|
Vivid Gossip Why hasn't Vivid gone public like Private and Metro? Possible reasons: One. They don't have their records and books in order. Two - Steve Hirsch does not want to give up control and privacy. I hear that everyone in Vivid's editing department is unhappy about their low pay. Vivid's website pretends that they have about 16 girls under contract, including Julia Ann, Christy Canyon, etc, who are no longer with the company. In reality, only about six girls are under contract and two of those are probably going to leave when their contracts expire this June - Sky and Raylene. Though I have not talked to either Sky or Raylene about this. I hear that Sky is in Atlanta for the Superbowl. Steve Hirsch's two biggest investments are Kobe Tai and Devon because their movies sell the best. Rough Sex Director Speaks Out The director of Anabolic's controversial series "Kahn Tusion" writes on the rec.arts.movies.erotica (RAME) newsgroup: Until Linda Thoren’s post, I had refrained from entering the debate concerning my video series, Rough Sex. However, after reading Thoren’s thinly veiled accusation of rape, I feel it is incumbent upon me to respond with the facts concerning Jewel Valmont and Rough Sex in general. Please note, that both proponents and detractors of the line have generally been wise enough to understand that all the participants are consenting and engaging in consensual behavior. However, that is half the story. The other half is this: I will not shoot anyone that is merely consenting, they must demonstrate desire. That’s right, I could shoot dozens of ladies that would do this series for the money. That’s not good enough for me. They must want to engage in rough sex and I must be convinced they will derive extreme pleasure from doing so. On a rare occasion, I am fooled by a participant’s bonafides. When that happens, I (usually not the participant) immediately halt the scene, pay the appropriate kill fees and send everyone home. Under no circumstances am I interested in engaging in any coeriscon to illicit any type of behavior or sex act. As far as the objectionable behavior in the Jewel Valmont scene (Rough Sex 1), these are the facts: Jewel did indeed request that we do not call her “s---hole”. She did agree to wear a “s---hole” collar and eat from a “s---hole” bowl, but did not want to hear those words uttered to her. Unfortunately, one of the performers felt that this was a barrier that Jewel wanted to overcome. He demanded that she refer to herself as a “s---hole” and she quickly responded. (After the scene, I profusely apologized to Jewel and I additionally rewarded her two fold; 1) for my indiscretion and 2) for an excellent scene. I continue to apologize to Jewel about this incident whenever I see her) As an interesting side note, following the “s---hole” incident, Jewel (by her own admission) then experienced between 5 and 10 orgasms. We tried to count, but it was difficult as they were coming (no pun intended) fast and furious. Let’s call it a baker’s dozen! Now, for all you RAMER’s to think that these women are choiceless and engage in Rough Sex to support a drug habit, or additional dependents, let me tell you about Jewel Valmont. She is drug and alcohol free, does not support dependents, to my knowledge, and most importantly she is one the most beautiful and desirable woman I know. She lives in a neighborhood that would be recognized the world over as one of the best neighborhoods in Southern California. She has an active social life outside of the business, and as far as I am concerned, she could choose any number of rewarding professions. She has chosen this one! She did not have to do Rough Sex, she wanted to do it. She orgasmed over it, and has discussed it with me on numerous occasions since its shooting. You need more? I am happy to say, because of the courage and vision of Anabolic’s founder and president, Chris Alexander, I am inaugurating a new line at Anabolic (release date, some time in February). Who was the first person that I wanted to shoot? Jewel Valmont. She gave me an excellent scene and, as always, was a great pleasure to work with. I look forward to Linda Thoren’s appraisal of this coming series. So my point is this, I have read with great interest all the hoopla over Rough Sex, and I can recognize that both sides make meritorious arguments. But, please try and refrain from slander. After all, even us misogynist / human pieces of vomit have feelings too. Luckily, Linda Thoren’s irresponsible charge immediately showed up on Luke F-rd, thereby completely discounting it’s validity. And lastly let me state, that unlike most people in this industry, I don’t use a variety of Internet outlets to level threats of lawsuits and demands of apologies. I just go on doing what I do. With that said, I don’t harbor any ill feelings toward Linda Thoren, as a matter of fact, I would love to shoot her in Rough Sex 3. To describe what occurred, as rape is an egregious misrepresentation of the facts. A more appropriate word that now applies might be “witch hunt.” Diablo1504: Luke how do comments like that make you feel? And how does Kahn feel about his own comments being there? Luke: Diablo, I expect hatred for my writing and sloppy site, so I take it in stride. Luke: America's largest one-stop distributor, GVA West, has refused to carry the Rough Sex series. GVA West owner David Sturman has reportedly said, "We make love, not war." This decision will put a strong damper on sales. When GVA speaks, porners usually listen. A few years ago, GVA demanded that Jon Dough redo a boxcover because he put on it an uncomplimentary reference to a Jew. Emmett writes: Jewel Vermont is a sexy and strange woman. She did not object to wearing a "s----hole" collar or eating from a "s--- bowel", but object to being a called a "s----hole"? You are what you eat right. Just joking, but seriously how could she object to being called a name? It seems to me she would hate wearing a collar and eating from a s--- bowel more then being called one. I guess someone use to call her s---ty when she was younger and she couldn't stand it. But in the film she seem to like and respond to it. Weird.... Mr. Ford you should call her up and ask her, "What's up?" I think everyone is talking about Rough Sex because... 1. They hated to see their favorite porn star being roughed up. Who wants to see hot stars such as Monique DeMoan and Mia Smiles getting treated like a Chinese Cockroach? No one. I guess when this S & M reached porn major players, everyone wants to say something. Just like everyone was talking about "Basic Instinct" and "Eyes Wide Shut". Their were worst dirty scenes in other regular movies then those two, but because it included Hollywood's best, people started raising hell. 2. It happened to white women. This stuff happened in black videos and no one said s--- about! Beside women like Mila and Aspen Brock were treated like trailer trash in the "White Trash Whore" series. And S & M videos has been out for decades, why is everyone trying to nominate Rough Sex as the worst S & M movie in America. From what I read in magazines and seen documentaries, their has been worse material then Rough Sex. 3. Their just jealous that Rough Sex received an AVN award and they didn't. End of Story! SethJ writes on RAME: How much further is this going to go, and how long before conservative forces step in? NOTHING is a given in this society. We're here living in the umpteenth year of the billions-wasting "War On Drugs" year where almost every cop, judge, and lawmaker believes they should just legalize the s---, but no one has the guts to speak out on it. Despite what we might feel, this society still has a conservative streak a mile wide. What has been said about Rudy in NY is also true in numerous smaller municipalities nationwide. Believe me, it won't take much to get a crusade going, whether it be grass roots or political. Look at Columbine; now filmakers will be checking themselves every time they film a scene that might be "disturbing." And that's not necessarily a bad thing--I told another poster that self-checking is what generally keeps the government off your back. I'm sure a lot of guys like 'Rough Sex' but it's exactly the sort of thing that can land on congressional radar. Also, what are most people saying is most important to them this election? "Values", a nebulous thing to be sure, but since it is so vague, that means you go after the most obvious things, meaning of course, porn. A common argument is that "everybody has their own thing". Fair Enough. From straight sex to "crushing", everybody's got something they love that seems out there to someone else. True. What's being forgotten though is that not everything that "floats your boat" is LEGAL. Child porn is just "something some guys like" right? And guess what; they're doing 20-30 years for it. Many feel that they would love to see the legal age lowered to say, 16. (hell, how many guys get prosecuted for getting a 13 or 14 year old pregnant?) And what does this say about a viewer? And what about where it stops? Do we start getting into wrestling-style fake blood next? Out and out violence against women without the sex even? I understand that videos like these were made in Serb rape camps during the Bosnian War. Is that what's next here? IMHO, there's a pretty fine line twixt sex and violence. If the chick is in any way portraying that it's forced sex, it's violence (IMHO. and yes I said portrayal, doesn't matter real or not to me). I think I can safely say no one here wants to be accused of being a front for the Christian Coalition, but the fact is, we have all limits on things we're allowed to do, whether self-imposed or external, and something like RS simply goes against those sensibilities. Evolution: All the fuss over Max Hardcore and his movies has been very entertaining... The thing I find most amusing is how he always describes the action in his scenes as "he rips into her ass" or "stretches her pussy/ass"... C'mon dude, your dick is small! Shameful. Emmett writes: Dear Mr. Ford, I have been watching a lot of Diabolic & other Euro videos over the past two years and I have arrived at conclusion. I think white dicks are bigger then black dicks! Ever time I see a Euro-male performer their dicks are the size of cathedrals! This myth about blacks dicks being bigger then whites is nonsense. I think someone had seen a few abnormally large black dicks between the sixteenth and the eighteenth hundreds and automatically assumed that black dicks were bigger the whites, thus spreading rumors. I thinks white people's dicks are bigger...ONLY IN EUROPE AND USSR. Luke: I heard that John Gotti from PST expected porn star Melody Love to sleep with him in exchange for getting her some music auditions. She has a boyfriend and refused. New York magazine contains a story, remarkably similar to the one on my site, on softcore pornographer Dian Hanson. Here's an excerpt: Fetishes are narrow, even brittle, phenomena. There are men who need to see women's toes but not heels, or heels but not toes; men who need to see women in leg casts; men who need to see a specific kind of woman's shoe pushing a specific kind of car's accelerator. "That's not at all an isolated fetish," says Dian Hanson, the most cerebral pornographer in America. "There's an entire club called Pedal Pumpers. The first man who called me about it could only be satisfied with a 1959 Corvette and white pumps. It had to be white pumps. He'd bring hookers home and take them to the garage." Hanson's SoHo office is scattered with pleasantly filthy memorabilia: photos of penises with her name written on them, a comic of Wonder Woman removing her panties, crutches tied together with a leather whip. Hanson has pinned up production schedules for the three soft-core magazines she edits, but these are difficult to notice. The eye more naturally falls to, say, the freeze-dried pig or the Polaroid of the three-foot man with someone's scrawled Post-it note reading "Do we need a dwarf?" Everything Hanson has seen in 23 years of writing and editing porn has led her to one ineluctable truth: that sexual aberration does not exist. Paradoxically, aberration is the norm. The illusion of a comfortable sexual order, of a mainstream of behavior that rules the secret world of lust, did not survive the century. And if porn is even a glimpse of American sexuality, Hanson is its Margaret Mead. Scottish Daily Record Exposes Darren Star Following in the footsteps of l-keford.com, the Scottish Daily Record has led the mainstream media into exposing TV producer Darren Star. Read the Daily Record report on their website here. Read a JPG of this weekend's article here. 334K Read the original reports on l-keford.com here. Read about reporter Mark Kramer here. Headline: "Celebrity Cover-up: How the American showbiz establishment closed ranks after the body of a pretty 19-year old was found in a New York hotel room." Here's an excerpt from the article: IT is a mystery that has hung over New York for five years, another unresolved tragedy in the city of a million heartbreaks. The naked body of pretty Leigh Zurmuhlen, an aspiring 19-year-old actress, was found dead of an apparent drugs overdose in room 1610 of New York's Mayflower Hotel on October 27, 1995. She had checked into the room in the early hours of the 25th with a mysterious Hollywood television producer - signed in as XXX - who slipped away from the hotel two days before her corpse was discovered by security guards arriving to tell the couple that their lease had expired. Showbusiness insiders racked their brains as to who this mystery man might be, and newspapers across the city had no luck in locating him. Despite enquiries across the California TV industry, no trace of anyone called XXX could be found. But there is new evidence the phantom producer was the hotshot Darren Star, creator of Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place and Sex In The City, which starred Sarah Jessica Parker. Star's brother Marc, a California pornography journalist, physically attacked publisher Luke F-rd when he refused to remove details of the case until the producer had proved his innocence. Rough Sex Lynne L-patin writes Luke: You made me work, you little son of a bitch! All I wanted to do was to direct e-mail you and I got to reading. An hour and a half later...and I totally forgot what I needed to tell you. Thanks for the distraction. Fred writes: Just out of curiosity, do you think that if the Republicans take the White House, they will start chasing pornographers? Or will they just go through the motions to curry favor with right wingers, but then forget about everything as soon as they take power? Exactly how vigorously did Meese pursue pornographers during the Reagan administration? Was it a sham or was it real? Luke: It was real though the biggest federal prosecutions did not hit until Bush's reign. But the Reagan era helped establish a moral tone in the country that frowned on the use and purchase of porn, and thus the amount of porn consumed in America dropped significantly. Porner profits plunged. Lynne: Not quite. The federal prosecutions were planned under Reagan and instituted under Bush, but it was seamless. Charles Keating played a major role during both administrations in evolving anti-porn strategy out of his "social crusade" against porn, which had raked in tons of money for his private organization, name escaping me. The moral tone was staged as a deliberate diversion attempt to keep the public and press away from other criminal administration acts, such as the rape of the banking system. The potential value to local law enforcement jurisdictions, with local RICO confiscation, was expected to provide a real windfall at the local level which was the motivation for the cooperation. The amount of porn consumed in America did not drop significantly during the 1980's, other than the decision by Southland to eliminate girlie mags from their stores, which seriously damaged those magazines' distribution. If anything, the advent of video began the exponential expansion of pornography into the culture which has begun only to plateau within the last few years. Luke disagrees. See my essays on US sex magazines, and Mark Carriere, Mafia. Lynne: Porn changed dramatically in format and distribution systems, from theaters and magazine stores with peep arcades in bad parts of town, to video stores and video stores with peep arcades in somewhat better parts of town. Video brought porn first to the privacy of one's own home, and then to the legitimacy of the video store. With these changes came changes to the profit structure. Some companies' profits plunged, other companies prospered. Depends on how you made your money. People who had heavily invested in large downtown slum districts full of peeps and old magazine reprints lost big. As to the social mores, the women's movement of the 1970's contributed just as much to re-examination of porn as did the deliberate political manipulations of the Justice Department. "Politically incorrect" pornography has been around long before we had a label for it. Mean-spirited pornography, portraying hostility and humiliation of its subjects, men as well as women, is very profitable. The feminists of the day didn't get Hustler's attempts at parody any more than I get the Three Stooges, and would have been happy with an outright moratorium on heterosexuality. Do I think that, should the Republicans take the White House, they would instigate renewed prosecution of pornography at the federal level? No, I don't. Federal law is quite clear: pornography is a local First Amendment issue. Guns, drugs, prisons and immigration should provide enough hot ticket issues in federal enforcement for the next decade. ( I didn't keep track, but Luke, maybe you have: did the money the feds obtained through RICO and threats of RICO pay for the prosecutions alone or did anyone actually make some money? Where did that money go?) Luke: I doubt the RICO money paid in full for the prosecutions. Brandy Alexandre writes: An interesting thing to think about would be how porn legality was won. In the Freeman decision, the victory centered around the performers being actors for whom the graphic depiction of sex was an integral part of their role. Now that the industry has turned predominantly to Gonzo--tapes that is nothing but a collection of staged sexual encounters--I wonder if the utter lack of any attempt at plot, story, and acting is going to shed a whole new light on what is and is not prostitution vs a porn performance that was produced during the Freeman era. The prosecution was based on a definition of prostitution and pandering that relied on the hiring of women for personal sexual gratification, that was defended by the fact that porn hired men and women to "work" with each other to produce a teleplay. But now toss into the mix these little producers who are, themselves, paying women to perform sex acts with them attempting to wedge themselves under the same protective umbrella (I'm just playing devil's advocate) under the guise of producing a teleplay that obviously isn't by the lack of any script, story, plot or acting. Doesn't this, then, create a gentle breeze that will tumble the house of cards the industry has built over the last couple of years? All it's going to take is one tape that someone finally says is seriously offensive obscene, that doesn't have the protective elements from Freeman, and that will be end of that. Some producers would be hard pressed to come up with stories that repeatedly required the serious abuse of women who clearly didn't know what they were getting into. Lynne: I have enough "Perils of Pearl" scenarios saved up to keep Quentin Tarantino happy for years, but pretend abuse is not the same as real abuse, which was the point of the Freeman decision. Gonzo is covered under the First Amendment as are sports, news, and documentaries, up until the point where it stops being sexually explicit speech and becomes obscene, whether the performer consented to the activity or not. A person who is a "true masochist" may not have the ability to consent, which makes capitalizing off incompetence a far greater crime than that against the First Amendment. Freeman was a landmark decision. It allows that if an employment contract is in place documenting an exchange of services for payment rendered and a release for public distribution and taxes are paid, sexual performances are governed by the same rules as any other athletic performance. If we turn it around the other way, Brandy, and you and I team up and hire guys to have sex with us for the camera, it becomes a most pleasing thought and probably a lot of fun. We may tease them a bit, but we won't abuse them too badly. Fully First Amendment protected, not obscene, and since we pay taxes on it without prosecution, not prostitution. It isn't the format, it's the intention that will ring false with a jury of twelve normal people. Brandy's house is made of cards, mine is made of brick. Porno is here to stay. Luke, your future is assured. Brandy: I did point out that I was playing Devil's advocate. These are the things that anti-porn people are likely to go after. Their success depends on a lot of factors. Nice Jewish Girl writes: Luke, since you called me tonight, I figured you probably want me to comment on some stuff I've been reading on your site. Well, first let me say that I'm glad Mila and Brad are leaving. I feel for Mila having to do all that butt sex stuff. Yuck. I hope she does well whereever she winds up. And speaking of butt sex, it seems to be the topic of conversation all over your site. I think it's dangerous and harmful for women to be doing this stuff. I also think Max Hardcore should be banned from making videos. If everything I am reading about what he does to women is true, then he shouldn't be making videos, but thrown in jail. I sincerely hope the Andrea Dworkins and Catherine MacKinnons of the world find out what is going on, because Max and his ilk will be gone. Porn has become so dangerous, with the constant gangbangs, fisting, shoving womens heads in toilets and total degradation, DAP, slapping, and general hatred of women going on in this stuff. I don't understand how any man would think that is cool or sexy. If any man finds this stuff a turn on I would think there's something seriously wrong with them. I am not opposed to porn per say. But when it comes to this stuff I do think the feds should step in. I don't think it's acceptable, and it is influential to the rest of society at large. Remember Rapestock (Woodstock)? Fisting rapes were going on. Women were told to show their "tits" when walking around. It wasn't safe for women there. Granted they were young boys doing all the terrorizing, but who do you think watches this stuff anyways? Young guys and old lonely perverted men. And Ridley99 is right. You're all in for it, and soon. There is going to be a change and everyone knows there's going to be a change coming. So, my advice is why not clean up now? Guiliani will probably become Senator, and after that...who knows, President? My advice is to stop the misogyny, stop it now. Frank writes: I rented the video 8MM this weekend. It had a few people who cared and wouldn't cross the "line". I noted a number of legal and technical innacurracies but it portrayed the players in the porn industry as the type you "love to hate". In video this film will be widely viewed by the general public and form their opinions on the porn industry. The industry can argue that this is not the norm but this invites the retort "then should this be allowed?" Rape depictions are outlawed in porn. Probably 99+% of males, including raincoaters believe that forcible rape is wrong and the percentage among women is higher. Thus, an obscenity conviction for a rape video is a slam dunk if and when the justice department is not intimidated by Predator Clinton. The same goes with "Rough Sex II". It deplicts the two most hated things "rape and "wife beating", neither of which has a lobby beyond the ACLU. Having recently dealt with them, they are a pathetic shell of their former self. Raincoaters, overall have a concience. Note the RAME objections to C-Section scars on porn actresses. Most raincoaters realize that having mommy do porn is not beneficial "for the children" so they object, abet in an indirect way. Watch for the democratic presidential poll numbers to fall and then they do a crackdown on things like "Hard Sex 2." Is there anyone out there who wants to come forward to defend the virtue of Anabolic? BTW: Pat Riley's obsessive mysogyny and pleasure at degrading women makes me wonder even more about him. Why and how so viciously continues to debase and degrage women. It seems to say a lot more about him than of the porn actresses. I still say that Pat Riley is divorced, trying to scam everyone, has an overstyled beard and hates women. He treats them totaly like a piece of meat. Even if he values his privacy how about apicture of his face below the nose. This is unidentifiable. Pat Riley seems to be the porn character they missed in 8MM. Goddess writes: Dear Luke, Please ask Pat Riley this question: if they were to remove every woman in porn that he found to be physically offensive, how many women would be left? And what would her name be? Amused In Modesto writes to Scotty Schwartz: Relax Scotty. I was not threatening you. I don't even own a lighted speculum. You see the humor was in that Max always uses one in his .... oh f--- it! It's not funny if I have to explain it to you. My letter was merely meant to point out how foolish it is of you to assume the moral high ground in an industry that is essentially a cesspool. You try to convince Luke's readers that you have some lofty goal in saving these "actresses" from evil Max and presumably pushing them toward porn projects that you deem worthwhile? Give it up! The sad reality is that you can't save anyone who doesn't want to be saved and that includes yourself. Now go to temple with Luke. Amused (but in a non-threatening way) in Modesto PS: Is it really true that you could not get an erection with Juli Ashton? Homo. Emmett writes: Every time I turn around I always read and hear about a porn star retiring, but a few years later (sometimes a few months) that person returns. Mila is one hot porn actress! The true anal queen of the nineties! She already had a Ph.d in psychology before she entered porn. She did not come into porn for the money but for the hot, raw, filthy, nasty, ass, SEX. She even was a fluff girl for FREE during Jasmine St. Claire's Gangbang (or was it Houston?). I think she is just sexed out right now and needs a break. I don't know if it's next year or ten years from now, as long as the sexy blonde Mila is alive she will return to porn! And I eagerly will wait for it as well as others. Greg writes: thanks for turning me on to Lori Michaels web site [www.lorilive.com]. I can't believe that vivid doesn't advertise this girl more. She is by far the prettiest vivid girl. i met her at ces and dressed like a lady and acted like one too unlike like some of the other adult actresses. if there is anyone vivid has to keep and pay well its lori. i read your column every morning at work (hope the boss doesnt see this) and it always makes laugh at the stupidity of some of those in the adult entertainment industry. Price Hanson's Hancoent.com is off to a slow start. Their sites (full of Extreme Associates content) were supposed to be up December 16 but still aren't. They've subcontracted out to Dreamtank who's moving much more slowly than expected. Jewish Assimilaton Luken writes yesterday: > All elements of traditional Jewish religion and Jewish common culture > gravitate toward setting the Jews apart as both culturally reactionary, and > racially distinct. The price for being stubbornly "superior and apart" is > forever living on the brink of nuclear holocaust...and Jewish children living > in fear. The solution would be for Jews to give up their own hardheaded and > hardhearted traditional military and racial identity, and find new identities > in the modern world as HUMAN, NOT JEWISH. > Johnathan replies: Luken needs a history lesson. The Reform (not Reformed) movement began about 300 years ago in part as a way to focus on the substance rather than the forms of Judaism, but also as a way to bring Judaism into the mainstream of what was becoming modern Europe. This led to many changes that outwardly "Christianized" Judaism: establishment of a choir (a mixed male and female one at that), moving Friday services to Sunday, elimination of the tallis and skull cap, relaxation or even elimination of dietary laws, replacement of traditional prayer melodies and chanting by Christian-sounding organ-based music, elimination of the cantor (de-canting?), replacement of Bar Mitzvah at age 13 with a "confirmation" service at 16 derived from Protestant ana-baptist ritual, and so on. The most assimilated or "christianized" Jews in Europe were German Jews. The rate of intermarriage with Christians was fairly high, as was the conversion rate to Christianity. It is a common mistake, especially within Judaism, to blame the early Reform Jews for these changes. You have to understand the context. That was the era of tremendous social change, from the industrial revolution to the rapid development of Christian sects which de-emphasized the traditional Catholic and even Lutheran teachings. Swedenborg, for example, denied original sin. Other Christian sects looked to "universalism" and other forms of deist belief which de-emphasized the fixed and exclusive method of salvation through Christ. In this context, the Reform Jews were participating in a great wave of religious renewal aimed at a broader, more accepting and universal belief. This period of religious change was experienced deeply in Europe and America. Luken argues that Jews are at risk because they maintain their separateness, something he labels as "superior and apart". That label of "superior" is, of course, something he believes about Judaism, and is not a statement of actual Jewish belief. It's his problem showing itself in how he labels the world. But directly to his point, the most assimilated, most Christian Jews in the world were German. We know what happened to them, and to almost all the other Jews of Europe, whether separate or assimilated. Any reader of Hitler and his followers, particularly Streicher (who specialized in "racial analysis") and Goebbels, knows that it was the German Jews' assimilation which was used against them. They weren't apart, living in ghettoes, wearing yellow stars and funny hats. In the Nazi mythology, the Jews were secretly infiltrating Christian society, like rats or other vermin which literally move in among you. The failure of assimilation in the Holocaust is one of the biggest barriers to bridging the gap between the various Jewish movements. The Orthodox rather naturally blame assimilation for bringing the terrible hand of death to our people. They can point back to Richard Wagner's writings from the 19th century to show how assimilation was being twisted by these sick minds. Wagner, whose writings are similar to those of Goebbels, argued that Jews were counterfeiting and aping the creations of Christian culture. He argued racially: Jews are incapable of producing true "German" and "Christian" art and are only capable of producing imitations which may rise to a certain level but cannot achieve greatness. Wagner's views, in my belief, come from a particular German concern with their place. That is, Germans were undeniably pagan. They weren't "chosen" as the people to receive Christ's message first and they rejected Christianity for many centuries after other peoples embraced it. Wagner and many other German "racial" apologists got around these facts by inventing a mythology in which Germans were naturally pure and naturally "Christlike". Wagner's operas, notably the Ring Cycle, obsessively deal with the corruption of this pure German world. Even Der Meistersinger sets up a pure hero whose progress is thwarted by impure forces. In this racial view, Germans were naturally great but held down by others who cheated, who hid their lies, who pretended to be Germans but weren't. Thus Wagner dismissed a composer like Mendelssohn because, even though he converted to Christianity, he was born a Jew. This pathetic "racial" thinking fed directly into Hitler's view that Germany lost WWI because it had been "stabbed in the back". The backstabbers had to be the impure, because no true German would fail. That pointed the finger at the Jews. As an aside, I have long believed that Hitler's tremendous hold on his people flowed from a deep identification with this vision of a pure Germany. His "will" became the "will of the Volk", which means not only the people but the common, pure German people. By will alone, by harnessing the power of their pure force - like Wagner's Siegfried - they could dominate. Thomas Mann understood this. When asked after the war by the German intellectual community to return to Germany - he had moved to the US when the Nazis took over - he replied that he could not because the Germans had sold their collective soul to the devil. The thread that Jews are capable imitators dominated the Christian outlook toward Jews in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was particularly pronounced in Vienna and Berlin. The irony, of course, is that this belief peaked just as Freud and other Jewish born thinkers were developing concepts of the unconscious and psychoanalysis, creative concepts that hadn't occurred to Christians. At least those ideas were arguable. But 1905 saw the publication of three papers by Albert Einstein that could not be denied and that completely outstripped everyone. The argument about assimilation within Judaism is difficult. While it is partly about survival of traditions, it is also about survival in literal terms. With the Holocaust as evidence, many Jews argue that assimilation equals death, carrying with it not only the assimilated but the traditional. Many Orthodox Jews equate Reform with assimilation, which makes conversation difficult. Of course the great pity is that Christians are the ones with the problem, if you view things in the eternal sense. Those who would persecute Jews - or any one - because they follow their own traditions are most definitely going to pay in the hereafter. Luken: NBC News Nightline reported in a segment this past year on Russian prostitutes imported into Israel as sex slaves. Elder Orthodox Jews are the prime clientele. So much for taking the high road... What totally amoral hypocrites! Luke: I love hypocrisy, if that is taken to mean that one believes in standards which one does not perfectly live up to. Only the religious and the traditional and the conservative can be hypocrites, because they're the only groups who believe in objective standards of right and wrong. Secular liberals can never be hypocrisy because they have no transcendent moral code. Emmett writes: I hate to sound rude when it comes to religion, Luken and Jonathan, but you guys are talking about the wrong subject on this site. How can you guys talk about religion when Luke F-rd's website promotes pornography and many other sexual themes? If you guys want to talk about the Germans and Judaism then save it for the Sabbath at your Synagogue or go to a local university and discuss your issues there, but please, many non-Jewish people do not want to hear about this and I believe that their are some Jewish people who do not want to hear it as well. I'm not Jewish but I do respect the religion. Maybe you guys should do the same. Lynne L-patin writes: I disagree with your statement completely, and try hard not to be a hypocrite. Haven't I been good to you? If so, to what do you attribute it? I am not religious, conservative or traditional, but you know I have a belief system. I don't mean to ever hurt you, but if I said I would never do it, I would be lying, because accidents happen. But if I professed to love you and hurt you all the time, that would be hypocritical. It would be wrong. I can profess anarchism and act contrary to my avowed belief system. That is hypocritical. Hypocrisy can be religious or secular but sin is only religious. If I were to sin against you, does that mean someone is shaking their fist at me, saying, "You've hurt Lukey, you bitch, and now you'll have to answer to me!" Neither the federal government nor the Lone Ranger may discipline Max Hardcore or Anabolic or me unless I commit a crime under their jurisdiction in the making of a sex video. The jurisdiction in which I make the video gets to prosecute me if I make a mistake, such as forcible rape or sodomy or failure to get a permit. (Use of a minor, kidnapping girls or transporting them over state lines would be examples of federal crimes one could commit whilst making a sex video.) The federal government may make no law governing the content of speech. Local jurisdictions may decide what they will tolerate. If I make a video which is so awful, so degrading that you think it is obscene, you can instigate charges only in your own community. The store which sold it, the distributor which provided it, the company which released it -- are all layers of protection between me as the producer, and you and your prosecutor in Podunk, Iowa. Even if you can convince the prosecutor that the tape is obscene, chances are he probably won't have the half million bucks it takes to prosecute a few dirty tapes. He'll probably just jack the local bookstores around a bit, confiscate inventory and eventually pull the tapes off the shelves. If enough communities initiated enough prosecutions, someone with seriously misogynistic product might eventually be put out of business, but NJG, please don't invoke the feds or feminists who equate heterosexuality with pornography with obscenity. Most porno isn't Max Hardcore. Better to fantasize about doing a Clockwork Orange number on Little Max yourself. Blast Courtney Love at him until he turns into jelly. If you want to condemn a man and his product, ostracize him. Don't buy his videos. Refuse to review them. Ban him from your award ceremonies. Refuse to carry his advertising. Don't promote his work or activities. My understanding is that no one gives Luke F-rd any credence, and
that if something is to be taken seriously it has to appear on Gene
Ross. I'm sure Luke would be delighted never to mention the name "Max
Hardcore" again. But if Gene were to decide that Max Hardcore was
an embarrassment to the adult industry and likely to get us all sent
to Siberia, might not his condemnation remove pesky little Max from
the playing field? | |
|
|