“I am probably the epitome of everything the Nazis hated: the Jew pornographer who besmirches the pure morals of the white Aryan world. Hitler would have thought of me as the Devil incarnate.” – Al Goldstein1
As we saw in part 8, explicit pornography began seeping up out of the underground and becoming widely available in America by the late 60s – early 70s, due to various Supreme Court decisions.
Predictably, this caused nationwide controversy, so Lyndon Johnson assembled a President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, ostensibly to study its effects on society.
The Commission, though claiming to be “neutral,” was stacked with members of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which had been the foremost organization fighting to loosen obscenity laws in America since the 1920s (see part 1). Even its chairman, William Lockhart, was a known member.
This outrageous conflict of interest made a liberal outcome a foregone conclusion. Indeed, their final report claimed that not only is access to pornography not harmful to society, it might even be beneficial, in that it will make people more “liberal” and “tolerant.”
Furthermore, they urged that all laws against pornography, except those which protect children, be repealed, and a “massive sex education be launched.”2
The panel relied very heavily on the findings of just one Danish Jew, Berl Kutchinsky. In 1967, Denmark had become the first country to legalize hardcore pornography, so Kutchinsky was commissioned to study the results and report his findings back to the Commission. He concluded that sex crimes had not increased, but rather had decreased, therefore pornography is safe.
The Chief Counsel of the Commission was the Jew Paul Bender, also an ACLU member. Bender, who’s been called the “architect of the Commission’s report,” would later go on to be an outspoken defender of child pornography.3
In 1977, he testified to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary that strict anti-child pornography laws are not morally justifiable because “the conclusion that child pornography causes child abuse involves too much speculation” and “most kids who act on these films probably are doing these acts aside from the films anyway.”4
A 300 page dissent from Charles Keating, which had been largely ghostwritten by a young Pat Buchanan, was attached to the final report.
When Nixon had come into office in 1969, he filled the one empty slot on the liberal-stacked commission with Keating. Keating was at the time the head of the Citizens for Decent Literature (CDL), which had been the premier group fighting against pornography since its founding in 1958.
From the beginning, Keating had been recommended for a seat on the commission by hundreds of people including governors, judges and congressmen, but a Jewish aide to Johnson, Ernest Goldstein, had successfully advised against it. He argued in a memo that “having Mr. Keating on the Commission will be a mistake.”5
The findings of the Commission were overwhelmingly rejected by Congress. The Senate rejected them with a 60-5 vote. One senator quipped that they “might just as well have asked the pornographers to write the report, although I doubt that even they would have had the temerity and effrontery to make the ludicrous recommendations that were made by the Commission.”
Nixon, for his part, also categorically rejected what he called the “morally bankrupt conclusions and major recommendations” of the Commission.
I will quote Nixon’s statement on the matter at length, due to its refreshing clarity:
The Commission contends that the proliferation of filthy books and plays has no lasting harmful effect on a man’s character. If that were true, it must also be true that great books, great paintings, and great plays have no ennobling effect on a man’s conduct. Centuries of civilization and 10 minutes of common sense tell us otherwise.
The Commission calls for the repeal of laws controlling smut for adults, while recommending continued restrictions on smut for children. In an open society, this proposal is untenable. If the level of filth rises in the adult community, the young people in our society cannot help but also be inundated by the flood.
Pornography can corrupt a society and a civilization. The people’s elected representatives have the right and obligation to prevent that corruption.
The warped and brutal portrayal of sex in books, plays, magazines, and movies, if not halted and reversed, could poison the wellsprings of American and Western culture and civilization.
The pollution of our culture, the pollution of our civilization with smut and filth is as serious a situation for the American people as the pollution of our once-pure air and water.
And Nixon was well aware of exactly who it was behind the proliferation of pornography.
In a tape recorded conversation from February 1, 1972, with Reverend Billy Graham – the most powerful preacher in the country at that time – Graham is heard telling Nixon that the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media “has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.”
“You believe that?” Nixon replies. “Oh, boy. So do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”
“And they’re the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,” Graham goes on to say, to no objection from Nixon.
In another taped conversation from February 21, 1973, Graham refers to the Jews as the “Synagogue of Satan,” and again accuses them of being “the ones putting out the pornographic literature” and “these obscene films.” Nixon, again, offers no objection.
Therefore, two of the most powerful people in the country knew it was the Jews behind the spread of nation-wrecking pornography, yet they felt that they could do nothing about it because of the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media. Pretty incredible.
Nixon is heard discussing the pornography question in a January 2, 1973 taped conversation with his newly appointed Chief Justice, Warren Burger. They both mock the ridiculous “socially redeeming value” rule of the Roth decision, which had been the reigning obscenity precedent since 1957 (see part 3). Burger calls it “one of the biggest frauds ever.”
“That’s a phrase that emanated from some of the campuses in this period,” he says. “You know this means if they have one of these outrageous orgies, then if they mention Vietnam or the condition of the ghettos, that ‘redeems’ the whole thing.”
Ultimately Nixon was able to appoint four conservative justices to the Supreme Court (the other three being Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist). Concerned citizens across the nation waited breathlessly for them to do something about the liberalized obscenity laws.
The case in which they finally attempted to scale them back was Miller v. California, which again had a Jewish defendant, Marvin Miller. Miller had been convicted for mailing pornographic advertisements for his “Adult Entertainment” business to random people in California. A mother complaining about how her child had opened one is how the case had been initiated.
The Burger Court upheld Miller’s conviction by a 5-4 vote on June 21, 1973, and the decision resulted in a new obscenity “test,” called the Miller test.
The Miller test superseded the previous Roth test, but it was very similar. Really, only a few words had been altered here and there. Most significantly, though, it shifted the legal responsibility away from the national standards that had been set during the 60s (see part 4), back to “contemporary, community standards.”
Once Miller became the new precedent, it put a stop to there being any more nationwide theatrical hits such as Deep Throat (see part 8), and the authorities quickly moved against several high-profile porn figures, including the Jew Al Goldstein, who was probably the most subversive and disgusting pornographer in the entire country.
Goldstein had begun his pornographic magazine, Screw, in New York in 1968. He beat 19 obscenity charges within the next two years.6
It was arranged for Goldstein to be tried in Wichita, Kansas, where public sentiment was thought to be more conservative than New York, now that local rather than national standards were the criteria again (a law official in Wichita ordered an issue of Screw, and once it was mailed, the charge was made).
After three high-profile, very expensive trials, Wichita failed to get a conviction for Goldstein.
Part of the reason Goldstein was not convicted is the fact that by this time the Jewish cultural revolution (see part 5) had been largely victorious. As Whitney Strub wrote in Obscenity Rules:
Miller seemingly made prosecutions easier, but in fact this cultural drift made convictions harder to obtain. Juries were tougher to shock, more reluctant to send people to prison for obscenity. A more liberal culture reigned in the more conservative doctrine.7
Another reason Goldstein was not convicted is that he and his team of lawyers exploited one particular phrase in the Miller test: “appeals to the prurient interest.” This line was also in the Roth test, and forcing the court to take it literally is a tactic that lawyers of obscenity cases had been using for years.
In one of Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce’s numerous trials (see part 4), for instance, a Jewish lawyer exploited the “prurient interest” line by asking: “Anybody at that show, after hearing Mr. Bruce, did they masturbate?”8
Carlos Porter gives us some background on this curious bit of Jewish trickery:
It was finally decided that “obscenity” meant “appeal to prurient interest”. So in every obscenity trial, the defense lawyer simply asked the prosecution witnesses whether the material appealed to his/her “prurient interest”. The question always went something like this: “How do you feel about this material personally, do you find it stimulating?” (Remember, these are prosecution witnesses being asked the question, the people who brought the complaint.)
The answer was always, “No, I think it’s disgusting”, or, “I think it’s boring”. Then, since nobody would ever admit that the stuff turned him/her on, it was argued that it didn’t appeal to anybody’s “prurient interest”, and was therefore not obscene!
In one Supreme Court case (U.S. vs. Cohen), it was held that the words “Fuck the Draft” did not appeal to anybody’s “prurient interest” and were therefore not obscene; a long series of other cases then held that expressions such as “mother-fucking racist pig cop” did not appeal to anybody’s “prurient interest” either, so nothing was ever obscene, so everything had to be legalized! (see footnote for Porter’s sources)9
This is how Goldstein himself put it in his book I, Goldstein: My Screwed Life:
The big threat of obscenity was whether it ‘appealed to prurient interest.’ Aside from being dirty, morbid, and offensive, the contents of Screw were only deemed criminal if it was sexy enough to, in the words of legalese ‘create an erection in a male or a moist vaginal area in a female.’. . . Put in the position of having to admit to a boner on the stand, expert puritans waxed apoplectic. Thus, the prosecution would crumble on the matter of ‘prurient interest.’10
Goldstein’s trial, coupled with the other two unsuccessful high-profile obscenity cases of the time (one for the sleazy Hustler pornographer Larry Flynt, and the other for the Jewish actor of Deep Throat, “Harry Reems”) took much of the wind out of the Miller precedent.
In a video in 2013, Goldstein eloquently boasted:
I give my very fucking best. When I eat pussy, when I lick asshole. I try to be a good hump. I try and give you the best writings and insight. What makes Al Goldstein? Al Goldstein’s a fucking legend. How many people legalized pornography? I mean fucking Fishbein is coasting, and Ron Jeremy is coasting. I changed the law.
Goldstein didn’t actually “change the law.” Rather, he beat the law. His trials sent a message: If even the most filthy and brazen pornographer couldn’t be convicted in a supposedly conservative area such as Wichita, Kansas, who could?
Thus began what is known as the “Golden Age of Porn.” The rest, as they say, is history. Our country has been flooded with all manner of perverted filth ever since.
The Jewish domination of porn is so well-documented – and admitted openly by so many Jews – there’s not a whole lot that needs to said about it.
Luke Ford, for instance, who is not racially Jewish but is a convert to Judaism, writes in his book on the history of pornography, A History of X:
Though only 2 percent of the American population, Jews dominate porn. Most of the leading male performers through the 1980s had Jewish parents. Leading Jewish pornographers include Wesley Emerson, Paul Fishbein, Lenny Friedlander, Paul Norman, Bobby Hollander, Rubin Gottesman, Hank Weinstein, Fred Hirsh and his children Steve and Marjorie, Steve Orenstein, Theodore Rothstein, and Rueben Sturman.11
Jewish scholar Dr. Nathan Abrams documented the extensive Jewish role in pornography in an article for the Jewish Quarterly titled “Triple-exthnics.” It begins with the following:
A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped to transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue Jews’.
Reuben Sturman, whom Dr. Abrams calls the “Walt Disney of Porn,” and Ford calls the “Godfather of Porn,” was the foremost distributor of porn in America throughout the 70s and 80s.
“You wanted to know how the sex industry started,” Sturman said to his biographer, Eric Schlosser, “well you’re looking at the person who started it.”12
The empires of Sturman’s three closest competitors, according to Schlosser, “were easily dwarfed in size” by his.13
“In 1991,” Fredrick S. Lane notes in his book Obscene Profits, “Time estimated that Sturman’s empire grossed roughly $1 million per day ‘from the sale of lewd magazines, videos and marital aids.’”14
All that porn money apparently wasn’t enough for this greedy Jewish gangster, so he constantly cheated on his taxes. It was a point of pride for him. It took an agent tracking him full-time 14 years to finally bring an indictment. In 1989 he was sentenced to 10 years and millions in fines for his tax evasion.
He later earned an additional 19 years for extortion. In 1992, he managed to escape from prison via helicopter, but was recaptured shortly after. He finally died in prison in 1997, while facing yet another charge for conspiracy in a bombing.
The ”contemporary incarnation of Sturman,” writes Abrams, “is 43-year-old Jewish Clevelander Steven Hirsch, who has been described as ‘the Donald Trump of porno.’”
Even Playboy magazine, which was founded by the gentile Hugh Hefner, has unsurprisingly operated under heavy Jewish influence since day one.
Josh Lambert, in an article for the online Jewish journal Tablet, quotes a former top Jewish Playboy editor, Nat Lehrman, as saying: “The whole staff, practically, was Jewish. We were the dominant, probably the brighter ones.”
In 1980, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) presented Hugh Hefner with a “Freedom Award.” This just goes to show the almost monolithic Jewish support for pornography, as the ADL is one of their main official organizations.
Abe Foxman, the long time director of the ADL, once claimed that the “Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.”
Again, there’s no real reason to belabor this point, as saying the pornography industry is Jewish is like saying the sky is blue.
The real question is: why? Why are the Jews so prominent in pornography? Pornography is an extremely profitable business, of course. But are the Jews only motivated by money when they produce and distribute porn?
“The adult industry was pretty much founded by the Jews,” says Mike Kulich in a 2015 filmed interview. Kulich, who is now deceased, was the Jewish owner of “the biggest porn company in the world,” Monarchy Distribution, when the video was recorded.
Kulich explains that most of the male porn stars since the 70s have been Jewish, while most of the female performers have been Roman Catholics. He says when he asked many of these male Jewish performers what their motivation for doing porn was, their answer was always because they get “to fuck Roman Catholic chicks” and “fulfill like every fantasy that every Jewish boy has ever had” (“Roman Catholic,” in this context, is basically just a euphemism for “White gentile”).
Kulich specifically named Ron Jeremy, the repulsive Jew who has been turned into a sort of folk hero by the Jewish-dominated media, as being one of the porn stars who told him this.
Kulich’s statement parallels what Harvey Cohen had allegedly told “undercover Jew” Adam Goldstein: “As you’re aware, it’s Jewish fantasy to screw gentile women…Besides, why would Jewish pornographers care about gentile fantasy?”
Dr. Nathan Abrams also says the same of the Jewish male/White female porn star dichotomy: “The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa.”
“Shiksa” is a derogatory Yiddish term Jews use for White women. It translates to English, according to Lambert, in his book Unclean Lips: Jews, Obscenity and American Culture, as: “‘unclean creature,’ reptile; abomination, detestation, uncleanliness.”15
When Al Goldstein was asked by Luke Ford why there were so many Jews in porn, he replied: “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”
Here is one final quote in regard to the Jews’ motivations for producing and promoting pornography. It again comes from Dr. Nathan Abrams, and is probably the most revealing and shocking of them all:
Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast.’ Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.
It doesn’t get much more straightforward than that.
Let’s recap, in case that didn’t sink in. Pornography – by the Jews’ own admission – is an opportunity to weaken our culture through “moral subversion,” denigrate Christianity, and defile our women – who, I repeat, they refer to derogatorily as “shiksas.”
They admit all of this openly, with nothing but contempt for us “goyim.”
How does that make you feel, dear reader?
The logical and reasonable response to Jewish behavior is to organize politically and remove them from society entirely, as populations have had to do repeatedly for thousands of years.
Understanding this possible outcome, naturally the Jews do whatever is in their power to prevent it from happening again. Most of their policies – such as pushing for mass immigration and “rights” for various minority groups – are geared towards making this potential eventuality less likely or impossible.
Same goes for all of the considerable media they have brought under their control. They use it to brainwash and socially engineer society in a way that makes them feel more safe and comfortable. The majority demographic, Whites, are generally portrayed as evil oppressors, while Jews and other non-Whites are portrayed as our hapless victims.
This serves the dual purpose of making Whites feel guilty, while simultaneously giving minorities a burning hatred toward us. In short, it is conditioning for our genocide.
We’ve also seen a phasing out of traditional White heroes from television and Hollywood movies. Even TV commercials now put out a consistent anti-White message, with White males frequently being portrayed and weak and incompetent pussies, and non-Whites – mainly Blacks – being portrayed as intelligent, alpha males.
An atomized, weak, and passive populace poses much less of a threat to a highly-organized, hyper-ethnocentric hostile minority. It’s as simple as that.
Thus the Jews have a vested interest in neutering and emasculating the men of their host societies – in this case, us – because strong men are the only ones who will be willing and capable of rising up against them and kicking them out – not a bunch of emasculated beta males, sitting around jerking off to porn.
This phenomenon has reached a fever pitch. “Transgender” people are now put up as heroes, tearing down “toxic masculinity” is an explicit goal that is worked towards in our colleges and universities, and our society is completely saturated with pornography and sexualized imagery.
Whether or not the Jews, in sexualizing our culture, are doing it to deliberately cause us harm, or are just acting on instinct (or, the most likely: some combination of the two), doesn’t matter one bit. The outcome is the same.
Masturbation to pornography is emasculating not just spiritually and emotionally, but also physically. Conversely, quitting porn results in a process of remasculation, as recent revelations by tens of thousands of men who have been addicted to it and then found the will to reject it have unequivocally shown.
This issue of masculinity cannot be stressed enough when dealing with the question of pornography – which is why I am pressing it so strongly.
Pornography is comparable to a hard drug, such as heroin or cocaine, in that it is addictive and it releases dopamine into your brain from your biological reward center and gives you a mental high (this is why drugs are nicknamed “dope”).
In evolutionary terms, the reason for this is obvious, as it has encouraged us to procreate through the years. Things which are potentially beneficial or even necessary such as eating, having sex, winning the hunt, etc., trigger a positive chemical response, just as things which may potentially cause us harm will trigger a negative one (fear, pain, embarrassment, etc.).
Each time we look at a sexualized image of a healthy female, our brain gets a dose of dopamine, which is telling us: go forth and multiply. High speed internet, with its limitless amounts of thumbnail pictures and real-time videos, has made it so that our brains can be flooded with this dopamine over and over and over again, in a short period of time.
In an especially vile interview with Playboy magazine, Jewish singer-songwriter John Mayer acknowledges the problem with high speed internet porn perfectly (yet then goes on to say he supports it anyway):
Mayer: . . . By the way, pornography? It’s a new synaptic pathway. You wake up in the morning, open a thumbnail page, and it leads to a Pandora’s box of visuals. There have probably been days when I saw 300 vaginas before I got out of bed.
Playboy: What’s your point about porn and relationships?
Mayer: Internet pornography has absolutely changed my generation’s expectations. How could you be constantly synthesizing an orgasm based on dozens of shots? You’re looking for the one photo out of 100 you swear is going to be the one you finish to, and you still don’t finish. Twenty seconds ago you thought that photo was the hottest thing you ever saw, but you throw it back and continue your shot hunt and continue to make yourself late for work. How does that not affect the psychology of having a relationship with somebody? It’s got to.
Playboy: You seem very fond of pornography.
Mayer: When I watch porn, if it’s not hot enough, I’ll make up backstories in my mind. My biggest dream is to write pornography.
This continual flood of dopamine dulls men’s minds, saps their motivation, and actually begins to rewire their neural pathways. This can even be seen in brain scans.
Years ago, many young men who had self-diagnosed themselves as internet porn addicts, and had recognized its side effects, began to gather online in support groups to work together toward breaking the habit. They came to call themselves NoFap, and what they discovered is nothing short of incredible.
Every side effect reported by the NoFap community is directly related to emasculation. Those who have managed to quit have, all reinforcing each other, reported the same effects, which are the following:
- Increase in motivation
- Increase in confidence
- Ability to make and hold eye contact
- Increased attention from women
- Deeper voice
- Thicker hair
- Gain in muscle mass
- Relieved depression
- Better memory
- Better able to concentrate and focus
- More energy
- Decrease in social awkwardness
What’s more, porn causes many of its users to escalate to more and more extreme forms of porn as the novelty of each wears off.
Eventually, they lose all attraction to real women, and the ability to even hold an erection while having sex with them.
I repeat: Porn addicts can only hold an erection by looking at a computer screen and not with a real woman.
It is therefore not an exaggeration to say that the widespread availability of Jewish pornography is a civilizational-scale crisis of alarming proportions. Coupled with Jewish feminism (see part 7), it will destroy us completely, in very short order. With entire generations having been warped and emasculated by the concentrated Jewish poison I have outlined in these articles, our society has been ripened for conquest by hostile outsiders. We are now actually witnessing this happen in real time.
So, what can we, the minority who is able to see what is happening around us, do about it?
Well, first of all – and this should go without saying – we must categorically reject all pornography and Jewish filth in our own lives.
To do otherwise means actively and willingly participating in the destruction of our civilization, our race, and ourselves.
If you are struggling with pornography addiction, search out the online NoFap communities and begin working to break the habit today. There are literally hundreds of thousands of men who are eager to help you through it.
Along with rejecting degeneracy, as I’ve already said, we need to strip the Jews of all power and expel them. The former is a necessary prerequisite for the latter.
This is a difficult task, and it will be an uphill battle – but it needs to be carried out. There is no Plan B.
It is a terrible situation we find ourselves in, but it is also an important lesson. What doesn’t kill us will make us stronger. Maybe this was all meant to be, to put us through a test.
Maybe we needed to hit rock bottom to really find it in ourselves to again rise to the top and learn for all time what mistakes we can never afford to make again.
The bottom line, as far as I see it, is this: Yes, the Jews are largely responsible for the mess we’re in. But, it is up to us to get ourselves out of it – nobody is going to do it for us. If we are not strong enough to reject pornography and degeneracy in our own personal lives, then we will perish as a people and will not have deserved to live in the first place.
If this is our fate, going to our grave pointing at the Jew as the reason for our downfall is not going to cut it, and frankly is a weak and pathetic way to go down.
We know what the Jews are. This series and endless amounts of other books and articles unmasks them, as does their own words and actions.
They are our enemy.
Will we again find who and what we are and overcome them, or will they succeed in destroying us and everything we hold dear?
Only time will tell.
I know I for one will die on my feet before kneeling to these parasites, and I know plenty of other men who are filled with the same resolve. Our numbers are growing by the day.
Hopefully you will join us on the Alt-Right, if you haven’t already.
It will be the best choice you’ve ever made, I can promise you that.
If you enjoyed this series, please consider tipping the author. A considerable amount of time and money was spent on writing and researching it.
You can also support this work by purchasing a print copy from Lulu.
Btc address: 14KQkvSS26QbY264yLXK586GuYZkmM7BS4
- Al Goldstein, I, Goldstein: My Screwed Life, 1999, Kindle verison, loc.1995-1998 ↩
- Whitney Strub, Perversion for Profit: The Politics of Pornography and the Rise of the New Right, 2010 p.156 ↩
- Christopher Cook, “Is Paul Bender Really ‘Independant?’“, Western Free Press, December 8, 2010 ↩
- Statement on Paul Bender by the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch (PDF) ↩
- Strub, 2010, p.152 ↩
- Carmine Sarracino & Kevin M. Scott, The Porning of America: The Rise of Porn Culture, What it Means, and Where We Go from Here, 2008, p.87 ↩
- Whitney Strub, Obscenity Rules: Roth v. United States and the Long Struggle over Sexual Expression, 2013, p.216 ↩
- Ronald K. L. Collins, The Trials of Lenny Bruce, 2002, p.124 ↩
- Carlos Porter, Satires, 2014, p.129 (see, for example, Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972); Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901 (1972); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 408 U.S. 913 (1972); Brown v. Oklahoma, 408 U.S. 914 1972). All legal references are from chapter 54, “Defense of an Obscenity Case”, by Richard I. Targow and Paul N. Savoy, in Criminal Defense Techniques, The Matthew Bender Co., edited by Sidney Bernstein, 1984 update. ↩
- Goldstein, loc.2092-2100 ↩
- Luke Ford, A History of X: 100 Years of Sex in Film, p.18 ↩
- Eric Schlosser, Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market, 2004, p.208 ↩
- Ibid., p.140 ↩
- Fredrick S. Lane III, Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age, p.48 ↩
- Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews and American Culture, 2013, p.119 ↩