Vulture Capitalism, Jews — and Hollywood, Part 1

August 1996 Cover of Moment Magazine

Just before Christmas, TOO contributor Andrew Joyce came out with a very courageous and informative account of the damage various Jews have done through their activities at the upper end of the Western economic system in an area often labeled “vulture capitalism.” I will build on Joyce’s insights in this essay with a simple goal in mind: To further expose Jewish practices that enrich them while causing great harm to a huge number of non-Jews. I will do this by repeating many things I have written about already on this site, some of which are now over a dozen years old, which is ancient by Internet standards. Hopefully, my analysis will enlighten new readers or those just catching on to the Jewish Question. Most hopefully, my examples will allow TOO readers to spread this message to the masses of non-Jews thus far ignorant of the grave threats in our midst. And I will do this through the painless way of using Hollywood hit films to show how Jews hide their economic malfeasance right in plain sight.

After all, what can be plainer than Hollywood blockbusters starring the likes of George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Leonardo DiCaprio, John Travolta, Brad Pitt, Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth, Jeremy Irons, Kevin Spacey, Danny DeVito, Gregory Peck, Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale and Steve Carell? All of these stars have been pawns brought in to conceal the facts about massive Jewish involvement in Wall Street finance — including immense malfeasance and endless instances of shady practices. Not only does Hollywood conceal these facts, it also projects them onto innocent Whites. And the tactic appears to work, which is why we TOO writers can never rest.

Joyce in his article aims to describe the “scavenging and parasitic nature” of these Jewish practices, labeling them “vulture funds” practicing “vulture capitalism,” thus explaining the essay’s title and use of a photo of a vulture:

Vulture Capitalism is Jewish Capitalism (December 18, 2019)

As good as Joyce’s metaphor is, however, there is a competing one: the vampire sucking the lifeblood out of all it touches. Recall that course on Marxism you may have taken in the 1970s or 80s, where Marx wrote in Volume I, Ch. 10 of Capital that “Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.”

Vampire Squid

That apt quote was updated for modern sensibilities when Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi gave us this priceless quip in “The Great American Bubble Machine,” his essay on the 2008 market meltdown,

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. 

Damn, I love that quote.

It’s justified, too, just like Joyce’s use of the term “vulture capitalism.” See how Joyce does not mince words here:

That’s because it’s Jewish enterprise — exploitative, inorganic, and attached to socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property. This might not be the free enterprise [Tucker] Carlson learned about, but it’s clearly the free enterprise Jews learn about — as illustrated in their extraordinary over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.


This issue of Jewish economic power mixed with morally questionable practices in gaining immense wealth has been an enduring theme I’ve written about for TOO, so I will use the present essay to resurrect some of my older writing likely long since forgotten. While I will add to the valuable information Joyce shared with us last December, as well as the follow-up article by “John Q. Publius” called Hedging their Bets (Who Really Decides Elections), where he notes that “Jewish hedge fund managers and plutocrats decide under what guise the neo-liberal machine will continue to operate, for it is in fact all window dressing,” my primary contribution will be to show how Jews in Hollywood create a deceitful medley of films that prevents the mass of goyim from ever connecting Jews to financial manipulation and theft.

In short, I aim to answer part of the question posed in the purple cover story posted above following the main title “Jews Run Hollywood.” The question I will work on is “So What?” The short answer is that in fact it matters a lot that Jews run Hollywood, from promoting diversity and holocaust guilt—subjects for another time, to erecting a mask that hides Jewish involvement in financial crime. Our task is to get behind the mask.

The Money Films

Wall Street. Although I haven’t reviewed it previously, I’ll start with Oliver Stone’s 1987 Wall Street, where (half-Jewish) director Stone was at pains to avoid portraying any of the leading characters as Jewish, despite the fact that the 1980s were famous for the rise of Jewish financiers on both sides of legality — Boesky, Milken, et al. The first book to read on this subject is Connie Bruck’s The Predators’ Ball: The Inside Story of Drexel Burnham and the Rise of the Junk Bond Traders. The book is a convincing account of Jewish financial mischief — that it is pervasive and has a massively negative effect on the greater non-Jewish world.

An even better book is James B. Stewart’s Den of Thieves, in which Stewart chronicles the misdeeds of Ivan Boesky, Martin Siegel, Dennis Levine (who wrote his own book, Inside Out: The Dennis Levine Story), and most of all, Michael Milken, the mastermind behind it all. Simply by describing all the Jews involved, Stewart makes it clear that it was a cabal of Jews that pillaged and destroyed some of the most well-known corporations in America at the time by inventing and peddling “junk bonds” as an “advance in capitalism” which enabled hostile takeovers of corporations while typically saddling them with huge debt and enriching themselves. A must-have book. (Intriguingly, the obituary of Stewart’s mother notes that her son James’ “spouse” is one Benjamin Weil, who is Jewish.)

Predictably, Den of Thieves was attacked as “anti-Semitic.” Jewish activist Alan Dershowitz called Den of Thieves an “anti-Semitic screed” and attacked a review by Michael M. Thomas in the New York Times Book Review because of his “gratuitous descriptions by religious stereotypes.”  Thomas’s review contained the following passage:

James B. Stewart . . . charts the way through a virtual solar system of peculation, past planets large and small, from a metaphorical Mercury representing the penny-ante takings of Dennis B. Levine’s small fry, past the middling ($10 million in inside-trading profits) Mars of Mr. Levine himself, along the multiple rings of Saturn — Ivan F. Boesky, his confederate Martin A. Siegel of Kidder, Peabody, and Mr. Siegel’s confederate Robert Freeman of Goldman, Sachs — and finally back to great Jupiter: Michael R. Milken, the greedy billion-dollar junk-bond kingdom in which some of the nation’s greatest names in industry and finance would find themselves entrapped and corrupted.

Thomas was attacked as an anti-Semite simply for mentioning so many Jewish names all in one paragraph. His defense was to note that “If I point out that nine out of 10 people involved in street crimes are black, that’s an interesting sociological observation. If I point out that nine out of 10 people involved in securities indictments are Jewish, that is an anti-Semitic slur. I cannot sort out the difference.”

Other People’s Money. While not the first film I parsed regarding Jews and money, Other People’s Money, released in 1991, follows most closely the famous 1987 film Wall Street. The former film stars Gregory Peck in his last major performance, pitted against Danny DeVito as the peripatetic Wall Street takeover artist Lawrence Garfield. As I showed in my review, the movie is fully cleansed of Jewish identity, instead giving us the diminutive Italian-American DeVito outsmarting the more WASPy figure played by Peck.

Remarkably, this thirty-year-old film represents the exact same topic that Andrew Joyce started with in his Vulture Capitalism essay where he cited a recent Tucker Carlson segment called “Hedge Funds Are Destroying Rural America.” Joyce’s link to this segment describes it:

Tucker Carlson is perhaps the only major media figure in America willing to attack across party lines to make his point. On Tuesday night he went after Republican mega-donor Paul Singer in a withering 10-minute special segment on how Singer destroyed a small town in Nebraska in a hostile takeover of the sporting goods retailer Cabela’s.

Now watch the opening of Other People’s Money, with DeVito’s stark “I Love Money” soliloquy.  Which ethnic stereotype does that fit?  (Hint: think of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, whose main character’s name starts with “Sh” and rhymes with “High Rock.”)

The genesis of Other People’s Money is important, for it began as a play of the same name by Bronx-born Jerry Sterner. The original play’s protagonist, “a Jewish corporate takeover artist, was named Larry Garfinkle, not Garfield.” And stage actor Kevin Conway played him as a very Jewish character, to the point that “some critics and audiences … found Conway’s performance to be larger-than-life — uncomfortably so. Some reviewers called Conway’s Garfinkle a Wall Street Jackie Mason — a performance more akin to stand-up comedy than straight theater, one that emphasized the character’s ethnicity and loaded Sterner’s play with potentially anti-Semitic ‘Merchant of Venice’ overtones.”

Sterner worried about this, as he related in an interview with the New York Times, saying “I did not want the play to become controversial about what it is not about. It’s not about Garfinkle’s being Jewish, it’s about his doing good or not.” Because of his discomfort with Conway’s portrayal of the explicitly Jewish Garfinkle, Sterner added a “cautionary postscript” to the play’s published text: “The character of Garfinkle can be played in many ways. The one way he should not be played is overly, coarsely, ‘ethnic.’”

Even with this controversy, when the play moved to Hollywood, the script retained the name Larry Garfinkle, but it was crossed out and changed to “Garfield.” Director Normal Jewison (by most sources, not Jewish) admitted that he changed it.  “It’s not important that Larry Garfinkle is Jewish. Boone Pickens isn’t Jewish. Jimmy Goldsmith is, as are nine out of the 12 top corporate raiders in America, but there are three others that aren’t. What does it matter, anyway? This isn’t about religion.”

Yeah, what does it matter? (Sigh)

In short, here’s the message: Jorgenson (played by Peck) and his family are the old America, captured nicely in a touching recreation of Norman Rockwell’s Thanksgiving Day feast. But the sad reality is that Jorgenson loses his factory, the workers are thrown out of work, and the man who loves money has won. Clearly, the impression is that White America has become a very different place, a place led by those like Larry Garfield — or Paul Singer, as in Tucker Carlson’s updated account from small-town Nebraska.

The Taking of Pelham 123. Jump ahead to the year 2009 and we find a remake of The Taking of Pelham 123, featuring the “Always-Better-Than-Whites” Denzel Washington up against John Travolta as a Wall Street mastermind who has first committed massive fraud, then gone insane.

In this version, Travolta’s character is a New York ethnic Catholic very prone to guilt. He was also a high-rolling Wall Streeter who skimmed millions of dollars until he was caught and sent to prison. Upon his release, he concocts a scheme to make a killing on stocks when he induces panic in the city with a subway hijacking. Return to James Stewart’s account of the 1980s savings and loan swindles in Den of Thieves and you’ll find out that the thieves were ethnic New Yorkers all right, but they sure weren’t Catholic. Clearly, this deceit is part of a concerted media effort to blame others for Jewish (mega) misdeeds.

Just to crosspollinate, the Tribe that year called on Israel-born Hanna Rosin to fill out a cover story for the December 2009 Atlantic Monthly. Coming a year after mind-boggling economic swindles and bailouts that used up a significant portion of the universe’s zeroes, who gets blamed? Christians. Now that’s why Jews are so often credited with chutzpah.

Margin Call. Two years later, we come to the film Margin Call, starring Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons. J.C. Chandor’s 2011 film tells a story that loosely mirrors the fall of Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers. Even for Hollywood, however, the deception in this movie is staggering, and it occurs on many levels. It terrifies me to think that the masses likely swallowed this tale, particularly the images that have such a powerful subliminal impact.

Now picture this: The Margin Call premise is that a group of WASPs and a Catholic or two run a leading investment bank on Wall Street. Things turn sour, however, and the firm is looking at bankruptcy unless they can pull off a miracle.

Obviously, such a scenario makes little real-world sense. In the real world, Wall Street is heavily Jewish, especially the investment banks. This is so obvious that Wiki has a special segment called Jewish investment banks.

Lehman Brothers was a classic Jewish investment bank. For those wishing to find more explicit discussion about the Jewish origins and uninterrupted Jewish roots of Lehman Brothers, see the following indispensable books:

  • Stephen Birmingham: Our Crowd: The Great Jewish Families of New York(Harper and Row, 1967) and The Rest of Us: The Rise of America’s Eastern European Jews (Little, Brown & Company, 1984);
  • Jean Baer’s The Self-Chosen: “Our Crowd” is Dead — Long Live Our Crowd(Arbor House, 1982);
  • Richard L. Zweigenhaft and G. William Domhoff’s, Jews in the Protestant Establishment(Praeger Publishers, 1982);
  • Gerald Krefetz, Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality(Ticknor and Fields, 1982).

Of particular note, however, is The New Crowd: The Changing of the Jewish Guard on Wall Street (HarperPerennial, 1989), by Judith Ramsey Ehrlich and Barry J. Rehfeld. The authors interviewed many of the Jewish participants under discussion here. They also fill in the background on Lehman partners and traders, contrasting, for example, “Our Crowd’s” Bobbie Lehman with the coarse and brash Lewis Glucksman. After reading this book, return to Margin Call to see how you have been lied to.

Margin Call sure was a deception sandwich. The head of the trading floor, Sam Rogers, is played by Kevin Spacey, who looks, acts and talks exactly like the middle-class White man he played in American Beauty. In Margin Call there is not even an attempt to give him a Brooklyn accent or exaggerated mannerisms.

Kevin Spacey in Margin Call

Most egregiously, however, is the fact that the part of Lehman Bros. CEO is played by none other than the arch-British actor Jeremy Irons.

Jeremy Irons as the CEO of Lehman Bros.

Arbitrage. A year later, the lying continued as Richard Gere starred opposite aging beauty Susan Sarandon and Tim Roth in Arbitrage. Gere plays a Wall Street character quite willing to bend and break all kinds of rules.  As in the other Wall Street films just mentioned, the mission of Arbitrage is to mask the Jew and project the blame onto gentiles. It really is breathtaking.

The film’s opening solidly sets up the identity of Robert Miller (Gere) and his clan as thoroughly White and Christian. In an interview, millionaire Miller attributes his innate pessimism about events to his parents, who had grown up with the Depression, Pearl Harbor and The Bomb. His everyman Christian American background is confirmed by a comment that his father was a welder in the Navy and his mother worked for the Veteran’s Administration.

Soon after, he returns home to a surprise birthday party, where he is surrounded by a large extended family. His wife, played by Sarandon, is clearly European-American, as is his daughter Brooke and each and every child running about the room. There is not one hint that Miller, his family, or anything in his home could be anything other than gentile American.

Soon Miller gets himself in trouble and ends up short of cash, so he manipulates $412 million to paper things over. Along the way he also gets his mistress killed and burned to a crisp when he crashes a car after a few drinks. (Naturally, he flees the scene and tries to pin it on a young African American; those rich WASPs are really horrible people.)

The finale of the film lays it on thick: Rich gentiles are thoroughly corrupt when it comes to money. In the last fifteen minutes, we see how Miller is able to deviously escape the suspicions about him, even though his wife has connected the dots and figured out how guilty her husband is. Crushed by his infidelity and the suffering he has put their daughter Brooke through, she responds — by coldly blackmailing him. Either he coughs up a significant sum of money for her favorite charity, or she divorces him and walks away with perhaps far more.

Next, we cut to a scene with the man who bought Miller’s firm, James Mayfield (who may as well have been named James Mayflower, given his mien and surroundings), who is shown riding in his limousine to the “Benefit Gala in honor of The Miller Oncology Center.”  He then exits the limo and ascends the stairs to the goy gala — the entire affair is sheer goy hypocrisy. The money for the new center is tainted, and everyone in attendance pretends that everything is honorable. Miller is all smiles, his wife smiles, even his disillusioned daughter goes along, cynically but without conviction feting her father: “A dedicated businessman, a family man, a philanthropist, and an all-around humanitarian. A man I am very lucky to call my mentor, my friend, and my father.” The message: behind America’s most sterling institutions and leaders lie deceit and insincerity — gentile deceit and insincerity, of course.

The reality, we know, is different, as TOO writers Joyce et al. have shown, along with others. Former Counter-Currents writer Andrew Hamilton, for instance, showed four years ago what real hedge fund managers were doing and who they were:

More often than not the privileged Jews turn around and use [their] vast wealth … to advance anti-White, pro-Jewish, and Left-wing causes, thereby harming America and the world in two ways — economically through callous and shortsighted market operations, and politically through their “philanthropy” and lavish political donations. George Soros has done enormous harm to Whites worldwide in this manner. . . .

Hamilton specifically notes the shocking wealth concentrated in such hands, referring to Forbes Magazine’s recent ranking of the richest hedge fund managers in the United States by estimated personal net worth: “Twenty-four of the 32 names on the list (75%) are Jewish. Of the 10 wealthiest, 8 (80%) are Jewish.” He further adds that “Despite their social and economic power and privilege the names of hedge fund managers are virtually unknown even to educated and informed people, never mind the general public.” In good part, we can thank Hollywood for this.

The Wolf of Wall Street. Thus far, I’ve been a good sport about reviewing these deceptive Wall Street films, but 2013 saw a blockbuster that left me speechless. Here was a film with one of Hollywood’s biggest goy actors, directed by one of Hollywood’s top maker of Mafia films, and based on the autobiography of a convicted Jewish Wall Street swindler who positively reveled in his Jewish identity and that of his cohorts. Yet the film completed whitewashed this.

Here’s the howler: As the bantam Jewish stock fraudster Jordan Belfort, director Martin Scorsese chose none other than six-foot-tall, (sometimes) blond-haired Leonardo DiCaprio to bleach the story of anything Semitic. This has to go down as one of the most egregious miscastings in Hollywood history.

Why did it happen?

My view is that this is a classic case of Hollywood deceiving the public, and I have plenty of evidence for this.

In the film, at exactly five minutes into the story — just after DiCaprio’s character has snorted cocaine with a hundred dollar bill and done a little trick by making us think “this shit” (cocaine) will make you invincible, when it fact he means the money he is using as a straw — he launches into a speech as he enters his busy trading floor:

See, money doesn’t just buy you a better life — better food, better cars, better pussy — it also makes you a better person. You can give generously to the church, or political party of your choice. Save the fuckin’ spotted owl with money (italics added).

“To the church.” I like that. In his memoir from which the film springs, Belfort is refreshingly forthright that he is Jewish — and that, with one exception, all of his close associates are Jewish — as are the majority of his traders. Now in the film — which “happened” to open on Christmas Day 2013 — we are informed that rich people like DiCaprio’s Belfort can give “to the church,” not synagogue or ADL or a Jewish think tank. It is this kind of subtle deception that would, in my view, prevent the vast, vast majority of Gentile viewers from understanding that these financial criminals are Jewish at all.

Back in 2007, the convicted trader Jordan Belfort released his autobiography that engendered the later film. In this book, The Wolf of Wall Street, Jewish themes are front and center, beginning with the conflation of Jews and money. Belfort founded the trading firm of Stratton Oakmont (a very British-sounding name) and went on to amass a fortune. His descriptions of his escapades spending that money are hilarious, along the lines of Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I honestly loved Belfort’s book.

Lust for the “shiksa goddess” is another main theme, as Belfort is absolutely smitten with the gentile woman he manages to marry. If one wants an initiation into Jewish attitudes toward ethnicity, Jewish and otherwise, this is the book to start with. The real fascination surrounding Jewish characters comes with Belfort’s descriptions of his comrades, beginning with his right-hand man, Danny Porush. Danny, Belfort begins, “was a Jew of the ultrasavage variety.” With “steel-blue eyes,” Porush did not appear to be “a member of the Tribe,” a situation Porush himself helped along by dressing and acting like a Gentile.  Like many other Jews, “Danny burned with the secret desire to be mistaken for a WASP and did everything possible to cloak himself in complete and utter WASPiness.”

Stratton Oakmont’s head of the finance department, Andy Greene, however, would never pass as a WASP, beginning with the fact that he had “the worst toupee this side of the Iron Curtain.” To Belfort, Greene’s toupee “looked like someone had taken a withered donkey’s tail and slapped it onto his egg-shaped Jewish skull, poured shellac over it, stuck a cereal bowl over the shellac, and then placed a twenty-pound plate of depleted uranium over the cereal bowl and let it sit for a while.”

When discussing another Greene who worked for him — this time Kenny “the Blockhead” Greene — Belfort describes Greene’s mother Gladys: “Starting from the very top of her crown, where a beehive of pineapple blond hair rose up a good six inches above her broad Jewish skull, and all the way down to the thick callused balls of her size-twelve feet, Gladys Greene was big.”

She was also quite willing to break the law, beginning with evasion of taxes on the cigarettes she and the adolescent Kenny smuggled into New Jersey. When Kenny turned fifteen and began smoking pot, his mother immediately became a pot dealer, providing her son “with finance, encouragement, a safe haven to ply his trade, and, of course protection, which was her specialty.” And because cocaine “offered too high a profit margin for ardent capitalists like Gladys and the Blockhead to resist,” they were soon enough plying that trade on Long Island, too.

One gets the feeling that for Belfort, the descriptor “savage” has a redeeming quality to it, as he describes many Jews that way, such as “the most savage young Jews anywhere on Long Island,” those from the towns of Jericho and Syosset. Then there is the Wall Street legend, J. Morton Davis, “a savage Jew,” and even Belfort himself, “the most savage Jew of all.” And don’t forget the “Quaalude-addicted, potbellied savage Jew with a thousand-watt social smile and a secret life’s mission to be mistaken for a WASP” who ripped Belfort off when selling him horses. Belfort’s book unashamedly celebrates Jews.

The film, however, cannot be more different, for reasons stated above. I positively scoured this film and found next to nothing — and it’s nearly a three-hour film. Here’s about all I could find: When one character demands that another come pick up millions in elicit earnings, the latter is insulted and says “I’m not fuckin’ schvartze.” How many caught that one?

One more example that will surely crop up concerns Belfort’s father Max — and the character who plays him, Rob Reiner. In this case, it again comes down to insider/outsider interpretations. Those who know that Reiner is himself Jewish and know that the real Belfort is Jewish will get it. Others, probably not. Back in the early ‘70s, did American viewers see “All In the Family” character Michael “Meathead” Stivic as Jewish? Same actor. Same ethnic undermining without the goyim knowing about it, either.

Go to Part 2 of 2

46 replies
  1. Aitch.
    Aitch. says:

    ‘Jordan Belfort’ doesn’t sound like a jewish name. Does anyone know what the family’s original name was?

  2. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    Labor is never given value, but is a commodity-a “necessary evil” according to the Wall Street types and is to be minimized and marginalized at all costs.
    Adolph Hitler’s Germany monetized labor and gave it value. THAT is the reason that the jews went after Germany. Post WW1 Germany was successful in its economy due to throwing off the shackles (and shekels) of the internationalist banksters.
    Henry Ford CREATED a market which had not existed when he paid his employees $5.00 per day when the average wage of the day was around $1.25 per day. His premise was not entirely altruistic as assembly line work was monotonous; a way had to be found to retain employees as well.
    Of course, the wall street types and the banksters howled that Ford’s wage rates would destroy capitalism (as they knew it-those at the top reap all of the benefits while the proles are forced to live on a bare subsistence wage, due to the machinations of those at the top).
    Guess what??
    The OPPOSITE happened. Henry Ford knew one of the basic tenets of a truly free, capitalistic society, that a well-paid work force would be able to participate and contribute to a strong economy, unlike what is taught in business schools today-that wages must be kept to a bare minimum and that the stockholder is king.
    Our “free trade” politicians have assisted the greedy wall street types and banksters in depressing wages on the promise of cheap foreign labor and products.
    A good example of this is the negative criticism that Costco receives for paying its employees well above market wages. These same wall street types praise Wal-Mart for paying its employees barely subsistence wages while assisting them in filling out their public assistance (welfare) forms.
    Any sane person KNOWS that in order for capitalism to work, employees need to make an adequate wage. Unfortunately, this premise does not exist in today’s business climate.
    Henry Ford openly criticized those of the “tribe” for manipulating wall street and banksters to their own advantage, and was roundly (and unjustly) criticized for pointing out the TRUTH.
    Catholic priest, Father Coughlin did the same thing and was punished by the Catholic church, despite his popularity and exposing the TRUTH of the American economy and the outsider internationalists that ran it . . . and STILL run it.
    Our race to the bottom will not be without consequences. A great realignment is necessary (and is coming) . . .

    • Sandy
      Sandy says:

      Also in the 1930’s we can read in “The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Great Depression, 1929 -1941” we can read that at a speech at Sioux City on Oct 25th 1932 he “declared that all prosperity in the broader sense springs from the soil.

    • Tedesco
      Tedesco says:

      Many good observations. You are right – labor is undervalued today, unlike before 1980. Open borders and finance capitalism are inherently crooked, giving a huge advantage the Jews. If things get too hot for them, they can escape to their hideout in Israel.

      I did not know that Costco pays its employees well. An Internet search confirms this.

    • gmathol
      gmathol says:

      I wouldn’t give Hitler so much credit, also he did something for poor people in Germany such as building housing etc., but in the end it lead to the complete destruction of Germany.

      • Jake
        Jake says:

        False logic. A person trying to effect correct reforms is destroyed by powerful and greedy enemies, therefore his principles were faulty.

      • Angelicus
        Angelicus says:

        You obviously do not have a clue about Adol Hitler and his colossal transformation of Germany within the first four years of his government. Have you heard of the Reich Arbeit Dienst (RAD)? I bet you haven’t. Do you know what the “Kraft Durch Freude” organisation was about?. I bet you don’t.

        Your comment shows an inexcusable and unforgivable lack of historical knowledge. For a person that follows TOO, you should know better.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Kraft durch Freude, or Strength through Joy, among other things, maintained a fleet of high sea cruise ships offering lengthy, free or at cost vacations to the German laborer: hitherto only available to the wealthy, or in emigration steerage class.

          They also docked in London where British laborers and others conversed with the German passengers, made up of low wage employees. The British were astonished and this information came to the attention of Parliament. This democratic institution could not have its own subjects exposed to such ideas and decided in their House to henceforth forbid said dockings and intermingling. Worse: this news could make it to America.

          I understand that said House debates are captured, verbatim, by their official records in their Hansard. Should I ever visit there again, I will allot time to read this personally. Perfidious but not atypical ! Like his barter system, this could not be allowed to spread to the world.

  3. Bernard
    Bernard says:

    Hummm, interesting.
    Here’s a little snippet I picked up from the Financial Times last week:
    ‘According to a UBS global survey “rich individuals” are currently hoarding around 27% of their investable assets in cash, which “flies in the face” of analysts’ recommendations that just 5% of cash should be held in their portfolios’. End.
    And this is what is crippling the social infrastructure of the US, {and to a certain extent the whole of Europe}. Hoarding vast sums of usable money for their fellow tribesmen at the expense of everyone else is the deadliest of sins, and bodes ill for the rest of humanity
    This creeping cancer must be stopped, one way or another.

    • gmathol
      gmathol says:

      Cash is king anyway and funny that the bitcoin currency fans are installing servers in order to lay their hands on bitcoin cash, which is the real value at bitcoin.

    • Ludwig
      Ludwig says:

      February 9, 2020 at 9:12 am

      “And this is what is crippling the social infrastructure of the US, {and to a certain extent the whole of Europe}. Hoarding vast sums of usable money for their fellow tribesmen at the expense of everyone else is the deadliest of sins, and bodes ill for the rest of humanity
      This creeping cancer must be stopped, one way or another.”
      “Hoarding cash” is a natural reaction to the economic instability and the imbalanced values we see around us which are part of the Keynesian type of economics we live under.

      Keynesian economics aids and abets the ‘money power’ of the clever tribe. The propensity to hoard when we see the looming destruction is not the problem but the symptom of the problem of the ‘money power’ being put to use for nefarious interests.

  4. Loren R
    Loren R says:

    Dr. Connelly, thank you for doing all this research and writing this out. I have only recently been awakened and I appreciate that you restated some things you had previously wrote about.
    I have a real life example of this propaganda taking hold in Anglo minds. My best friend and his wife are avid movie goers and instead of engaging me in conversation about what I have learned recently they have completely shut me out of their life. They are also Protestants and reject the concept of “Sicut Judaeis Non”. They won’t even read Martin Luther’s book “The Jews and Their Lies”
    Between their total embrace of Hollywood propaganda and the tribe controlled media they refuse to think they could do anything wrong and even if they did they are chosen and we deserve to be trampled under their feet.
    I am heartened by the fact that a guy like me who was so brainwashed can wake up. I am hopeful with people like you on our side sharing these kinds of truths with us more and more will wake up. The degradation is everywhere and obvious.
    Keep up the great work!

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      Loren, it encourages me to hear your story. For decades I’ve explicitly tried to write in ways that would wake more normies up, but I don’t feel I’ve been very successful. This time I really used a lot of photos and kept talking about Hollywood stars, so maybe that’s the way to do it.

      BTW, if you’d like to delve deeper into the Jewish Question, I encourage you to go back to the TOO archives, where you can find abundant reading material. For more scholarly treatments, consider subscribing to The Occidental Quarterly, which is an absolute treasure trove of serious writing on these topics.

  5. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    01 Splendid, illustrated, essential exposition for all who can’t, can’t afford to, or won’t see for themselves what is writ large on the wall.
    02 For pure individual volume, Edgar Bronfman defrauding the Canadian taxpayer of a mere $ 800 millions hopefully retains his first prize. At noon he owed that sum for moving his $ 2.1 Billion to NYC, where he took on the position of President of The World Jewish Congress. Four and a half hours later, four Cabinet Ministers overruled the Canada Revenue Agency: he owed nothing; the minutes of that tete-a-tete were ‘lost’.
    03 As President of the WJC he was assisted by that other paragon of Talmudic morality, Lord Janner, MP, House of Lords and, inter alia, Chair of the British Board of Deputies. That unmitigated swine who paid a warden of a home for retarded boys, to rent a 14 year-old for homosexual transgressions in the Holiday Inn in Edinburgh. [ Facsimiles of Scottish Police Reports ]. 33 years of Police reports of corroborated sexual assault; but never a word out of that nauseatingly complicit Crown Prosecution Service under the cudgel of the Board of Deputies, assisted by Jewish psychiatrists attesting Alzheimer.
    After his timely but not too soon death, he had a watered-down ” trial of the facts “, to maintain the unequalled reputation of the British Judiciary: at the cost of several million pounds to the British taxpayer to enjoy this Disney script.
    04 Armed bank robbers have it simple. The others always require some transactional framework, be it for $ 200 Pentagon toilet seats or the recent Frankfurt scam of getting federal tax refunds worth several times of the taxes paid in by banks and connected corporations. De rigueur including Warburg.
    05 The British Serious Fraud Office was reimbursed for $ 200 million by Goldman Sachs, in order to release its partner Robert Rubin for having structured Robert Maxwell’s wholesale theft of his hundreds of companies’ pension funds, which brought the defrauded to the streets with placards demanding VE VONT OUR MONEY BACK !
    Bought and paid for Rubin thus was able to become Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury.
    06 Secretary of the Treasury and former President of Harvard, Larry Sommers, is another swine. Under the tutelage of his Economics Department, he and several of his co-ethnics of Russian provenance cheated Russia out of hundreds of billions, by plowing the fields for the likes of Khodorkovsky and his merry thieves. One town in Siberia sprung up, entirely dedicated to one of K’s companies but paid no local taxes. The mayor set off to complain to the Governor. En route he was shot dead.
    K sold his oil at a LOSS to one of his Caribbean shell companies, not only avoiding taxes but claiming refunds for the loss. [ Browder ]. His shell companies then sold it at world prices. Forget taxes on that.
    Moscow took him to the ICC which awarded a meagre settlement. Even this was not collectable, since Rothschild, minutes before, so to speak, had K’s remaining assets written over to himself.
    Playing the Jewish victim card, K was featured on Canada’s CBC FIFTH ESTATE with pandering sympathy, entirely ignorant of the facts; as expected and usual in this bush culture where Hoess and Hess, under the pen of a full U of Toronto Professor become one and the same in the country’s largest daily.

    Some of what I said is repetition – in the hope that it will reach the yet uninformed or forgetful.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “he and several of his co-ethnics of Russian provenance cheated Russia out of hundreds of billions, ”
      I wonder why the Russians never complain about the Js? After all, they are generally not shy about being politically correct, and although they helped launch the H industry they do not bow down to it and join in the continuous mourning for the ‘6m’ like the West does.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        “I wonder why the Russians never complain about the Js?”

        Good question. An old college acquaintance of mine is a fluent speaker of Russian and has traveled extensively there. Some years ago he gave me to believe that Russians’ dislike—ranging from marked dissatisfaction to fierce outrage—of the Jewish parasitism, past and present, in their country is pretty openly expressed, especially in the various forums that might be described as successors to the samizdat media of the Soviet era.

        That the (((American media))) fail to reveal the extent of the hostility, much less the sound rationale underlying it, should come as no surprise to anyone hereabouts.

  6. Robert Keith
    Robert Keith says:

    Hollywood Misrepresents Jewish Scumbag Investor Using Flaming Goy Leonardo di Caprio in the Wolf of Wall Street

    The scumbag Jewish investor who wrote the book which served as the basis of the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” went to jail for his peculations (that’s why he deserves to be called a “scumbag”, not because he is Jewish, but, again, I repeat, because he is a “scumbag”). But strangely, somewhere on the way to becoming a movie, the cast suffered am outlandish metamorphosis that grossly misrepresented reality, i.e. instead of the dramatis personae being Jewish as in real life, they, with the sole exception of the-so-obvious-it-hurts Jonah Hill (doesn’t sound Jewish), were far from that. In fact, there is probably no actor, who, with his blond hair and blue eyes, could be considered more of a goyische icon than Leonard, Obviously, we cannot fault the author nor the director for this, but not so lucky will be the industry powers that be. Scorcese, the Director, would never have been able to push this movie through Jewish-controlled Hollywood with a Jew actually playing a “scumbag”, even though he “just happened to be Jewish”. Yes, Abe Foxman, of the ADL, just like the directors of seven major Hollywood studio. Better get a goy to play the “scumbag”. This ploy accomplished two goals which are, in case you haven’t already guessed: it saves the Jews from being further justifiably maligned, and serves to degrade White European civilization in others’ eyes without its heirs even being aware of it, because $billions have been spent to cover this up. Additionally, it was the reason why the film was so unconvincing.

    The fact is, however, that this is just business as usual, and fits perfectly the larger Jewish strategy of demeaning the White
    Christian civilization that it blames for all its problems. It that white power can be diminished, all the more room there would be to maneuver to their advantage. Along these lines it makes eminently good sense to push for multicultural immigration, although they discretely maintain a mantra of exclusivity in their own community here in America and more openly in their own country, Israel. An ethnostate such as they aspire to in Israel failed in the 20th century (Germany), and it will fail in the 21st (Israel). Hasidic Jews, who can found in abundance in Brooklyn, must be given credit for recognizing this immutable fact, i.e. that a state as conceived in 1648 cannot be based on religion.

    • Angelicus
      Angelicus says:

      Hello Keith: Excellent analysis, but there is one big flaw. How can you possibly say something so inaccurate and ridiculous like Hitler’s Germany was a failure? Do you have any idea of what a grandiose and successful social revolution it was? I do. Over the last 30 years, I have amassed a tremendous amount of books and documents from the Third Reich that illustrate perfectly the scope of the National-Socialist revolution. The fact that Hitler destroyed the Jewish financial system by putting honest labour as the guiding principle instead of gold or profit was one of the reasons that led international Jewry to force a war. Germany had to be destroyed because its very existence was proof that it was possible for a nation to be free of Jewish domination and to prosper. That is why the bombed Germany out of the surface of the earth. Failure my ass!

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:


        That is the single most self-refuting comment I have ever read. Here or anywhere.

        Then again, self-refuting statements are the sine qua non of those addicted to salvation systems, whether political or religious.

      • Junghans
        Junghans says:

        BINGO, Angelicus, you have just whacked the kosher lies about NS Germany right out of the Jewish constructed play pen.
        With hindsight and loads of historical revisionist material now available, the Third Reich was clearly entrapped into war, blasted & scorched, plundered, gang raped, mercilessly crucified, and then maliciously defamed and demonized.
        The Jewish subversion of the White West that we are suffering today is a direct consequence of that premeditated watershed disaster. It is truly a most ironic form of ‘poetic justice’, (and ingratitude), that Jewry has perpetrated against their so called “allies”, who foolishly did their dirty work in destroying Europe.

        • Angelicus
          Angelicus says:

          Thank you, Junghans. It is unbelievable that even here at TOO, there are people spreading lies and misconceptions about the Third Reich. It is really infuriating because they should know better. With such a wealth of revisionist material available, there is no excuse for stupid comments like that.

  7. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    Excellent article. Indeed, jews are always trying to hide themselves from any kind of recognition at all. Another facet to this movie situation is that the film makers are also going for the reach of a wider audience. If a film were to be uniquely jewish in cast and subject matter, its reach would be limited to jews, seeing as they are honestly the only ones who want to watch their own tribal members kvetch and carry on in ways that are most tiresome to the ears and senses of any other group on earth. Casting the gentile as frontman does the double duty of hiding the jew, along with making what would otherwise be in house subject matter appealing to non jews.

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      Fenria, thank you for the kind words. Now allow me to reply.

      “Indeed, jews are always trying to hide themselves from any kind of recognition at all.” Yes, they are. It’s called crypsis, a topic that is still waiting for a serious scientific treatment akin to KMac’s trilogy. To do what they do, Jews often need to hide, so they’ve evolved incredibly ways to do just that.

      Next, “If a film were to be uniquely jewish in cast and subject matter, its reach would be limited to jews, seeing as they are honestly the only ones who want to watch their own tribal members kvetch . . ..”

      I’m not so sure this is true. After all, Woody Allen, with immense help from Tribal boosterism, was a favorite director for gentiles for decades, and countless other movies have nothing but Jewish themes. I sometimes get the feeling that goys will watch whatever is put before them.

      Hollywood movies involving Jews are a complex subject, and there are good books (and a few documentaries) that discuss it, but current taboos surrounding this keep most Gentiles from fairly talking or writing about it. For instance, you can’t do this stuff in a university classroom if you are a goy. I wish that would change, so maybe I’d have one parting shot at teaching my forte in the proper setting . . . using my own name.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        Goys on average are notoriously gullible and naive about politics , religion , finance , economics , true histories , sociology and other people knowledge domains that are normally of greater importance to cosmopolitan jews than suburban goys . Your feeling that goys on average are insufficiently discriminating consumers of entertainment is easily affirmed .

  8. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    I am disappointed in Ed Connelly’s choice of a photo, in that it lets our side down just a bit by comparison with the rest of this otherwise excellent greatest hits compendium. Put plainly, why has he chosen a photo of a vulture with its yarmulke airbrushed out?

    Ed, have you gone soft on us? Say it isn’t so!

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      Pierre, it’s always good to read your comments but this time you had me worried: I thought I’d made a major gaffe. Glad you were just talking tongue in cheek. I always look forward to your thoughts on TOO articles, whether mine of those of others. Thank you.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Dear Ed,

        I hope the worry had come to an end by the time you finished reading the second sentence!

        In fact, I think that the value of this composite article of yours can hardly be overstated. Those of us who read the original pieces are profiting from the overall sense the present article provides of a continuing, presumably never-ending assault on Western culture, values, and virtues. Those who arrived too recently to have seen your earlier pieces are here offered a crash course in the full range of Jewish perfidy and deceit, Hollywood style. My sense is that almost everyone commenting in this thread is as grateful to you as I am.

  9. Kevin
    Kevin says:

    “Margin Call” actually had a character with a Jewish name (Jared Cohen). However, the character was played by Australian actor Simon Baker who does not even remotely look Jewish. And I think his name was only mentioned once or twice.

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      Kevin, you are quite right about that, and in fact I illustrated this in the original blog I did about the movie, contrasting the name with the actor cast to play him.

      BTW, perhaps this shows that I needed to emphasize that my links were to the original essays I’d done on individual films. Lots more detail and photos in them. Any suggestions on how to highlight this? Thanks.

  10. Tedesco
    Tedesco says:

    I am grateful to the author, Edmund Connelly. Once again, I have learned a lot from an article on this website.

    He referred to Andrew Joyce’s article, Vulture Capitalism Is Jewish Capitalism, which I read last December. And Connelly quotes from Karl Marx – “Capital is dead labor, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.” (Das Kapital – vol-1, ch-10) – a good metaphor for Jewish finance capitalism, but not for Aryan free enterprise.

    And thank-you for the mini-reviews of recent films – Wall Street (1987), Other People’s Money (1991), The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009 remake), Margin Call (2011), Arbitrage (2012), The Wolf of Wall Street (2013).
    The clear purpose of all these Hollywood films is to deceive the goyim, to conceal the uniquely Jewish nature of financial fraud. Not one crooked Jew is shown in any of these films. They would have us believe that only non-Jews commit this kind of fraud.

    Talk about an inversion of reality! Vampires indeed! Globalist Jews must be cackling with glee at how easy it is for them to trick and swindle the dumb goyim. And then Hollywood produces propaganda to exonerate the Jews and blame the goyim. Such chutzpah!

    As Connelly writes – the mission of these films about massive money fraud is “to mask the Jew and project the blame onto gentiles. It really is breathtaking.”

    P.S. – I missed the article from last month – Hedging their Bets (Who Really Decides Elections) by John Q. Publius. It sounds interesting. I will read it now.

  11. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    Such films, on the one hand, demean Gentiles, distracting the audience from ultimate source of corruption. In the other, the serve an ideological purpose by undermining the entire American system of free-enterprise and thus paving the way for “fundamental change,” that is, a socialist dictatorship. However, must point out that not all Hollywood films protect Jewish identity. I submit, as an example, one of Woody Allen’s best films, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in which the major character, played by Martin Landau, murders his mistress and gets away with it. The character is overtly Jewish, a wealthy ophthalmologist and philanthropist. He even has his own brother, somehow connected to the crime underworld, find someone to do the dirty deed. Perhaps, only someone like Woody Allen could successfully market such a film.

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      George, thank you for writing. As you note, ” However, I must point out that not all Hollywood films protect Jewish identity.”

      Quite true, though such honest films are rare, with your example being an excellent exception. Still, there really are only a handful of these films. See, for instance, “Down and Out in Beverly Hills,” where Aryan Nick Nolte plays the successful Christ figure who makes a mockery of the Jewish character played by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole Jewish family in that film is messed up, and the Jewish director mocks them throughout. Nolte’s character even gets to schtupp Dreyfuss’s mistress, the Mexican maid. Quite different than the action in “The Graduate” with Dustin Hoffman.

      Bringing it up to the present, “Uncut Gems” seems to “reveal the Jew,” at least according to some of the reviews I’ve read. I’ll let you know when I watch the film.

  12. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    First of all, congratulations on the excellent article. Since you mentioned Leonardo Di Caprio (another moron who is campaigning against “global warming”) he was also the star in another film (“Blood Diamonds” 2006) that follows the same pattern of deceit. According to this film, the diamond trade (100% Jewish!) is controlled by Anglo-Saxon/Nordic gentiles (of course!).

    BTW Martin Scorsese is another despicable “shabbos goy.”

  13. Jacobszoon
    Jacobszoon says:

    It’s articles like this and others on TOO that assist immensely in bringing the truth to my family and friends.

    Thanks for this concise informative comment, it also does a great deal to reveal.

  14. Shmendrix
    Shmendrix says:

    Complete horsepoop about The Wolf of Wall Street. With the exception of DiCaprio, everyone of his Jewish cohorts was clearly and undeniably Jewish.

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      “Complete horsepoop about The Wolf of Wall Street. With the exception of DiCaprio, everyone of his Jewish cohorts was clearly and undeniably Jewish.”

      HA! You are dreaming! . . . unless you happen to be Jewish.

      I hope you clicked on the link to my original review because I argued that many of the Jewish signifiers in the film were hidden so that only Jews themselves would see them. I’ll bet you could interview a million goys who saw the film without reading the book, and you’d be lucky to get TEN who noticed anything Jewish.

      Honestly, I think there are times when some Jews get absolutely exasperated when they throw all kinds of obvious Jewish scenes into their work, be it film or novels, and the goyim happily miss it all. Go back and explore the goy reaction to the book “Portnoy’s Complaint” (or, better, the non-reaction). Not all goyim are cut from the same cloth John Murray Cuddihy was — not by a long shot.

  15. H. L. Mencken
    H. L. Mencken says:

    Gotta give ISIS credit for something. One of the first things they did in 2015 was to issue gold and silver coins in opposition to what they called the satanic monetary system. Contrast this to apathetic Americans who are addicted to cheap credit like a junkie.

  16. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “Jews Run Hollywood So What?”

    A better example of their brazen effrontery would be imposslbe to imagine.

    They just assume the question can’t be answered.

    Of course it can.

    On the other hand, they probably know full well it can be answered.

    In that case, “So What?” = “What can you goys do about it? Because we control the media too. So, we’ll either censor you or slander you or both. Either way, we’ll ruin you. Because we control the courts too. We control it all. And shut up with all that talk about Jewish Supremacy Inc. Conspiracy Theories = Hate Speech!”

    In short, Chutzpah = Insanity.

    We really need to purge from our minds the idea that these guys are invincible. They’re not.

    You simply can not run a civilziation, one more complex and unpredictable than any other in history, on this kind of insanity.

    That’s why I maintain that what we’re really witnessing is

    The Pyrrhic Victory of Jewish Supremacy Inc.

    Evidence of which can be seen in the total collapse of what has been one of their most important instruments of power – The DNC.
    And organization with obvious ties to Hollywood, which is also in free fall.

    By now it’s obvious that The DNC = Demonic Narcissistic Communists.

    On the other hand, The RNC = Repressed Neo Cucks.

  17. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “create a deceitful medley of films that prevents the mass of goyim from ever connecting Jews to financial manipulation and theft.”

    There is a children’s cartoon about some dogs called ‘Paw Patrol’. In one episode they all cook a soup for a competition. There is only once character who cheats, a white man with a top hat. (There is a black woman and I do not need to mention how virtuous her character was). Just imagine for a second that the villain was given a skull cap instead of a top hat!

    The very idea of this, just to even think about it, and the certainty that it would provoke immediate outrage and would never be included in any cartoon – this proves how we are all conditioned to react to Js depicted negatively, and to whites depicted negatively, and when we react in this way it includes the people who make the cartoon stories and know how to draw baddies. Those who actually implement this theme in the cartoon might not be Jews or even know much about politics, but even the most ignorant gentile is very finely tuned into what the current culture allows.

    In my view, the Left is one rung higher than the Jews, perhaps even in parts of Hollywood, but often they have the same message (anti-white) so there is no clash. However, the Js were not powerful enough to protect Weinstein who was certainly a key player for them.

    Sometimes I wonder why the Js allow such films exposing vulture capitalism, seeing as this is their profession? I would have thought they would prefer it to not be mentioned at all. Why alert people to the things the corrupt banks get up to? Maybe sometimes all they can do is damage limitation by making sure they are not depicted as being part of it in the films, but not powerful enough to stop it altogether?

  18. c matt
    c matt says:

    Hmm… I wonder how Pretty Woman slipped past the radar. You can’t get more stereotypical Jewish than Jason Alexander, and he was the clearly boorish vulture capitalist bad guy in the film. Garry Marshall, who surprisingly is not Jewish but grew up around Jews in NY, directed. Maybe he was just directing characters as he knew them IRL?

  19. Rebecca
    Rebecca says:

    An excellent article and great comments of which I of course agree. The big joke, however, is that most folks wouldn’t watch these films if casted honestly. Who’s wants to watch sniveling, short, ugly criminals in the lead roles?! All the more reason for European-Americans to start their own film companies.

  20. Nada
    Nada says:

    Look at Paul Newman and Tom Hanks. Two mega jews playing Irishmen. Newman made a career of it.

    The Verdict, Absence of Malice, Road to Perdition, on and on while playing double agent jew in Exodus.

    It’s on and on and on. If you know what to look for, virtually everything put out by Jewllywood had some

    propaganda value.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      On what basis do you characterize Hanks as a Jew? I have never seen any evidence that he is. A willing collaborator with (((Hollywood’s evil racketeers))), yes, but a Jew …?

Comments are closed.