Jews and the Shiksa II: Dustin Hoffman


From its origins, Hollywood has been stamped with a Jewish identity, but nobody else was supposed to know about it.  But somehow, no matter how thorough the attempt to suppress or disguise it, Jewishness is going to bob to the surface anyway.
Stephen J. Whitfield

In what I hope to be a short series of essays on Jewish Hollywood, I wish to focus primarily on the topic of the shiksa, as I did recently in Harvey Weinstein: On Jews and the Shiksa. A larger issue, however, will be to show why it matters that Jews control Hollywood. That is the reason I have used the valuable Moment Magazine cover photo (above) time and again in my blogging, for it is an admission of something critical to American (and world) history: “Jews Run Hollywood.”

Of course that is no secret to the vast majority of TOO readers, so it is the subtitle that really interests me: “So What?” I confess I am put on the defensive about this question. It has always been clear to me why it matters, at least once you realize that Jews do in fact run Hollywood. Yet, as incredible as it seems, the heavy majority of those I get to agree that Jews do indeed run Hollywood respond with that maddening phrase “So What?” In my view, this is mental self-policing at its worst. So, as has been the case in all my Hollywood writing, my aim is to explain (to the normie, perhaps) why it matters who controls a medium as powerful as Hollywood has been for a century.

In the Harvey Weinstein blog, I argued that aggressive hostility is a large component of the Jewish male domination of Gentile females (shiksas). Right on cue, TOO editor Kevin MacDonald followed up with a powerful exegesis of the phenomenon in his essay Harvey Weinstein: Revenge and Domination as Jewish Motives. Here he wrote that “The hatred is real and is intimately tied in with sexual competition” and also quoted from his review of Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century:

The amorous advances of the Jewish protagonist of Eduard Bagritsky’s poem “February” are rebuffed by a Russian girl, but their positions are changed after the Revolution when he becomes a deputy commissar. Seeing the girl in a brothel, he has sex with her without taking off his boots, his gun, or his trench coat—an act of aggression and revenge:

I am taking you because so timid
Have I always been, and to take vengeance
For the shame of my exiled forefathers
And the twitter of an unknown fledgling!
I am taking you to wreak my vengeance
On the world I could not get away from!

The passage is stunning, yet my experience has shown that almost no non-Jew I’ve talked to has any idea about this hostility, let alone how it appears in Hollywood fare. Why is that?

In short, I would argue, it is an aspect of parasitism in which the parasite must somehow deceive the host, for were the host to understand its loss (and possible impending death), it would resist the parasite. To the extent that Jews act as parasites, they must have strategies that prevent the host from realizing what is happening. Since Hollywood is such a damaging form of assault on traditional White society, viewers of poisonous Tinseltown films must not notice how Jewish Hollywood is nor can they ever imagine that Jews might be harmful.

And that’s why Jews push the image of the Jew-as-schlemiel, the definition of which is:

“an awkward, clumsy person,” 1868, from Yiddish shlemiel “bungler; a stupid person; fool; oaf; esp, a naive person often victimized; an awkward or unlucky person whose endeavors usually fail

This is also related to the character known as a nebbish, someone who is “a pitifully ineffectual, luckless, and timid person.” Jews have used these characters to great effect in creating the illusion that they are harmless.

One of the greatest purveyors of this image is of course Woody Allen, someone who seems to perfectly embody the schlemiel or nebbish. Here he is in Sleeper (1973):

Harmless, right?

While Hollywood certainly has its share of nebbishy Jewish characters (Richard Dreyfuss in Down and Out In Beverly Hills, Albert Brooks in The Muse, and many of Dustin Hoffman’s characters, which I’ll discuss later), for many Americans, TV portrayals provide a richer trove of these lovable losers. Think, for instance, of Maxwell Smart, played by (half-Jewish) Don Adams in the hit series “Get Smart”:

The series was created by Jewish talents Mel Brooks and Buck Henry and was full of Jewish humor. Or think about “The Odd Couple,” with Jewish actors Jack Klugman and Tony Randall. Randall’s Felix Unger was a classic schlemiel.

Moving to more recent history, the “Seinfeld” cast was built on nebbishy people, particularly George Costanza who, although not explicitly presented as Jewish in the show, is a classic Jewish type, played by the Jewish actor Jason Alexander. In a later series, Larry David plays the schlemiel to the hilt in “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” though careful viewers will often find veiled aggressiveness toward goyim in many scenes.

The point of all this is that these characters, while certainly finding counterparts among Jews in real life, still reinforce the stereotype of Jewish men as funny, harmless, lovable losers, which completely whitewashes the reality of many incredibly harmful Jews who wield power in our world.

Consider, for instance, the Red Terror in Russia, where some expressed shock that seemingly pacifistic Jews (p.85) changed almost overnight. “We were amazed by what we had least expected to encounter among the Jews: cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical, warlike activity; those who yesterday did not know how to use a gun are now found among the executioners and cutthroats.”

In another instance, a “formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of ‘unheard-of despotic arbitrariness.’” He had been “transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness.” He could now be pictured as “standing in a Cheka basement doing ‘bloody but honorable revolutionary work.’”

We now know that such Jews were responsible for tens of millions of White Christian deaths, but of course we rarely if ever see such images on screens big or small. Instead, we have Woody Allen, Jerry Seinfeld, and Dustin Hoffman, to whom I now turn.

Dustin Hoffman

In my previous essay linked above I noted that in the film Lenny (1974), where Jewish actor Dustin Hoffman stars as renegade comedian Lenny Bruce, “we see the quintessential shiksa lust scene: Bruce bursts into a room, intent on meeting his blonde girlfriend, and is stunned to see her posing naked for him. Transfixed, he quivers and intones, ‘Oh yeah. Oh yeah.  It’s a shiksa goddess.’” That was fitting in that Hoffman often appears as a Jew — though masked to varying degrees — who has intimate involvement with the shiksa. This was crystal clear to me when I watched The Graduate. It’s also fitting that Hoffman has been accused of sexual harassment of a then 17-year old girl in 1985.

The Graduate (1967) was directed by Jewish Mike Nichols, an immigrant from Danzig. Buck Henry (born Henry Zuckerman in NYC) was one of two screenwriters for the film. Hoffman, of course, stars as recent college graduate Benjamin Braddock, an aimless young man. The shiksa theme in the film is obvious, as Ben enters into an adulterous affair with the married Mrs. Robinson. (Later, he dates Mrs. Robinson’s daughter Elaine.) Mrs. Robinson is portrayed as part of a large upper-middle class goyish circle in Pasadena, California — I think readers can see where this is going.


Jumping to the climax of the movie, we have the church scene, where Ben races to the church to break up Elaine’s impending marriage to a blond goy. This is the scene in which Cuddihy (The Ordeal of Civility) meets Roth (Portnoy’s Complaint). One really must see it to realize how brazenly it shows a Jew defeating the hated Gentile civilization. To begin with, the setting is the most Gentile of all settings: a beautiful Christian church, complete with minister, organ and well-dressed people.

Ben, however, has no respect for this goy setting. He climbs into the second-floor choir loft, pounds on the glass barrier, then screams out the shiksa’s name: “Elaine! Elaine!” In the Jewish fantasy that the scene represents, Elaine realizes that Ben is the better choice of a man and she abandons both altar and new (goy) husband to be with Ben. But now comes the battle between civilizations. This scene plays out the Revenge and Domination motif that MacDonald discusses, such as that displayed by Sigmund Freud when he fantasized about destroying Christian Rome.

Here in a Santa Barbara church, the Christian men respond to Ben’s incivility, with the cuckolded Mr. Robinson rushing up the stairs to confront Ben. This dextrous Jew, however, leaps over the railing, then deftly elbows Mr. Robinson in the ribs, taking him out of the fray. Next, Ben charges the young blond men and gray-haired gentlemen who rise to stop him.; Ben knocks them all back. Then, he grabs a gold cross and begins using it as a weapon to keep these seething goyim at bay.

“Hating Your Goy and Eating One Too”

The Graduate could have been fodder for Philip Roth as he composed his novel Portnoy’s Complaint. In the film, Ben succeeds in sleeping with both mother and daughter from a Gentile family, while in the novel Roth describes how Portnoy, filled with shiksa lust, confesses to his psychiatrist, “What I’m saying, Doctor, is that I don’t seem to stick my dick up these girls, as much as I stick it up their backgrounds — as though through fucking I will discover America. Conquer American — maybe that’s more like it.”

Yeah, Jews run Hollywood. Now you have one answer to the “So What?” of that equation.

And if you’re curious about more Dustin Hoffman films with Jewish themes, please consider Marathon Man (1976). Though it lacks the shiksa theme, it is an overtly Jew vs. German film, with World War II featuring strongly in the story.  In this film, Hoffman plays an explicitly Jewish character (Babe Levy) who encounters one Christian Szell, “a character clearly modeled on [Nazi sadist, Doctor Josef] Mengele.” Likely many readers remember the scene in which Szell, desirous of getting diamonds stolen from murdered Jews, resorts to torturing Babe by drilling sensitive points in his teeth without the use of anesthesia.  Of course Babe Levy prevails in the end. This is Hollywood, after all.

A few years later, Hoffman starred in Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) with Meryl Streep playing his unhappy wife. In this film, as many might remember, the relationship between the seemingly Jewish man and his seemingly non-Jewish wife is strained to the point that the wife leaves the family.

In Outbreak (1995), however, we have the shiksa theme, as Hoffman’s character has a stunning blonde wife played by Rene Russo. This Walter Mittyesque fantasy film imagines that little Dustin Hoffman can save society from a mad military man bent on controlling America through biological warfare. Believe it or not, this trope of Jews saving others is so common that film expert Kathryn Bernheimer dubs this category “Jews to the Rescue.”

Of course the bad guys are White military men who plan to blow up a small town full of Americans, with the general chillingly portrayed by Donald Sutherland, with white hair and piercing blue eyes, playing the Aryan bad guy.  Helping the heroic Jew are some good Blacks, played by Cuba Gooding, Jr. and “Numinous Negro” Morgan Freeman, who gets to arrest the White general. In the end, Hoffman’s character finds the cure for the lethal “outbreak” and saves his dying shiksa wife’s life.

You can make these movies when you run Hollywood.


This essay started with a quote from Jewish culture expert Stephen J. Whitfield, so it is fitting that I end with another of his thoughts. Since the heavy Jewish presence in Hollywood has been a constant for over a century, it is no surprise that Jewry has “left its skid marks.  For American Jews have exerted an extraordinary impact upon the character of the United States.”

Unfortunately, that is so.

107 replies
    • Up from the rabbit hole
      Up from the rabbit hole says:

      Forgive me. Coincidentally today this news item about DH: He harasses a 17 year ole intern on movie set. I recommend reading it. There is a reference to Warren Beatty. I inferred that there was lots of envy of The Warren Beatty, lol.

  1. Fabrice
    Fabrice says:

    Do you know that Paul Newman, Kirk Douglas, , Michael Douglas ( Kirk Douglas’son ), Harrison Ford, James Caan, Billy Chrystal, Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, Adrien Brody, Lauren Bacall, Joanne Collins ( English native ) , Barbra Streisand, Goldie Hawn, Wyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johansson, Natalie Portman, Kate Hudson ( and may others! ) are all American Jews?

    Here is a list:

    To sum up, in USA, American Jews have played and still play a dominant role in sectors like show business, media mainstream and finance, which are the classical sectors where common people can be manipulated very easily and because of the fact that:

    “A sucker is born every minute”, they have started with a further great advantage which allowed them to reach enormous influence ( to say the least!! ), in spite of the fact that they are only 3% of the total population in USA!!!

    That’s really incredible but unfortunately true!!

    Best regards.

    Fabrice, greetings from Italy.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      Paul Newman was in fact only half-Jewish – though that in itself, I confess, was real news to me. Interestingly, he was Jewish only by his father – not his mother, who was a Slovakian Catholic – which, according to “real” Orthodox and Israeli Zionist Jews, doesn’t actually count.

      So my own view, for what it’s worth, is that the blonde hair, blue eyes, squarely-rugged jawline, faultlessly Caucasian appearance and half a century, from brave Pacific war veteran, through adored screen icon, to rugged racing-car driver, massively-successful (honest) business man, and high-end philanthropist – not to mention determinedly-faithful husband and family man over decades, combine together to make his half-Jewish side nothing more than an accident of history.

      His lengthy and readable Wikipedia biography, for once, is accurate, revealing and compelling. He was, on every level of life, a truly great, flawless, White American.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        No offense, Dave, but I can’t believe your last few sentences would have read quite as they do if you’d ever bought his Newman’s Own popcorn. It’s one of history’s top-ten worst products!

      • Fabrice
        Fabrice says:

        @Dave Bowman

        Paul Newman even played a role of a Zionist hero in a Hollywood film!!

        Apart from that, here is some more reliable news about him!!

        Newman was born in Shaker Heights, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, the younger son of a sports store owner. His father was of Jewish-German descent and his mother was a Catholic whose family came from Hungary. She became a Christian Scientist when Paul was just five but her new beliefs did not impinge on the family and later in life Newman chose to follow none of their beliefs but, when asked, opted “for Jewishness because I considered it more challenging”……

        Best regards.


  2. TipTipTopKek
    TipTipTopKek says:

    >In the film, Ben succeeds in sleeping with both mother and daughter from a Gentile family

    This is a very specific perversion. Leviticus 18:17, “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.”

    There are many, many movies which mention this perversion, if you look for them.

  3. Up from the rabbit hole
    Up from the rabbit hole says:

    Another Jew-shiksa moment I’ll never forget: Studs Lonigan, the 1979 mini-series on NBC. Scene: a Chicago Irish neighborhood in the 30s. The neighborhood teenage boys are lining up to have sex with the local floozy. Bedroom door opens and the girl in under covers in a bed with a crucifix hanging over it. When she sees that the next boy in line is Jewish, she screams for him to get out. The entire series was one long anti Irish slur. It was the norm when I was growing up. One long anti Catholic slur.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      @rabbit hole — interesting re-interpretation of religious wars in Europe at
      This means the religious wars of that period have been sold to us under a false pretext. We are told it was between the Catholics and the Protestants. But seeing that Paris was ruled by the Jewish Medicis, we see it was a war of the Medicis against the Christian Church more broadly. Catherine ordered the rich Huguenots murdered in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre not because they were Protestant, but because they were prominent aristocrats and Christian.

      • mari
        mari says:

        Catherine ordered them murdered as a pre emptive measure. A royal wedding was scheduled in Paris. All the gentry and aristocrats including the Protestant southern gentry came. The purpose of some of the southern Protestants was to murder the royal family and put a Protestant on the throne. Admiral Colligny was a Protestant aristocrat who was knowledgeable about the plot.

        He decided it was a bad idea for various reasons, including English and Spanish meddling. Colligny informed the Queen and the plotters were killed before they could slaughter the royal family and the loyalists. It was no different from all the royal overthrows and attempted overthrows of the royals all over Europe. Catherine was a niece of the Pope, I doubt she or the other Medicis were Jews. Jews weren’t the only wealthy people in Europe. Milesmathis???? He’s interesting. Perhaps not always completely accurate but always interesting.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Thank you for this observation on a series whose existence I recall but, thank heaven, never watched.

      The series’ date (i.e., 1979) ought to serve as a reminder to those who get bleary-eyed about television “back then” that hatred of whites and Christians was well established as the norm on both small screen and large forty years ago. Heck, even thirty years prior, Superman and The Lone Ranger weren’t entirely on our side!

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        I have the boxed set of the The Fugitive. I can recommend- there is only a whiff of PC in two episodes- the rest [of 15 episodes I have viewed] is a time machine, back to a better, saner and almost White America- the one I recall so wistfully.

        1963 through 1967- as the wrecking ball was just hitting big time.

        See the pilot episode here:

        {David Jannsen was half-jewish. I make him honorary White because of this series}

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Pierre, Seinfeld’s Jason Alexander appeared in Montreal’s televised, often quite good ‘ Laugh In ‘ show.

        Suspended from a cable, he swooped out of the sky wearing Superman’s costume emblazoned with a super-sized star of David.

        ” For those who don’t me, I’m Jewperman, ever ready to fight for the oppressed and huddled masses, wherever there is strife I’ll be there! ”

        I wonder whether I was alone in thinking, yes you are always there USUALLY JUST BEFORE.

        Preparing for his lift-off, he cupped his ears and exclaimed, ” I think I am hearing people in distress who need my help “.

        I wonder whether that message of distress came from the Christian Druze village in Syria [ Haaretz ] close to the Israeli border, which allegedly was under attack by ISIS, and the IDF of course only to happy to assist these goyim, since it would entail a mini ground-invasion.

        He departed, being propelled back into the sky, with ” Up, up and oy vehhhh !”

  4. Ricky
    Ricky says:

    Ironically, Dustin Hoffman today became the latest Jew power player to be accused of sexual harassment by a young white actress:

    Dustin Hoffman Sexually Harassed Me When I Was 17

    This is a story I’ve told so often I’m sometimes surprised when someone I know hasn’t heard it. It begins, “Dustin Hoffman sexually harassed me when I was 17.” Then I give the details: When I was a senior in high school in New York City, interning as a production assistant on the set of the Death of a Salesman TV film, he asked me to give him a foot massage my first day on set; I did. He was openly flirtatious, he grabbed my ass, he talked about sex to me and in front of me. One morning I went to his dressing room to take his breakfast order; he looked at me and grinned, taking his time. Then he said, “I’ll have a hard-boiled egg … and a soft-boiled clitoris.” His entourage burst out laughing. I left, speechless. Then I went to the bathroom and cried.

  5. Rehmat
    Rehmat says:

    Woody Allen is not “nebbish” for sure. His talents are even admired by the Dutch ‘royals’.

    In 2009, Dutch government spent US$10 million on the “NY400 Festival” celebration – highlighting the Jewish past of New York city and its several Jewish elite families. The list included John Jacob Astors, Brooke Astor, David Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller, John Rockefeller, John Rockefeller Jr., Theodore Rossevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, Woody Allen, Herman Badillo, Mel Brooks, Rupert Murdoch, Ralph Lauren, Donald Trump, Tom Wolf and Russell Simmons.

    Former Dutch Queen Queen Beatrix attended a secret meeting of Zionist Bilderberg Group in Ottawa in June 2006. The other attendees included Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, NY Governor, and George Pataki. Canadian PM Stephen Harper attended the 2003 meeting of the group when he was the Opposition Leader.

    • mari
      mari says:

      For God’s sakes rehmat, not every rich and powerful person in the world is a Jew.
      The founder of the Rockefellers, Old John was a devout Baptist from a long line of Baptists. Brooke Astor was a Protestant who late in life married into the Astor family. Tom Wolf is the epitome of the American southern Protestant Gentleman. Ralph Lauren is indeed a Jew.

      20th century NYC was very Jewish But from about 1860 to 1960 NYC was a strong hold of Irish Catholics. Jews rose from about 1930 on and ruled after the Irish moved to the suburbs.

      Wall st and the media are Jewish, but the non White immigration is changing NYC.

  6. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    It struck me that Leonard Cohen’s songs (as far as I know; I’ve barely listened to any) are about sinfully tempting white girls, all of course whores. (Sung in a godawful dirge).

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Leonard Cohen was born into a prominent Orthodox family in Montreal Canada. His mother was the daughter of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Solomon Klonitsy-Kline. His earlier songs, or rather, dirges, were secular, the old fox in the henhouse ploy, and a few I admit, were quite nice. However, by 2009 he opened his Israel concert with prayers and completed it with blessing, all in perfect Hebrew. His final album, a few years later was celebrated by the Jewish press as a ‘return’ to his Jewish roots. He died on November 7th, the day of Donald Trumps win. I suspect that his Talmudic heart couldn’t withstand it. He is celebrated here in Canacuckistan as a great poet and singer, our version of your Bob Dylan, gravel voiced messengers of deception.

  7. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    A lot of points in this article are well-taken. Jewish role in Hollywood must be addressed. And Jewish strategy need close analysis. But we must be careful not to fall into the trap(akin to PC) of politicizing everything about arts, culture, and entertainment. We don’t want to be like Black Studies that sees ‘racism’ everywhere and Women’s Studies that sees ‘patriarchy’ everywhere.

    There is no doubt that Dustin Hoffman has been a remarkable actor. Who can forget his role as Ratso in MIDNIGHT COWBOY? And we should give him credit for taking on challenging roles that didn’t feature him in a positive light. STRAIGHT TIME comes to mind. Also STRAW DOGS where are made to root for him, but he’s no hero.

    I don’t think THE GRADUATE is as anti-wasp as the article makes out. Even though the white suburban life is presented as artificial, the anxiety something that MANY people felt in the 60s, and not just among Jews. The ennui thing was lifted mainly from European Cinema that was anti-Hollywood and mostly goyische.
    Braddock’s parents are part of the Greatest Generation, one that blanketed the Great Depression and WWII with amnesia and pursued materialism and affluence. But, they are not presented as bad people. The satire for the most part is mild and even affectionate.

    Another thing. Mrs. Robinson herself could be seen as a Jewishy figure. After all, she violates ethics and subverts conventions. She is different from other friends of Benjamin’s parents. She seduces him, toys with him, and manipulates him. She is not a classic Wasp archetype. She could be seen as Kundry-like the Jewish corrupter. So, if we see Benjamin as a Jewishy character, he comes under the spell of a Jewishy seductress who is hellbent on sucking his blood.

    Another thing. Benjamin does NOT have sex with Elaine in the movie. They only date and kiss. In fact, Benjamin is drawn to her because she seems incorruptible. And he wants to be saved and redeemed by her. After college, he was confused and just rolled in bed with Mrs. Robinson. He became jaded and amoral. But Elaine’s sensitivity and innocence stir something inside him, and he falls deeply in love.

    He thinks she can save him, and he wants to save her from the middle class life of conformism where people do what is expected of them than follow their true feelings. And Elaine feels for Ben because his feelings seem so real.
    As for the church, it is impressive but soulless and modern. It suggests Christianity itself has become a commodity in materialist California. It looks less like a House of God and more like a sci-fi set.

    Though much has been written about Nichols’ Jewishness(by Jewish social critics as well), I don’t think THE GRADUATE is an expression of anti-wasp hate. Nichols himself said Ben and Elaine will likely end up like their parents. It is about the passion of youth that simply can’t last. It’s about an illusion. The final image is defeatist. Ben got the girl and got away, but the future is just settling down and growing old. He can’t escape time anymore than the hero in LA JETEE.

    As for the nebbish shlemiel as the harmless Jewish archetype, there is some truth to that. We all know of the movies where the main a**holes are waspish Jocks on college while Jewish schlemiels are sympathetic characters.

    But despite such pleading, I think Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, and Dustin Hoffman were something more than the victim/harmless type.

    Allen often comes across as neurotic, paranoid, arrogant, and egotistical in his movies. Brooks displayed chutzpah with wild abandon, and Hoffman was willing to take on unsavory roles where he came across as obsessive, self-centered, and half-crazed.

    And CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS features a fallen Jewish man. Also, Allen had an almost Bergmanesque obsession with Wasps as the Beautiful People whose world he wanted to enter. He found them fascinating. And his depiction of Jews in STARDUST MEMORIES is downright gross at times.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Who can forget his role as Ratso in MIDNIGHT COWBOY?

      I can, and I had, at least till the moment I read this dotty sentence—not that the sentences that follow it are any less dotty.

      Does anyone else get the odd feeling that Andrea’s entire comment channels Rehmat?

      Dr. Connelly, if all who contest your thesis are as lacking in cogency as AOL, you have little need of an attaboy from me or anyone else! Still, it’s a distinct privilege to offer you one.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Andrea Ostrov Letania: “We don’t want to be like Black Studies that sees ‘racism’ everywhere and Women’s Studies that sees ‘patriarchy’ everywhere.”

      This is an important point. However it is probably safe to say that all films coming from Hollywood include some kind of message, even if it is simply to undermine the moral values of the West and to portray whites (and especially Germans) as the main villains of history.

      The reason for the bias and messages of the films is that political types on the left make the films, and such types, unlike ‘the right’ or ‘the neutral’, are incapable of doing or saying anything without their politics dominating everything. They walk around their whole lives with their inner politics at the centre of everything. Most of the rest are not like that, and most people are not political (unlike readers of this blog, who are politically tuned in), which is why the majority cannot see the bias of films and the anti-white-male message slapping them in the face.

      Or, when the slapping gets too obvious, as in adverts which are becoming ludicrously anti-white male, so obvious that they cannot miss it, their response is, as the author says about Hollywood and the Jews, ‘So what?’. This is because these people are non-political and in their thinking are simply not wired to think about these things.

      Then they turn on the TV and get very animated and agitated that their football team just lost. If you said ‘So what?’ to them they would soon have plenty to say. This is where their keenest feelings reside, in sports and not in things that matter.

      There are different types of human, some are political, cunning, deceitful, scheming, some are not. And the ones who are not are presently lapping up the message set by those who are.

      • Alphonsus Jr.
        Alphonsus Jr. says:

        Agreed. Those of us who see man as homo religiosus see both politics and entertainment as substitutes for religion among today’s neopagan heathens.

      • Sam J.
        Sam J. says:

        Andrea Ostrov Letania: “We don’t want to be like Black Studies that sees ‘racism’ everywhere and Women’s Studies that sees ‘patriarchy’ everywhere.”

        Actually that’s exactly what I want. It would be the best way to get rid of the Jews. That a few “proud” people would see us as simplistic to think this way is a cheap price to pay.

  8. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    Andrea Ostrov Letania: “We don’t want to be like Black Studies that sees ‘racism’ everywhere and Women’s Studies that sees ‘patriarchy’ everywhere.”

    Another point on these lines – Harvey Weinstein was until recently a Jew committed to the cause, who was wealthy and powerful, and therefore, and this is very important – therefore able to use his position to help the tribe. In other words, he was the type that they would, if they could, do everything they could to keep him in this position, where he could continue to favour Jewish actors etc, and continue to make films in alignment with the narrative that they want to see. In other words, if they had all the power in Hollywood and the media that many here believe the Jews have, they would have protected him from the allegations and kept one of their key players in his key role where he could continue to be of great influence in helping other Jews in return.

    So we have to conclude that the Jews are not all powerful in Hollywood and the media after all. In fact the left are one level higher and once the left turned on Weinstein as he represented white male power over women, the influence of the Jews in the media and Hollywood was not powerful enough to protect him.

    When Weinstein started promising to be even more anti-Trump than ever, he was appealing to those who are really in charge in the media – the left.

    So the Jews are actually in second place after the left. The left allow them to use anti-semitism as it suits the left’s purpose for us all to be treading on eggshells in the area of race relations, and the left like a legal system and general atmosphere where Thought Crime is treated as a crime.

    The left also allow them to keep the H industry going strong as this too suits their purpose of demonising white races (‘evil Nazis’).

    But when it comes to Israel itself, the left do not permit the Jews to have their message in the MSM.

    When Rhodesia was under white rule (Ian Smith) the MSM constantly attacked the whites, especially in the MSM TV news. The bias against the whites was very intense. 100% in fact on TV.

    Next, after Rhodesia was defeated by the white left, it was white S.Africa’s turn. Once again, the attacks on the whites were intense and unrelenting and the bias was 99.9% (not 100% as I saw one item once which was not anti-white S.Africa on TV).

    And the same 100% bias in the TV media now prevails over Israel. This is because the left see Israel as civilised and therefore are hostile to it, just as they were hostile to white S.Africa and white Rhodesia before that. The left would love to bring about in Israel the same as the left were able to bring about in S.Africa and Rhodesia – the conquering of the civilised by the uncivilised, as the left hate all civilised nations.

    I have never seen a documentary on TV that takes Israel’s side in the current conflict.
    Just as I never saw one that took white S.Africa’s side or white Rhodesia’s side.
    ALL coverage on TV is of the narrative ‘poor oppressed Palestinians want their land back’ and ‘wicked Israelis building more settlements’.

    If the Jews in the MSM and Hollywood are unable to use their influence to make the MSM pro-Israel, this proves that the Jews are not in charge after all, and the left are.

    The Jews could not keep Weinstein in his top slot of influence, and Jews cannot make the British TV make a documentary about the Israel-Palestine land conflict in which they allow the Israelis a fair say. The bias in this respect matches exactly their bias against white S.Africa – the BBC types hate civilised white S.Africans and they hate civilised Israelis. By ‘civilised’, here is an example – a white Westerner critical of Israel can stay in a hotel in Israel without being kidnapped or shot, unlike if a Westerner critical of Palestine went to stay there for a few weeks. (Same applies even if he is a friend of Palestine)

    If the BBC makes a documentary or news item on any one of various issues, we know in advance the line they will take. Eg on Climate Change, they will be 100% biased in favour of AGW, and on the EU they will be on the side of the EU, and on israel/Palestine they will be on the side of Palestine.

    All this proves the Jews are in second place, under the left. The Labour Party just had some internal conflict with some Jews over the Israeli issue – so the left turned down their help, despite knowing how much money and influence these lefty Jews bring with them to help their cause of bringing down the West. They do not want assistance from a group that has the effrontery to be civilised in the region of barbarity that is the ME.

    None of this excuses what the Jews are doing, but it proves that it is the white gentile left who are the top dog in seeking the downfall of the West, not the Jews. Many Jews might be clapping and cheering at our downfall, and doing what they can to facilitate, but they are not all powerful and are not in charge of the downfall process – the white gentile left are. Similarly, the muslims are also clapping and cheering that as weak mice they are currently able to seemingly be able to conquer the lion (the West) with ease as they swarm over, and they assume that Allah must be helping them, when in fact it is the white gentile left who are in charge of our submission (with help from hostile Jews).

    • Alphonsus Jr.
      Alphonsus Jr. says:

      Jews are quite willing to sacrifice their own. Swinestein became too much of a liability and thus had to be sacrificed. He’ll be easily replaced.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      @Pterodactyl, you claim that “Jews are not powerful in Hollywood and the media” because Weinstein was thrown to the wolves. As I said in an earlier comment, Weinstein is a small fish, the scum that rises to the top. The scum is scooped off but the excrement in the pot keeps simmering, creating more scum that is easily scooped away. If you have ever made soup you will grasp this. You go on to claim that “It proves that it is the white gentile who is the top dog in seeking the downfall of the West, not the Jews.” Have you read nothing? Know nothing of history? Of Dr. Macdonalds trilogy? Are you exhibiting ignorance or artifice?

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Perhaps it’s a mite early for so firm a diagnosis, Karen, but you’ve certainly done a good job logging the symptoms. He has been pushing the “Jews aren’t ultimately the biggest problem” quite a lot of late, hasn’t he? Saying “blame the goyishe Left!” over and over again hardly signals an awareness of how little separates that mob from the soi-disant Establishment Right—or more to the point, in contemporary politics distinguishing who precisely is horse and who is rider.

          Sadly, he is not alone hereabouts in stubbornly refusing to pay heed to who the men behind the curtain are.

          • pterodactyl
            pterodactyl says:

            Karen – Weinstein was not a small fish, he was a large and influential one, and one that they would have liked to keep in that position of influence if they could have done.

            Alphonsus Jr “Sweinstein became too much of a liability and thus had to be sacrificed.” Agreed, but it was like them losing a knight or a bishop in chess as opposed to a pawn, and sometimes in chess knights do have to be sacrificed.

            Pierre de Craon: is correct in assessing that my view is that the enemy-within Left (those genetically wired to hate better people and civilised nations) from within the white Gentile populations are in fact the main problem for the West, and it is they who stand behind the curtain, allowing organised Jewry to stand next to them and help them, and the Jews are watching with amazement as we commit suicide – and then organised Jewry contributes to facilitate and assist the suicide, due to some inner hostility that they are wired with – or cursed with, as in the long run this hostility is against their own interests today, although it might have helped them in a prehistoric desert environment in the past. ‘Against their own interests’ throughout history as in the end it resulted in the people of the nations they lived in turning on them. So it is a curse more than a ‘evolution strategy’ and as such it will all end worse for them if they help the Left kill their host that is currently providing them with wealth, security and listens submissively to their version of history (the H).

            So in this view I do differ in my views from some readers here, in that many think the suicide of the West might stop if the Jews left, but in my view it would carry on pretty much the same, except with some key players missing. But I have never hidden this view, and it does not stop me contributing to the debate, although it puts me perhaps more in the category of ‘contributing visitor’ than ‘full member’. My only motive is to work out why the West seems determined to commit suicide and become third world, when it is very clear that it is against self-interest. And why those most keen for this to happen are the young – who will inherit this scenario. It is actually surprising how few people think about this, and instead, other subjects, such as sport, are much more important to them.

            Kevin MacDonald’s theories about individualism and group behaviour actually explain what is happening, and such explanations still apply whether or not there is an ADDITIONAL hostile tribe (or tribes if you add the muslims) ADDING to our woes but not the main source of them. At the same time I do not deny that a hostile tribe can certainly cause massive damage, but they can only do so whilst there is a culture of self-hate going strong, and they can only cause trouble when ‘permitted’ to in the same way the emperor ‘permitted’ the Jews to cause trouble for Agobard.

            As for the power of the Jews, and their relationship with the host, this is demonstrated in Andrew Joyce’s next article. The emperor COULD HAVE helped his people and sided with Agobard but CHOSE not to and the reason was that he was guided not by principles or loyalty to his people, but by SELFISHLY working out that his own short term interest was better served by switching loyalty to the enemy within at the time who would in return favour him in his political position (in the same way the police in the West are now switching loyalties to the Left, instead of their people). In the same way the rich and powerful whites in S.Africa are giving their loyalty to the black ruling tribe, in order to maintain their own short term financial interests. They have the means to flee when it all kicks off, as their wealth can easily be moved around, and they will readily leave behind the poorer whites who cannot flee.

            So the emperor (the elite) PERMITTED the hostile Jews to carry on. They could cause him trouble, but he still had the option to take them on, and all that was stopping him was that HE HAD NO PRINCIPLES and not that he lacked the power. It is the difference between being blackmailed and being attacked by a stronger force. The blackmail can be stopped at any time, as the blackmailed person is still in charge of what happens next, whereas the attacked person is not. We in the West are still fully in charge of the course we are taking, and just because some Jews tell us to open our borders we do not have to obey them. The people could vote to end and then reverse all the nonsense if they CHOSE to, but they chose not to.

            Therefore the Jews were not top dog over the emperor (even though they got what they wanted by their scheming and networking and plotting and lack of moral values) – the emperor was, and they are not top dog today, as coverage of Israel in the MSM proves.

            Seeing Jews as the main ones behind the curtain leads some to regard ‘white people’ as a group that could potentially unify behind a culture of self-interest, and in my view this is incorrect, as I do not believe they will ever unify; it is a case of one sub group being dominant or another. Western populations consist of sub groups and the left are a sub group that will never unify. Look at Germany after the War until the present day, where the lefty sub group has positively rejoiced at their opportunity to call their own advanced and superior nation ‘evil whites’ for the last 70 years, and now have reached the stage where they have persuaded the German people to vote for mass third world immigration as a penance for the ‘crime’ of being superior. It takes more than Jewish power to arrive at a situation where a teacher can face possible prosecution merely for accidentally shouting ‘Seig Heil’ during a school race.


            Some readers see this as a manifestation of Jewish power, but in my view it is a manifestation of Left power.

            The left sub group from within the whites will never unify as they are programmed in their genes to have hostilty to that which is better (which in modern times means the West itself). Natural selection did not cause all humans in an isolated population to be the same although it does have this effect with wild dog populations, where no dog has a big store of meat that the others could take. With humans there are makers and takers – two different behavioural strategies, and both valid, and a natural equilibrium between them is established. The maker is the farmer who toils away and has a store of food. The taker is the one who sits around and plots and schemes instead of toiling himself, and he is plotting how to take the grain of the other. Part of his psyche is to have hostility to the farmer who has more, and today this is manifest in the left as a hatred of those who have more – white people, and today this feeling has its perverted form of feeling hostile to the entire West for being better and having more.

            So the left are acting on their animal behaviour genes, and this is leading to the downfall of the West. An equilibrium in prehistoric times was set up within the white population between makers and takers within the species, (which can be compared to a host/parasite relationship between two species). Modern Western society has altered the factors about who gets wealth and power, and it has allowed the parasites, the takers, the left, ie the haters of the better, to gain the upper hand and set the culture.

            This process would still have happened without any Jews. The Jews have their own behavioural programming as we see, and which manifests in all the things that K MacDonald documents in his books, and this causes them to have an inner hostility which leads them to clap and cheer (and help) when the left bring down their own societies.

            In the same way, the West could sort out immigration problems caused to a large extent by organised Jewry, who influence immigration laws, but the West CHOOSES not to. It is not as if we are weak and being invaded by a strong army from the third world. Quite the opposite, the invaders are weak and we are strong. ie We, the West, do have the choice and the Jews are NOT our masters, and can only cause trouble when the current elite (put there by the voters who can see the open borders for themselves) allows them to. The people of France COULD have voted Le Penn, but CHOSE not to. The people of Germany CHOSE Merkel, she was not forced on them. The people of Britain CHOSE never to put Farage in parliament, and no-once forced them to vote for their own demise. The white working class people of Gorton Manchester just recently joined the muslims to vote for the Labour candidate Mohammed Khan a few weeks after the Manchester bomb, and so these whites CHOSE to vote against self-interest, and nothing to do with the Jews forcing them to do so. This type of behaviour needs explaining and blaming the Jews is not sufficient.

            In the same way, if a new culture of self-interest emerges in the West, the Jews would find their malevolent efforts to increase third world immigration were soon thwarted. In other words, they do not have the power to impose this immigration on us in the role of master, they do it because our lefty white gentiles allow them to.

      • mari
        mari says:

        Karen, if you keep skimming and scooping eventually all the scum will be scooped away.

        Old French saying. Society is like stew. The scum rises to the top. The dregs fall to the bottom. And in between are the good nutritious meat and vegetables.

      • Sam J.
        Sam J. says:

        “… if they had all the power in Hollywood and the media that many here believe the Jews have, they would have protected him from the allegations…”

        “…So we have to conclude that the Jews are not all powerful in Hollywood and the media after all…”

        Maybe you’re completely misreading the situation. Maybe they feel so entrenched in their power that they fell they can fight among themselves with no ultimate loss to the Jews as a whole.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Sam, for instance, The Law Society of Upper Canada [ our Ontario lawyers’ union ] go after lawyer Joe Blow in Podunksville, Ontario, in order to demonstrate to an unsophisticated public their adherence to the Province’s legislated mandate to REGULATE THAT PROFESSION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

          High-profile, well-connected lawyers are rendered immune; as I can personally attest after a matter I was obliged to pursue all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada: having been stymied by protectionist racketeering on three preceding court levels.


          As powerful and habitually mendacious as they are, they had no choice. A suddenly, ad hoc, conveniently rediscovered morality is well on the other side of absurd. A “”” recharacterization “”” of the facts.

          [ A to me new lawyer term I learned in last Monday’s Toronto Star’s detailed four-page reporting on the Paradise Papers and their connection to our Federal Government’s leadership. More of {{{that}}} later ].

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      I think you’re naive. How many BBC ‘documentaries’ have examined 9/11, the holohoax, Balfour and WW1, Churchill’s war crimes, the Fed, the Gulags, the Holodomor, Jews and minerals about the time of the Boer War, profiteering from fake ‘asylum seekers’, Kissinger on Vietnam, the EU and Jewish money, Japan’s funded war against Tsarist Russia, Cromwell and the Bank of England, Lenin and mass murder, Jewish porn, lies about immigrant crime, prostitution in Tel Aviv? (Or for that matter nuke frauds?) Absolutely none.
      . . . . You give just one example, namely the Palestinians, and what you say is true, and needs explaining. But the ‘left’ is a puppet of Jews and would vanish instantly if not handed out money from taxes and from Jewish money printing.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Rerevisionist – as you say above ‘what you say…needs explaining’
        You need explanations that explain everything and not just some things.

        Karen T – that is not an argument, saying anyone who brings up valid points that need addressing must be ‘on the other side’. It would be more helpful to the discussion if you explained why the Israelis get this unfavourable TV coverage.

        Alphonsus – I accept what you say, it is pros and cons, and even the powerful do not take on battles when it is not worth it.

        Here is another example to add to Rerevisionist’s list – if a professional person says anything that can be construed as criticism of the Jews, it is called anti-semitism and his career can be damaged.

        Eg the sacking of journalist Kevin Myers for saying comments that no reasonable person would consider to be anti-semitic:
        “Frank Fitzgibbon, editor of the Sunday Times Ireland, said the column contained views that have caused considerable distress and upset to a number of people. ‘As the editor of the Ireland edition, I take full responsibility for this error of judgment. ‘This newspaper abhors anti-Semitism and did not intend to cause offence to Jewish people.'”

        Note the way the powerful MSM editor sees the need to make a grovelling apology.

        No-one is disputing this situation about the way we are not allowed to criticise Jews.

        This shows that SOMEONE has power to stop critisism of Jews (although K Myers did not even criticise them) – either the Left or Jews or both. The fact that you cannot criticise Islam either, even as they set off their bombs in our midst, suggests that it is not just Jews who enjoy this special protection, and so this suggests the origin of the protection is not the Jews on their own, and more likely the Left. Meanwhile, English whites are critisised every day and no-one ever apologises to them. You will never see the comment from an editor ‘did not intend to cause offence to English people’. This proves that ALL groups hostile to the West, and not just the Jews, have full protection from the law from us criticising them, in response to their racism to us.

        And there is no need to mention the H industry here in detail to prove that anyone who deviates from the narrative can go to prison in many European countries. And when Germar Rudolf was in court for H revisionism, HE WAS NOT ALLOWED DEFENCE WITNESSES as the very fact that these witnesses would be denying the H would be ‘breaking the law’. So SOMEONE is in charge of protecting the H industry to such an extent that in court NO DEFENCE IS ALLOWED. To have the power to prevent someone defending themselves in court – (even the animals in the ‘Animal Farm’ parody were allowed a defence) – this shows that whoever controls the authorities can even order the courts to stop allowing a defence. This is certainly a great deal of power for ‘someone’ to wield, whoever that ‘someone’ is. But the fact that the ‘someone’ is also protecting Islam suggests the ‘someone’ is not the Jews, although clearly organised Jewry are doing their best to help and support that ‘someone’. But the ‘someone’ is not grateful enough to them that it allows them to give positive media coverage to Israel. But then the left never were ‘grateful’ and no-one is surprised when they turn on one of their own.

        You have to explain everything we observe in relation to the suicide of the West, and saying the Jews are all powerful does not explain everything, as it fails to explain why they are unable to get favourable media coverage on Israel/Palestine.

        But although the left turn against the Jews regarding Palestine, the left will never turn against them regarding the H, and fully support them here, as the H industry also suits the left’s aims of demonising the white nations.

        If we say ‘Jews control everything’ then the following are the outcome:

        (a) people will stop listening to us and dismiss everything else we say, including H revisionism

        (b) we will have the false notion that whites are some tribe persecuted from outside, that could in the end ‘see the light’ and then stop the self destruction that is only from ‘guilt’ ie not seeing clearly, and if these lefties who are taking us on the path to suicide realised what they were doing and how bad it was for the world, they would immediately stop.

        This is the false notion that results from blaming the Jews for everything. Those who set the culture of white self-hate, these do not hate their own because they (the originators of the self-hate culture – the university lecturers) are deceived or guilty or misled (although their followers might be these things – their students), the originators of white self-hate culture hate their own because their lefty genes make them hate anything better. So their motive is hate not guilt and they will still hate their own even if there are zero Jews in the West to join in with their hate and to finance it and to make films to encourage it. So blaming Jews for everything hinders us from identifying the white left as a genuine enemy, and not just a gullible one that can be converted back to self-interest. (Every lefty is not a true lefty of course, and when referring to ‘the hate’ on the left I refer to genuine lefties and not guilty, gullible people who have absorbed their message).

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        I just watched the new film ‘Murder on the Orient Express’. Completely packed with messages, where the man disguised as an Austrian is very racist about a black doctor on the train (unusual for the 1930s, but the younger audience today might not realise this), and gets a telling off from a white heroine who is later complimented by Poirot for her ‘clear thinking’. As part of the telling off delivered to the racist German, she mixes white wine and red wine defiantly in front of the racist German and drinks the mixture to show that she approves of race mixing. She is planning to secretly marry the black man, and Poirot realises this and reassures her that there will be no condemnation of this on the train, unlike in the US. Later, the German reveals that it was all a disguise and he apologises for the racist remarks that he made whilst in disguise as a white Austrian. So they even manage to insert a German confession and apology in the film. The only thing they did not mention was the H (although they had an innocent iman, innocent rabbi, and innocent priest (even they were obliged to include him), all lined up against the wall and falsely accused by a very white bullying English policeman at the start. (They mentioned Jews again later specifically but I missed what they said).

        The point about the messages in the film is that the older audience must be fully aware of these messages slapping them in the face (the younger audience might not notice as they are told at school that Europe has always been fully multiracial, and that only white people are racist). So the messages are no longer subtle as in ‘The Graduate’ described above, and are more of a blatant and undisguised declaration of the new culture, messages that are being waved in front of us in triumph in a confident manner in the knowledge that anyone who says anything will be condemned by those who set or follow the current anti-white culture.

        The decent white patriotic people know that there are kindly, wise, handsome, intelligent, honourable etc etc black doctor types as depicted in the film, without a speck of racism in them – I do not deny this (apart from the last item on the list) – but they also know that if you invite over Africa to live with you in white countries, that in addition to inviting over wise, handsome, intelligent, honourable etc etc black doctor types, you are also inviting over TROUBLE and civil strife, and crime and drugs, and we have reached the stage where we cannot say anything about it as the culture does not allow it. Therefore, no reviews of the film will dare mention that there were not many black English doctors at the time. We all know it (apart from the younger audience) but cannot say it. The same reviewers who would readily comment if a black person had been ‘dissed’ in a film. So we can see the anti-white culture becoming bolder and the whites becoming so cowed under it that no reviewer will dare make reference to the obvious messages.

        Note that they could have just inserted a token black character without all the extra stuff about mixing the drinks to demonstrate race mixing, and without the racist remarks from someone disguised as a German, followed by the apology. So they could have just put a token black in a doctor role without having to rub it in our faces. But they chose not to, and they CHOSE to add the blatant messages about how racist whites are (except for Poirot and those like him who are on-message). By doing all the extra stuff, the elite who set our culture are marking ownership of the territory. It is like a dog peeing in another dog’s garden to mark that its territory now goes right into the other dog’s garden, and it knows the other dog will not object to the provocation, as it knows who is master. And the irony is that the dog peeing in the other’s garden is a little tiny dog, and the dog trembling inside the house is a massive Rottweiler.

        • Up from the rabbit hole
          Up from the rabbit hole says:

          All is not lost. Intelligent people know when they’re being played. When the enemy no longer has to be subtle he reveals himself to the most obtuse person.

          • pterodactyl
            pterodactyl says:

            Up from the rabbit hole – I hope so. I forgot to mention that the white villain at the start was trying to plunder treasures from the third world. And the rabbi was meanwhile trembling against the wall as one of those being falsely accused of the crime (along with the iman and priest) by the white colonialist, and portrayed as a victim of a powerful white man who clearly had lots of ‘white privilege’.

            All this was far less subtle than the messages in ‘The Graduate’ that I had never noticed before. As you say, surely people must be waking up to this.

            I cannot remember the next bit properly so it might not be accurate but I think they even got Poirot to tell us that the rabbi was dedicated to helping the poor and needy. But as I say this part might not be accurate as I arrived late for the film and did not properly catch the start.

            As you say, the enemy is revealing himself more openly, and this is a bad tactic on their part. It was more frustrating in the past when they were more subtle and few could see the narrative, and did not listen to those who said anything. Now the narrative is completely out in the open and we can all see it, so that aspect of frustration that their plans for us were hidden has gone.

  9. Lou
    Lou says:

    I went to {{{youtube-jootube}}} and suffered a moment of ‘THE GRADUATE.’

    I wondered about DH height. Search said 5’5″. A joke. Nepotism got him to where he got to.
    The 5’5″ superstar.
    I did see ‘Kramer v Kramer’ in 1980. He got an Oscar for that piece of junk.

  10. Lou
    Lou says:

    Clooneys latest is the worst $ loser for ((( ))) in a long time.
    Suburitron or some such. 2 million dollars in its first days.

    • Rehmat
      Rehmat says:

      Criticism of anything associated with George Soro is anti-Semitism in the US, Canada and most of Europe.

      Canada’s foreign minister, Ukrainian-born Chrystia Freeland was hired to author Soro’s biography before joining Justin Trudeau government.

      Freeland has voiced on several occasions her government’s priority of Israel’s security. She supports the so-called two-state solution to the Jewish occupation of Palestine – but condemns BDS.

    • Bobby
      Bobby says:

      It’s funny, but I’ve always considered that relatively little known movie to be one that outlined Burt Lancaster’s talent more sharply than any other film he acted in.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Just so, Bobby. Whatever one makes of the script and the direction, Lancaster’s work was brilliant, not least in its effective pairing of the actor’s brains and brawn. The Leopard was another triumph for him, albeit of a rather different sort.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      An interesting perspective. You may well be on to something here.

      I recall the original John Cheever story as being masterly.

  11. Les
    Les says:

    The Day of the Locust by Nathanael West was made into a 1975 film. It doesn’t specifically show Jews running the place but it delves into the sleazy, domineering, ruthless and mentally unbalanced people who were part of Hollywood in the 1930s.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Nathanael West, author of Day of the Locusts, was born Nathanael Weinstein. The main character, the hapless goy Homer Simpson later became famous as the t.v. cartoon character Homer Simpson and the goyim bought into it…Homer Simpson coffee mugs, blankets, t-shirts. It’s as though they communicate in code and we don’t get it.

      • Dave Bowman
        Dave Bowman says:

        I understand your frustration over the “code”, Karen – and I am sure you are quite correct. But unfortunately and depressingly, I have to assure you as an educated Englishman that, in my view, not one White British person in ten thousand today – probably not one in a hundred thousand – has ever heard of Nathaniel West/Weinstein, let alone actually read Day of the Locusts – and certainly has not the slightest idea that Homer Simpson was ever anything other than the creation of a cartoonist. These are some of the inevitable fruits of 50+ years of sabotaged, degraded, dumbed-down, ever-diminishing formal “education” in the western world since the counter-cultural revolution of the 60’s – which of course was almost entirely due to the influence of Jewry and cultural marxism, in the weakening and corruption of every aspect of our society – education included.

        So Yes, in that sense, I’m afraid the truth is, British people for sure – I suspect most European and American people also – simply DON’T get the “code”. Not at all, ever. At this time, I would suggest that you yourself may have something quite significant to offer, as you seem to have understood the “code” very early – and somehow also been immune to it’s poison. That bears examination, as it may well assist many, many others if you could only find a way to distribute that knowledge and open other people’s eyes.

        • Up from the rabbit hole
          Up from the rabbit hole says:

          Interestingly enough, and please don’t take offense, young, educated Englishman were willing if unwitting participants in their demise. The countercultural revolution wouldn’t have taken place without the free love movement and the legalization of abortion. Two things the Oxbridge crowd enthusiastically embraced.

          • Dave Bowman
            Dave Bowman says:

            I never take offence, except where it is meant – ie from the tribe.

            I don’t think you’re right, actually – and not just because as an Oxford man myself I still have some loyalty to the age gone by.

            The fact is, that as long ago as the early 60’s it was well known by the British press that places like the London School of Economics (LSE) and the University of East Anglia in eastern England (UEA), as well as many others, had become the favoured lairs of an entire generation of dishevelled, corduroy-wearing, bearded Trotskyist/Marxist “intellectuals” and Lecturers, whose disgraceful tenures allowed them the freedom to spend more time on political brainwashing and agitation than on the accurate and meaningful education of their students. The LSE in particular was famously labelled a “hotbed of Communism” by a leaked MI5 report gleefully retailed by Fleet Street tabloids in about 1974. Most of these Communist Party activists – quite apart, of course, from their obvious anti-White (((ethnic))) origins and sympathies in many cases – were not only “known” to the security services, but routinely monitored, bugged and occasionally questioned by them – at least for a while, until with funding and support from (((higher places))) they began to challenge their MI5 attention through the courts.

            But the point is, that not one of these traitorous, drunken, anti-British, free-love peddling, drug-addled, anti-White cultural marxists actually got any kind of traction in either Oxford or Cambridge Universities before about 1978 – until the advent to Oxford, on a trumped-up college Fellowship, of the smug, subversive, bloviating, tirelessly self-promoting and laughably one-sided Manchester Communist, Terry Eagleton. Even so, for many more years he remained the rare openly Socialist exception to the staunchly-Conservative Oxford/Cambridge institutional rule. The British University system actually began to fall apart in London and the northern inner cities long before the rot set in at Oxford or Cambridge. Certainly “free love” and legal abortion both played an enormous part in the destruction, but they took very much longer to register at Ox/bridge. I think we all know by now who to blame.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            DAVE BOWMAN : One’s culture and its interests can be harmed in any number of ways. Free-love, just as an example, had less impact on the present world than those around Ruskin at Balliol, Oxford. Later Rhodes, Milner, Rothschild, Balfour, et al.; 40 or 50 years before your cited 1978: or do you not have year-books at Oxbridge ?

            Is it correct, that your alumni Balfour, Lord Grey and Rothschild founded the Round Table organization, overseen by a Circle of Initiates, itself headed by Grey, Rhodes and Steede, which morphed into the Commonwealth-wide Institutes for the Study of International Relations and the Council on Foreign Relations in NYC ? [ Its U of Toronto branch having been harmlessly renamed Munk Centre ].

            Given that this year is the Centenary of the Balfour Declaration, nationally celebrated by that May woman, it may be well to remember that allegedly Balfour wrote the draft of his Declaration on a serviette while boozing with his classmate Rothschild, who handed it off to Weitzman.
            Whether they may have had free love with their bar-maid appears immaterial.

            And what of the Cambridge Five, all purportedly working for MI 5 or 6, but in reality for Soviet Military Intelligence. That good ‘ole Cambridge boy Kim Philby was the Soviet Intelligence ‘resident’ for the entire neutral Iberian Peninsula, domiciled in Barcelona, with access to Lisbon; that war’s version of West-Berlin.

            Do you see any connection between his coincidental presence at the residence of the British High Commissioner for Gibraltar, when the latter hosted the Head of the Polish Government in Exile, General Sikorski for dinner on his one night stop-over from Cairo to London, after searching for his missing officers in the ME ?

            As you know, the inconveniently too inquisitive Sikorski angered Churchill and Stalin by repeatedly enquiring of Stalin about his thousands of missing former Polish army officers.

            Sikorski drowned in his RAF-supplied Wellington bomber shortly after take off from the Gibraltar airport heading into the Mediterranean. Only one person, a pilot of the crew survived; unburdening the London-Moscow nexus. Again, irrelevant whether Sikorski’s chamber-maid smiled at him appreciatively while serving his last breakfast.

            Neither Churchill nor Stalin would have mourned Sikorski’s death and one or both almost certainly ordered it: posited by the play The Deputy.

            Even I could have tampered with merely one carburetor of the plane’s two engines, its conveniently accessible fuel pumps, or its full fuel load, lending them just enough life for an engine test, taxiing and full throttle take off before crashing without having first gained sufficient height to turn around. [ Sullenburger on the Hudson ].

            Don’t misinterpret any of my comments. I harbor a great affinity for the common folk of the Isles, having visited often for protracted periods, but despise the political component of their almost habitually traitorous Elite.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Most interesting, Karen! Thank you for this information.

        My encounter with West’s novel—the Day in its title refers to just a single Locust, by the way—came in the course of two or three afternoons of reading more than fifty years ago now. As I recall nothing about the book except my reaction to it—that it was absurdly overrated—the fact that anyone not dependent upon the Tribe for his livelihood could think it was a big deal strikes me as pretty stupefying. Of course, I’ve never seen the point of light beer or cell phones either.

        Also, as I’ve never seen even a single episode of The Simpsons, ending this comment here might be the savviest course of action.

  12. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    Watched a film once, don’t care to remember where or when, only up to the scene wherein a person shoots another person in the face: point blank; four times.

    The subsequent angle concentrates on the face, showing blood squirt out of all four bullet holes IN THE RHYTM OF THE DYING MAN’S HEARTBEAT, UNTIL CARDIAC ARREST.

    Further comment superfluous.

  13. TGD
    TGD says:

    Suggest that Dr. Connolly use his considerable talents to analyze a Hollywood offering of more recent vintage, “The Social Network.” This film pulls no punches in portraying the sharp and aggressive business and social practices of Jews, now in the 4th and 5th generations since emigrating to the USA.

  14. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    Unsurprisingly Haaretz published today, that Weinstein retained the Israeli firm Black Box. [ Which cheerful image conjures visions of a coffin ].

    Black Box advertises itself as an intelligence gathering firm with worldwide reach, also working with international law firms, WITHIN THE HIGHEST LEGAL AND MORAL GUIDELINES, which might include Appleby.

    Its staff is drawn primarily from experienced members of elite Israeli intelligence units and Mossad.

    Their duties performed for Weinstein: Dig up dirt on his accusers and quash media stories. With the help of bogus impersonators contacting the victims posing as activists, reporter assistants, etc.

    In other words reflecting Hollywood-shtettel-life as usual.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Correction – but also a bonus. This fine firm is named Black Cube not Black Box. Haaretz: The contract signed by Weinstein [ with this magic Cube ] in July, specifically calls for the prevention of New York Times and The Newyorker reporting.

Comments are closed.