When Victims Rule (pdf)

JEWISH INFLUENCE IN THE MASS MEDIA (PT. 2)
are as a group, gender or ideology, the more you should defend your
freedom of speech.” [GERRARD, N., 1-28-96, p. 15]
Indeed, the very paradigm of the marginalized and popularly despised pornographer
rests comfortably upon the Jewish “outsider/victim” model. Both
Jew and pornographer commonly ascribe to themselves attributes of moral nobility
against a perceived repressive society: in both cases the enemy is Christian
culture/values where sexual expression has been traditionally devalued. In the
porno context the enemy is configured as prudishness. The struggle of the Jew
and pornographer is, in this world view, a struggle against oppression; both Jew
and pornographer are declared to be innocent of moral wrongdoing. Their
common goal is conceived merely as the struggle for freedom. This, and recent
efforts in the (traditionally despised) pornographic world to reinvent itself as
heroic is noted by Carina Chocano:
“If sex in our culture were not so ‘steeped in shame and guilt’ they argue,
and if the sex and pornography industry were not marginalized,
then pornography would cease to reflect harmful attitudes, rear its had
out of the gutter, and provide, as one of the panelists [at the First Annual
World Pornography Conference] put it, ‘masturbatory catharsis for the
masses.’ ‘That stuff is bullshit,’ retorted Glasgow Phillips, an author and
critic [of pornography], ‘To make money in this business you have to
exploit,’ he says, ‘and it’s so easy to do. I mean, you are aware of how
many dumb sluts there are in this town [Los Angeles]? You just cast
them.” [CHOCANO, C., 1998]
Feminist Diana Russell angrily assailed Strossen’s Defending Pornography,
saying:
“Nadine Strossen’s objective in Defending Pornography is to destroy
the reputation and achievements of the feminist movement against pornography.
To this end, she dishes up the same tired old caricature of us
as anti-sex prudes, pro-censorship, and in collusion with the right wing
… Strossen’s book was enthusiastically feted by the media not because
it’s so brilliant but because she’s president of the American Civil Liberties
Union (an organization that has increasingly become a watchdog
for the interests of pornographers). The fact that Strossen professes to
be a feminist gives her a lot more clout than man would have doing the
same dirty work for a dirty industry.” [RUSSSELL, D., SUMMER 1995]
There are apparently no limits to the reshaping of sexual morals. In 2001,
Princeton professor Peter Singer (“son of Viennese Jews who escaped to Australia
in 1938, shortly after Hitler’s invasion”) [NASAR, S., 4-10-00, p. A1] made
national news, and national ridicule, for a book review he authored at an online
magazine, Nerve. The title of the piece was Heavy Petting, where he endorsed
bestiality, including lines like this: “Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted
by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing
his penis against them … In private, not everyone objects to being used by
his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.”
[BILLUP, A., 4-2-01] The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette featured a poignant edi-
1250