August 11, 2013
Christian opposition to morally corrupt films goes all the way back to the very beginning of the medium. In early 20th century America, various Christian organizations and local government officials sought to censor films that posed a threat to public morality. Pressured by the National Legion of Decency and the threat of boycotts against the industry, in 1934 the Hollywood movie studios voluntarily began following the Motion Picture Production Code. This production Code required Hollywood films to follow strict guidelines, and stated that,
…those things which are included in the following list shall not appear in pictures produced by the members of this Association, irrespective of the manner in which they are treated:
1. Pointed profanity – by either title or lip – this includes the words “God,” “Lord,” “Jesus,” “Christ” (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), “hell,” “damn,” “Gawd,” and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;
2. Any licentious or suggestive nudity-in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;
3. The illegal traffic in drugs;
4. Any inference of sex perversion;
5. White slavery;
6. Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races);
7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases;
8. Scenes of actual childbirth – in fact or in silhouette;
9. Children’s sex organs;
10. Ridicule of the clergy;
11. Willful offense to any nation, race or creed;
Though now often ridiculed, the Code was responsible for decades of relatively wholesome motion pictures. The Christians of that era easily recognized the profound influence that mass media can could have on opinion and behavior, especially of the young, and they saw adherence to the Code as absolutely necessary for maintaining the moral health of the nation.
One might be tempted to see the creation and enforcement of the Code as a great triumph for the forces of good, but the Code turned out to be short-lived, and often failed in preventing more subtle degenerate material from being released. Starting in the 1950s, the studios produced more and more provocative films in defiance of the Code. In the 1960s the Code was finally abandoned, and within a few short years, major Hollywood studios were releasing essentially pornographic material. The proponents of the Code had noble motives and a clear understanding of a number of important points, but the Code was ultimately an unsuccessful half measure that failed to attack the root of the problem: Jewish control of Hollywood.
Jews controlled Hollywood from the very beginning (and continue to do so today), and many of the Christians who supported the Code were aware of this fact. For example, in an article from the Jewish Daily Forward, film historian Thomas Doherty discusses Joseph Breen’s attitude towards the Jews. Breen, an Irish Catholic, was Hollywood’s chief censor and the man responsible for the enforcement of the production Code up until 1954. It was of great interest, therefore, when in recent years personal letters from the early 1930s were uncovered in which Breen expressed distaste for Hollywood Jews. Breen, in describing the people who ran the movie industry, wrote:
“People whose daily morals would not be tolerated in the toilet of a pest house hold the good jobs out here and wax fat on it…Ninety-five percent of these folks are Jews of an Eastern European lineage. They are, probably, the scum of the scum of the earth.”
“These Jews seem to think of nothing but money making and sexual indulgence.”
Given that Breen held these views, one would assume that when trying to clean up the movie industry, Breen would have publicly denounced the Jewish dominance of Hollywood and attempted to increase the number of Christian studio executives. Regrettably, this was not the case, and Breen never made any public statements critical of the Jews.
It is difficult to say whether Breen was simply a fool who thought Jews could be gently encouraged to do the right thing, or a cynical sell-out who did not want to risk his position by attacking Jewish power. We can say, however, that he was a failure. It seems that Breen wrongly thought that Hollywood could produce decent, Christian entertainment while still allowing Jews, who are anti-Christian by definition, to control the industry. This is obviously false on principle, and one comes to the same conclusion by observing how the Jews in Hollywood behaved during the years when the Code was enforced. While technically staying true to the letter, the Jews constantly violated the spirit of the Code. For example, while the Code required that criminals be presented unsympathetically and be punished for their crimes, the Jews produced movies that glamorized the gangster throughout the bulk of the film, and then tacked on his punishment at the very end. Lustful, murderous criminals, played by actors like James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson, were the charismatic stars of many of these films, and these characters were idolized by the youth of the era as heroic “tough guys”. Movie producers violated the spirit of the Code in several other ways, hinting at drug use and sexual deviance without explicitly presenting them onscreen. Anyone could have seen that this situation was unstable and that the system was flawed, as the Hollywood Jews demonstrated that they would fill their films with as much degeneracy as they could get away with. The problem in Hollywood was not a general, vague lack of morality; the problem was that Jews controlled the industry. The Code was able to curb the immorality of Hollywood films for a few decades, but as long as the studios were left in Jewish hands, the Jews simply bided their time, and once the Code grew weak, they opened the floodgates of degeneracy.
While I was at first sympathetic towards a man who spent his life keeping the movies relatively clean, Doherty’s article shows that Breen took no steps to counter Jewish influence, and actually attacked those noble Christians who did. The “incriminating” letters were written in the early 1930s, but by the end of the decade, Breen was actively participating in spreading philo-semitic propaganda. Doherty relates a striking example of Breen’s newfound love for the Jews:
On October 1, 1938, “Box Office,” a glossy trade weekly, reprinted a crude antisemitic leaflet circulating around theaters in the Midwest and, closer to home, along the streets of downtown Los Angeles. “Hollywood is the Sodom and Gomorrah where International Jewry controls Vice-Dope-Gambling,” the leaflets read. “Where Young Gentile Girls are raped by Jewish producers, directors and casting directors who go unpunished.” A caricature depicted a hook-nosed Jew despoiling a vessel of lily-white Aryan womanhood.
Two weeks later, “Box Office” printed a sampling of the outraged letters that poured into its editorial offices. The sentiments from one writer were highlighted in a boldfaced, boxed-off column. “I have myself received copies of this vicious and salacious leaflet,” Breen declared. “The whole business is so revolting, and so thoroughly un-American, that I want to be the first, if possible, to lodge my protest against it. I stand ready to go the limit to help out in any way possible and I am hastening to tell you that you may count on me to do anything I can to run this vicious thing into the ground.”
The “vicious and salacious” leaflet expressed sentiments nearly identical to those found in Breen’s letters from just a few years prior: Jews dominate Hollywood, and they are greedy and sexually depraved. The specific claims made by the leaflet–that Jewish directors and producers sexually exploit gentile women and that the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League was a communist organization–are absolutely true. It is an established fact that Hollywood filmmakers, who were mostly Jews, flagrantly abused and exploited young aspiring actresses, who were mostly gentile. It is also true that much of the “anti-nazi” propaganda produced by Hollywood Jews was blatantly pro-communist. Breen, who had an intimate knowledge of Hollywood, was undoubtedly aware of all this. The fact that he condemned those Christians who were spreading the truth betrays a spineless and treacherous character. Breen may have protested lascivious sex scenes, but he was unwilling to risk being called a bigot, and eagerly slandered his fellow Christians as “un-American” to gain the favor of the Jews.
The role of Hollywood in subverting traditional Christian and patriotic values cannot be overstated, and the Jewish control of Hollywood from the very earliest days of the industry cannot be denied. The initial success but ultimate failure of the decency leagues of the 1930s teaches an important lesson: when dealing with the Jews, half measures are ineffective. Jewish power is not something that can safely be guided or directed for the long-term benefit of gentiles: the Jews must be rendered powerless within a Chrisitan society in order for that society to flourish. As long as they retain their power, they are able to bully and bribe gentile leaders like Breen into silence.