credentials. I don’t know what I’m doing.
“To my mind, talent doesn’t really exist. Talent is like a card player’s luck. It is motivation, ambition, and luck. It’s just a drive to be the best. I think acting is a con game.
“Most actors on most days don’t think they’re worthy. I have no idea where this insecurity comes from, but it’s a God-sized hole. If I knew, I’d fill it, and I’d be on my way.
“Sometimes I feel I’m living a meaningless life and I get frightened. I know I’m one of the luckiest dudes in America right now. I have a great house. My parents don’t have to work. I’ve got money. I’m famous. But it could all change, man. It could go away. You never know.”
Perhaps one day he will be brave enough to walk out of the pornographic industry–never to return.
 Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1893), 396, 297; Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews: From the Babylonian Exile to the Establishment of Israel (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), 180.
 David A. Nichols, Eisenhower 1956: The President’s Year of Crisis (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), 92; Paul Johnson, Churchill (New York: Viking, 2009), 63, 143.
 Winston Churchill, “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920.
 Quoted in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 744.
 Ibid., 733.
 Paul Phillips, The Controversialist: An Intellectual Life of Godwin Smith (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2002), 139-140.
 Goldwin Smith, Essays on the Questions of the Day (Bibliolife, 1923), 276.
 For a recent debacle, see for example “Tape Showing Meek Oversight of Goldman Are About to Rock Wall Street,” NY Post, September 26, 2014; see also Elizabeth Weise, “Regulators Deferred Goldman Sachs,” USA Today, September 28, 2014; C. Thompson, “Maybe This is Why Carmen Segarra Drove the Fed Nuts: Opening Line,” Bloomberg, September 30, 2014.
 See for example Edward J. Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery, 1870-1939 (New York: Schocken, 1983).
 Israel Shamir, Cabbala of Power (Charleston, SC: BookSurge, 2007), 317.
 Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 125-126.
 Ibid., 126.
 Ibid., 132.
 Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkley: University of California Press, 2006), 114
 Horowitz, Reckless Rites, 128.
 Ibid., 128-129.
 Ibid., 129.
 Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, 114.
 Ibid., 115.
 Ibid., 115-116.
 Ibid., 116.
 Ruth Langer, Cursing the Christian?: A History of the Birkat HaMinim (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 66.
 Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, 120.
 Ibid., 121.
 Ibid., 122-123.
 Ibid., 123.
 Ibid., 102, 103-109.
 Ibid., 111.
 David Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 1054-1055.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 70.
 David Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
 William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 484-485.
 Ibid., 12.
 Ibid., 54.
 Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
 Peter Sanderson, “Frank Miller Speaks,” Publishers Weekly, February 28, 2006.
 Greg Smith, Why I Left Goldman Sachs (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2012).
 A dear friend of mine, who also was trained in mathematics and philosophy, shocked me a few months ago when he told me while getting a sip of hot chocolate that his student loan is $100,000.
 Sanderson, “Frank Miller Speaks,” Publishers Weekly, February 28, 2006.
 Alon Raab, “Ben Gurion’s Golem and Jewish Lesbians,” Samantha Baskind and Ranen
Omer-Sherman, ed., The Jewish Graphic Novel, 216.
 Geoff Boucher, “Revenge of the Dark Knight,” LA Times, April 29, 2007.
 Thanks to one of my friends who passed this article to me.
 Liel Leibovitz, “Lars von Trier’s ‘Nymphomaniac’ Isn’t Porn. It’s a Defense of Jewish Theology,” Table Magazine, March 27, 2014.
 Ben Child, “Nymphomaniac trailer accidentally shown to Florida children,” Guardian, December 4, 2013.
 Leibovitz, “Lars von Trier’s ‘Nymphomaniac’ Isn’t Porn. It’s a Defense of Jewish Theology,” Table Magazine, March 27, 2014
 Leibovitz, “Lars von Trier’s ‘Nymphomaniac’ Isn’t Porn. It’s a Defense of Jewish Theology,” Table Magazine, March 27, 2014.
 Owen Gleiberman, “AntiChrist,” EW.com, October 23, 2009.
 Ann Hornaday, “‘AntiChrist’: Art-house Torture Porn,” Seattle Times, October 29, 2009.
 Claudia Puig, “‘AntiChrist should have been deep-666’d,” USAToday, Oct. 22, 2009.
 Susan Wloszczyna, “The Devil and Willem Dafoe,” USA Today, October 18, 2009
 “Lars von Trier—‘It’s good that people boo,’” Independent, May 29, 2009.
 Stig Bjorkman and Neil Smith, Trier on Von Trier (London: Faber & Faber, 1999), 2.
 Jonathan Crocker, “Lars von Trier on AntiChrist,” RottenTomatoes.com, July 22, 2009.
 Harry G. Carlson, Out of Inferno: Strindberg’s Reawakening as an Artist (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996), 117.
 Ibid., 189, 191, 192.
 Charlotte Cripps, “Nymphomaniac star Stacy Martin talks sex, nudity and porn doubles,” The Independent, February 19, 2013.
 Matthew Jacobs, “’Nymphomaniac’ Stars Charlotte Gainsbourg & Stacy Martin On The ‘Boring’ Filming Of The Movie’s Graphic Sex,” Huffington Post, March 20, 2014.