Jews and Hollywood

Jewish Themes in The Graduate (1967)

The 1967 film The Graduate was a landmark in Jewish cultural subversion (see also Edmund Connelly’s treatment). By the time of the film’s release, Jewish film-makers in Hollywood were becoming more explicit in their antipathy for White Americans and their culture, and this was increasingly reflected in their output. In 1963, the Jewish producer Larry Turman came across the 24-year-old Californian Charles Webb’s novel The Graduate which, he claimed, “had an emotional coloration for me like [the Jewish playwright] Harold Pinter. The book was funny, but it made you nervous at the same time.”[1]

In his novel, Webb looks back in anger at his gilded California lifestyle as the son of a Pasadena cardiologist. His semi-autobiographical protagonist, Benjamin Braddock, a 20-year-old recent graduate from an East Coast college, returns to his Californian home for a long, hot summer over the course of which he stumbles into a passionless affair with the much older Mrs. Robinson, the wife of his father’s business partner. Braddock becomes infatuated with Mrs. Robinson’s daughter Elaine who reciprocates his feelings but rebuffs him after learning of his relationship with her mother. Mrs. Robinson sends Elaine off to college at UC Berkeley, where she becomes engaged to her classmate Carl Smith. A desperate Benjamin crashes their wedding and elopes with Elaine to the great distress of her family.

Turman bought the rights to the book for $1,000 and sent it unsolicited to Jewish director Mike Nichols (born Mikhail Peschkowsky) who signed on to the project. Turman’s search for financing led him to Jewish film mogul Joseph E. Levine—“the schlockmeister of the world”—who put up $3 million. Turman’s impulse purchase of the rights led to one of the most consequential films ever. Released in December 1967, The Graduate grossed almost $105 million (equivalent to almost $1 billion today), the third-highest ever at the time, and was nominated for seven Academy Awards including best picture and acting nods for stars Anne Bancroft, Dustin Hoffman and Katharine Ross, plus an Oscar victory for director Nichols. The Graduate has since become one of the most referenced films in the popular culture lexicon of the Western world.

Nichols assigned Jewish screenwriter Buck Henry (born Henry Zuckerman), then writing for the TV spy spoof Get Smart, as screenwriter. Henry ended up sharing writing credits with the non-Jewish Calder Willingham who had written a rejected first script. Songs by the Jewish duo Simon and Garfunkel were used for the soundtrack. Given the many Jews involved in the film’s production, it’s hardly surprising that Jewish sensibilities and ideological fixations pervade the final product.

The Graduate was not meant to read Jewish in the novel: the non-Jewish Charles Webb wrote the 1963 novel when he was just out of Williams College, which at the time is alleged to have been “notoriously anti-Semitic, even at the administrative level.”[2] In the hands of director Mike Nichols, however, the story became a scathing critique of bourgeois WASP American culture and the oppressive burden it purportedly imposed on young Americans. Nichols employs two recurrent visual metaphors to symbolize this oppressive culture: black-and-white stripes and water. The former representing prison bars confining Benjamin, while the latter (the numerous scenes referencing pools, aquariums, Scuba diving and rain) are said to symbolize the oppressive weight of societal expectation. The “troubled water” theme recurs throughout the film, with Benjamin floundering in a toxic social order where “he is submerged, underwater, trapped,” his world appearing “claustrophobically enclosed like a fish in a small water tank.”[3]

Nichols’ prison bar metaphor

The film resonated with a generation of young people concerned, as recent college graduate Benjamin Braddock is, about their place in the adult world they were reluctantly entering. Beverly Gray, author of the 2017 book Seduced by Mrs. Robinson: How “The Graduate” Became the Touchstone of a Generation, claims the film “strikes me as having a Jewish soul.” Laurie Shapiro, writing for the Forward, agrees, observing that “Despite the All-American storyline of the novel, The Graduate, the film version has always signaled a very Jewish sensibility to me, starting with Dustin Hoffman oddly cast in the lead as super-Waspy Connecticut kid Benjamin Braddock.” Referring to its Jewish director Mike Nichols, Gray notes how:

The film seems to me Jewish in a social sense, in terms of the Jewish outsider, which is certainly the way Mike Nichols viewed himself. Nichols was feeling a bit askew among the comforts of bourgeois America. It’s important to remember Nichols as a very young refugee from Nazi Germany. He never really got over the experience of fleeing Berlin at age 7. I’d go on to add that Nichols has made the following comment: “Dustin has always said that Benjamin is a walking surfboard. And that’s what he was in the book, in the original conception. But I kept looking and looking for an actor until I found Dustin, who is the opposite, who’s a short, dark, Jewish, anomalous presence, which is how I experience myself.” It’s a provocative statement, because Nichols was neither short nor dark, though clearly he felt a strong inner discomfort about the way he presented himself to the world. He certainly identified with the angst felt by Benjamin Braddock.[4] 

The perennial theme of Jewish alienation from a WASP-dominated mainstream American society played an important role in how the character of Benjamin Braddock—and the entire film—were conceived by Nichols—though this only became fully apparent to him after the film had been made. “My unconscious was making this movie,” Nichols later recalled. “It took me years before I got what I had been doing all along—that I was turning Benjamin into a Jew. I didn’t get it until I saw this hilarious issue of MAD magazine after the movie came out, in which the character of Dustin says to the character of Elizabeth Wilson, ‘Mom, how come I’m Jewish and you and Dad aren’t?’ And I asked myself the same question, and the answer was fairly embarrassing and fairly obvious: Who was the Jew among the goyim? And who was forever a visitor in a strange land?”[5]

It was with his casting of Benjamin Braddock, described in the book as a tall, blonde, and athletic, that Nichols took his biggest risk. Unable to resist the urge to engage in Jewish ethnic networking, he passed over Robert Redford for an unheralded, diminutive 29-year-old Jew, Dustin Hoffman. Nichols cast Hoffman, “despite the fact that he was virtually unknown and looked nothing like the leading man described in the script, which called for a tall, blond track star, not a short, Jewish guy with a schnoz for the ages.”[6] Hoffman later recalled telling Nichols, “The character is five-eleven, a track star. … It feels like this is a dirty trick, sir.” The director replied, “You mean you’re Jewish, that’s why you don’t think you’re right. Maybe he’s Jewish inside.” Nichols claimed that casting Hoffman emphasized Benjamin’s alienation from the WASP middle class world around him and its oppressive expectations. For the Jewish director Steven Soderbergh, Nichol’s choice was “the seminal event in the defining of motion picture leading men in the last 50 years.”[7]

Director Mike Nichols on set with Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft

A number of early reviews of The Graduate described Hoffman as “ugly.” An article in Life magazine referred to him as “a swarthy Pinocchio,” and made humorous reference to his prominent nose. According to Gray, however, “What was important was the way young audiences embraced Hoffman, big nose and all. Suddenly it was okay not to look like Robert Redford and still play a romantic leading role.”[8] Hoffman’s anti-heroic character gave the green light for Hollywood to promote “the ethnic Jewish matinee idol and youth icon in the forms of George Segal, Elliot Gould, Richard Benjamin, Charles Grodin, and Gene Wilder.”[9] These Jewish romantic leads were invariably paired onscreen with beautiful non-Jewish actresses like Marsha Mason, Candice Bergen, and (in the case of Dustin Hoffman) blondes like Mia Farrow, Faye Dunaway, Susan George, and Meryl Streep. The new era was boon for Jewish actors, who, as Gray points out, suddenly

no longer had to fret about not resembling the WASP ideal, nor did they need to hide (as such stars as John Garfield and Kirk Douglas had done) behind anglicized names. The casting of Dustin Hoffman as The Graduate’s leading man was a shock to Hollywood, which had spent decades trying to sidestep the Judaic roots of its founders. But in the wake of The Graduate, young Jewish males were suddenly everywhere, and often they were playing characters with backgrounds similar to their own. This was the era that launched Richard Benjamin (Goodbye, Columbus, 1969), and Richard Dreyfuss (The Goodbye Girl, 1977), along with Grodin. It was all part of what film critic J. Hoberman, paying tribute to Elliott Gould in the Village Voice, wittily called the Jew Wave.[10]

While celebrating the “Jew Wave” inaugurated by Hoffman’s casting as Benjamin Braddock, Shapiro laments that Hollywood’s enthusiasm for casting Jews as romantic leads didn’t extend to Jewish women, who, she contends, “still struggle to be cast in a lead if they don’t look like Natalie Portman, Mina Kunis or (yes, she’s Jewish) Scarlett Johansson. Men can keep their original noses and surnames (Ben Stiller, Jason Schwartzman, Adrien Brody, Adam Brody, Adam Levine) but Jewish women elect for plastic surgery to ‘correct’ what Hollywood execs like Harvey Weinstein deem ‘unfuckable’ looks, and then hide their names and heritage.” Shapiro also resents that some Jewish biopic female roles have been handed to non-Jews like Nicole Kidman (as Diane Arbus) and Felicity Jones (as Ruth Bader Ginsburg)—despite the existence of Jewish actresses that “meet or even surpass most people’s standard of beauty” like Natalie Portman, Rachel Weisz, and Mila Kunis. This is largely, she insists, because “Hollywood seems to have never gotten over its infatuation with blondes, especially when paired with dark-haired men.”[11]

Hollywood did make efforts in the 1960s to promote Jewesses as romantic lead characters. The Jewish film historian Neal Gabler notes, for example, in his book Barbara Streisand: Redefining Beauty, Femininity and Power, how, in the late sixties, Streisand was repeatedly cast by Hollywood studios who deliberately attempted to make her Jewish ethnicity part of her public appeal. Gray notes that “In the wake of her success, many young girls thought twice about requesting a nose job as a Sweet Sixteen gift. But I would argue that Streisand started no trend toward the acceptance of other leading ladies who defied the WASP standard of physical attractiveness.”[12]

Dustin Hoffman certainly defied the WASP standard of male physical attractiveness, and Nichols sympathized with the young actor’s view of himself as an alienated Jew in a gentile world, and Hoffman, in turn, was able to comprehend the role once “he caught Nichols and Henry’s vision of Benjamin as the ultimate outsider—not a part of the culture, but not a part of the counter-culture either.” Nichols and Henry envisioned the Braddock character as a “genetic throwback” among the “walking surfboards” of angular, blond vigor—the American WASP mainstream. Nichols wanted Hoffman to project an estrangement that began in the blood. Renata Adler, writing in The New York Times, was the first to openly state the reality of Benjamin’s Jewish identity—with the Jewish film critic J. Hoberman endorsing Adler’s observation, identifying Benjamin as an obvious “crypto-Jew” and “an example of an ascendant Jewishness” in Hollywood.[13]

Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin Braddock: “an example of ascendant Jewishness”

Hoffman won the role over Charles Grodin, another Jewish actor who was no model of conventional WASP good looks. On the morning of Hoffman’s screen test for the role, he was marched into the makeup chair, where experts worried over his thick eyebrows, muscular neck, and less-than-perfect features. Hoffman recalled Nichols fretting, “Can we do anything about his nose?” Two hours later, when he went before the camera alongside co-star Katharine Ross, matters got worse: “The idea that the director was connecting me with someone as beautiful as her, it became an even uglier joke. It was like a Jewish nightmare.” Trying to ease the tension between them, he pinched or patted Ross’s buttock (accounts differ), leaving her furious. Nor did his reading of the role of Benjamin run smoothly. Just before the film’s release, when Ross was asked about her first impression of Hoffman, she pulled no punches: “He looks about three feet tall, so dead serious, so humorless, so unkempt.” She remembered thinking “This is going to be a disaster.”[14]

While Benjamin Braddock might have been, according to Nichols, Jewish on the inside (and on the outside to the extent of his casting Hoffman), the Braddock and the Robinson families were supposed to be representative of WASP middle class America. Despite this, Jewish characterizations even crept into the portrayal of these characters, and Gray notes how

the film is basically Jewish in a Lenny Bruce sense: New York neurotics are all Jewish, whatever their ethnic and religious background. Interestingly, the two overtly New York characters in the movie, in terms of speech patterns, are Ben’s father and Mrs. Robinson. I can certainly see Mr. Braddock (played by William Daniel) as an upwardly mobile “Jewish” man, enjoying the fruits of his labors. And of course Mrs. Robinson is the very definition of neurotic. But her husband and daughter don’t seem in any way Jewish to me, despite their presence in a Beverly Hills mini-mansion of the type that Jews of that era favored and that I recognized all too well.[15]

As those who have seen the film know, Benjamin Braddock sleeps with Mrs. Robinson but loves her beautiful daughter, Elaine, who is disgusted when she learns what her mother and boyfriend have done. Elaine ends her relationship with Braddock and becomes engaged to Carl Smith, portrayed by the decidedly non-Jewish actor Brian Avery.

Carl Smith (Brian Avery) with Elaine (Katharine Ross)

Undaunted by Elaine’s rejection, Benjamin pursues Elaine and crashes her wedding. This scene, as conceived by Nichols, is laden with Jewish symbolism and socio-political fixations. Hoffman’s character invades the sanctity of the church (a metaphor for the Jewish infiltration of Western societies?) to take Elaine from Carl who is depicted as Braddock’s physical and ethnic opposite (a tall and blonde Nordic archetype). Benjamin uses Christianity’s most sacred symbol (a crucifix) as a weapon to fend off the wedding attendees’ attempts to stop this profane intrusion. He then thwarts their attempts to reclaim Elaine by jamming the crucifix into the door of the church, leaving them barricaded inside and allowing him to flee with Elaine (see lead photograph).

The wedding scene of The Graduate

Such overt anti-Christian imagery jarred with the film’s first audiences—but was only the start of Hollywood’s disparagement of Christianity, and seems tame by today’s standards. Such efforts culminated in depicting nuns in sexual roles. Notoriously, the opening scene of the pilot of Californication, a program starring and produced by the Jewish actor David Duchovny (whose father was a publicist for the American Jewish Committee), depicts a nun performing oral sex on Duchovny’s character Hank Moody in a church. This pornographic debasement of Christian symbols by Jews is a blatant way of defiling Christian culture.

The wedding scene in The Graduate is supposed to be a triumphant moment: two young people rebelling against and liberating themselves from the oppressive expectations of their parents and their pathogenic culture. The conclusion to The Graduate glorifies breaking away from familial, cultural (and implicitly ethnic) constraints in favor of individualism. The Graduate’s core theme can be broken down to a general societal and political defiance. In the first scene of the film, Benjamin rides to the left on an airport conveyor belt as everyone else accedes to the airport’s public announcement system’s request to “Please stay to the right.” The political symbolism is obvious.

The Graduate was made at a time when the New Left was ascendant in the United States, and when the ideas of Jewish intellectuals like Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse were displacing orthodox Marxism in leftist movements throughout the West. Indeed, Nichols’ film can be seen as a subversive exposition of ideas espoused by Marcuse in his seminal 1964 work One Dimensional Man. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Marcuse’s work was probably the most influential social theory of its day and enjoyed a wide readership. In One Dimensional Man, he argued that advanced industrial societies like the United States repress their populations by creating false needs via mass advertising, industrial management, and modes of thought which resulted in a “one dimensional” universe of thought and behavior which stifled people’s capacity for critical thought and oppositional behavior. Marcuse advocated what he called the “great refusal” as the only effective opposition to these all-encompassing methods of social control. He championed sexual and ethnic minorities and outsiders “to nourish oppositional thought and behavior.”[16]

A generation of young radicals took up Marcuse’s texts as “essential criticism of existing forms of thought and behavior,” and Marcuse himself identified with the New Left and defended their politics and activism. For Marcuse, the traditional European family structure served “to legitimate authoritarian institutions and practices” and predisposed individuals to “accept social authority.” Alongside fellow Frankfurt School intellectuals Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, he viewed the traditional Western family was an important institution “for the production of ‘authoritarian personalities’ who are inclined to submit to dominant authorities, however irrational.”[17]

Herbert Marcuse

There are also strong points of intersection between Marcuse’s ideas and those of Jewish post-Freudian intellectual Wilhelm Reich. In his 1933 book The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Reich argued that the authoritarian family is of critical importance for the authoritarian state because the family “becomes the factory in which the state’s structure and ideology are molded.”[18] Crucial for Reich was the repression of childhood sexuality, which, in his view, created children who are docile, fearful of authority, and in general anxious and submissive. Reich claimed the role of traditional “repressive” Western sexual morality was “to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order.” Marcuse agreed with Reich that the “liberation of sexuality and the creation of non-hierarchical democratic structures in the family, workplace and society at large would create personalities resistant to fascism.”[19]

Marcuse, like Nichols, a refugee from National Socialist Germany, is said to have been “extremely sensitive to the dangers of fascistic tendencies” and his work was an important part of the great cultural shift from the affirmation to the repudiation of inherited values.[20] The familial, religious and ethnic ties of White people were presented by Jewish intellectuals like Marcuse (and Hollywood writers and producers) as an oppressive burden imposed by the past—a way in which parents encumber their offspring with an inheritance of dysfunctional norms.

Frankfurt School intellectuals, including Marcuse, held that the psychologically healthy White person was someone who had broken free from these dysfunctional norms (i.e., the traditional Western moral code), and realized their human potential without relying on membership in collectivist groups. The embrace of radical individualism among non-Jews, promoted by the likes of Marcuse, was, of course, conducive to the continuation of Judaism as a cohesive group. Yet while Marcuse promoted individualism and condemned White racial feeling as deeply immoral, he was a committed Zionist who strongly supported “the establishment of a Jewish state, capable of preventing the repetition of a holocaust.” Marcuse justified supporting ethnic nationalism for his own tribe on the basis that “The United States didn’t do a goddamn thing under Roosevelt about the persecution of Jews before and during World War II,” and because “There is a continued effective anti-Semitism that could explode at any time in a neo-fascist regime. … Anti-Semitism is rampant in all states, and still exists in all states.”[21]

This line of thinking motivated the activism of Jewish New Left leaders like Mark Rudd who actively promoted Marcuse’s ideas. Rudd claimed that for him and his New Left colleagues, “World War II and the Holocaust were our fixed reference points. We often talked about the moral imperative not to be good Germans. We saw American racism as akin to German racism towards the Jews.”[22]

Alongside intellectual activists like Marcuse and political activists like Rudd, Hollywood has played an incredibly important role in this Jewish campaign to attack and destroy the fabric of White American society. Hollywood’s guiding principle, as articulated by Jewish Hollywood director Jill Soloway, resides in the perceived necessity of “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust.”[23] This ethnic “defense” has entailed the promotion of radical individualism for White people, racial diversity and mixing, the denigration of Christianity, the hypersexualization of popular culture, the glamorizing of sexual non-conformity and the breakdown of traditional gender roles—all alongside constant reminders of “the Holocaust” with its concomitant themes of Jewish victimhood and unsurpassed German (White, European) evil. This is Jewish ethnic warfare waged through the construction of culture. The Graduate was an early shot fired in this ongoing war.


[1] Alec Scott, “When ‘The Graduate’ Opened Fifty Years Ago, It Changed Hollywood (and America) Forever,” Smithsonian Magazine, December 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/graduate-opened-50-years-ago-changed-hollywood-forever-180967222/

[2] Laurie Gwen Shapiro, “50 Years Later, Just How Jewish Was ‘The Graduate?’” Forward, November 15, 2017. https://forward.com/culture/387524/50-years-later-just-how-jewish-was-the-graduate/

[3] Gus Cileone, “What does the water imagery in ‘The Graduate’ express about the 1960s youth mindset and destiny,” The Take, October 7, 2015. https://screenprism.com/insights/article/what-does-the-water-imagery-in-the-graduate-express-about-the-1960s-youth-m

[4] Shapiro, “50 Years Later,” op cit.

[5] J.W. Whitehead, Appraising The Graduate: The Mike Nichols Classic and Its Impact in Hollywood (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2011) 58.

[6] Steve Almond, “Remembering Mike Nichols And The Cinematic Landmark That Was ‘The Graduate,’” wbur, November 21, 2014. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2014/11/21/mike-nichols-the-graduate-steve-almond

[7] Scott, “When The Graduate Opened Fifty Years Ago,” op cit.

[8] Shapiro, “50 Years Later,” op cit.

[9] Whitehead, Appraising The Graduate, 63.

[10] Shapiro, “50 Years Later,” op cit.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Whitehead, Appraising The Graduate, 63.

[14] Beverley Gray, Seduced By Mrs. Robinson: How “The Graduate” Became the Touchstone of a Generation (Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 2017), 42-3.

[15] Shapiro, 50 Years Later,” op cit.

[16] Douglas Kellner, “Introduction to the Second Edition,” Herbert Marcuse, One-dimensional Man: Studies in Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (London: Routledge, 1991), xi.

[17] Douglas Kellner, Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984) 110.

[18] Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (London: Penguin, 1970) 64.

[19] Kellner, Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism, 111.

[20] Ibid., 296.

[21] Herbert Marcuse & Douglas Kellner (Ed.), The New Left and the 1960s: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse (London: Routledge, 2004), 180.

[22] Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillan, 2014), 254.

[23] http://estherkustanowitz.typepad.com/myurbankvetch2005/2009/04/jenji-kohan-jill-soloway-and-the-hebrew-mamita-inside-the-jewish-noggin.html

Vulture Capitalism, Jews — and Hollywood, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

The Big Short. Did things get any better in 2015 when the star-studded film The Big Short came out? Definitely not. Here we had Brad Pitt, Steve Carell, Christian Bale and Ryan Gosling — goys to a man — acting out the script of the book of the same name by best-selling author Michael Lewis (Moneyball, The Blind Side). And that script would be about how the subprime mortgage industry was slated for a big fall, with our main characters devising ways to place bets on such a fall. To them, there was a serious housing bubble and they meant to

collect when the collapse of the bubble came.

Ryan Gosling

This time, however, Hollywood alone cannot be faulted for seriously downplaying Jewish identity because gentile author Lewis already did that for them, thank you very much.

I had high hopes for Lewis’s book revolving around Jewish identity and was encouraged when I read the second sentence of Chapter One: “[Steve Eisman had] grown up in New York City, gone to yeshiva schools, graduated from the University of Pennsylvania magna cum laude, and then with honors from Harvard Law School.” Yes, I thought, this book was going to openly discuss Jewish identity on Wall Street.

A few pages later, Lewis describes Eisman’s wife and her mother talking about the United Jewish Appeal, as well as how the young Eisman studied the Talmud to find its internal inconsistencies, so I thought we might have a Jewish tale on par with Jordan Belfort’s The Wolf of Wall Street. Alas, that was the last we heard of anything explicitly related to Jews or Jewishness. What a pity, since the subprime mortgage bond collapse was in fact an intensely Jewish affair.

We could have read about Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg of AIG, Sandy Weill of Citigroup, Dick Fuld of bankrupt Lehman Brothers, or Alan Schwartz of the failed Bear Sterns—and many, many other Jewish players on Wall Street. Most remarkably, we read nary a word on the real powers in finance, people like those “The Three Apostles,” Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin or his successor Larry Summers. Nor do we read more than passing reference to two-term Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, who oversaw the entire life of the subprime mortgage fiasco, serving from 2006 to 2014.

Worse, we never read about the larger narrative surrounding the financial crisis of those years. (This review of then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s account of the crisis gives a suitable feel for how tremendously dangerous the period was.)

In The Big Short, Lewis follows previously mentioned Steve Eisman, as well as a gentile California neurologist-turned hedge fund manager, Michael Burry.  Also featured in the book is Greg Lippmann, head subprime manager at Deutsche Bank, but Lewis never once refers to Lippmann as Jewish. This just isn’t the story Lewis wants to tell, so it’s no surprise that Hollywood screenwriters also left out this important Jewish angle.

Turning now to the 2015 film version of The Big Short, we see that director and co-screenwriter Adam McKay, who is married to the Jewish Shira Piven, does, to his credit, faithfully show the scene where the young Eisman is in a synagogue with his rabbi. But my feeling is that this is done so much in passing that it will be lost on most gentile viewers. More to the point, however, is that actor Steve Carell simply doesn’t come across in any way as Jewish.


Steve Carell should have been Jewish

Now that we’ve looked at visual issues and identity in The Big Short, let’s consider some of the big dollar figures at stake. “Million” hardly has meaning in the debacle, with “billion” being a far more common term (and “trillion” popping up now and again). Despite the impression readers and viewers might have, the four main characters featured in book and movie were hardly the biggest players in the subprime mortgage game, though neurologist Michael Burry certainly did well, as this excerpt from a Vanity Fair article Lewis did in March 2010 shows:

It was precisely the moment he had told his investors, back in the summer of 2005, that they only needed to wait for. Crappy mortgages worth nearly $400 billion were resetting from their teaser rates to new, higher rates. By the end of July his marks were moving rapidly in his favor — and he was reading about the genius of people like John Paulson, who had come to the trade a year after he had. The Bloomberg News service ran an article about the few people who appeared to have seen the catastrophe coming. Only one worked as a bond trader inside a big Wall Street firm: a formerly obscure asset-backed-bond trader at Deutsche Bank named Greg Lippmann. The investor most conspicuously absent from the Bloomberg News article — one who had made $100 million for himself and $725 million for his investors — sat alone in his office, in Cupertino, California. By June 30, 2008, any investor who had stuck with Scion Capital from its beginning, on November 1, 2000, had a gain, after fees and expenses, of 489.34 percent. (The gross gain of the fund had been 726 percent.) Over the same period the S&P 500 returned just a bit more than 2 percent.

A far bigger winner was John Paulson, who appears briefly in the article, having spoken to Lewis for the book. Personally, what I’d like to have read about is Paulson’s bets on subprime mortgages. While Burry made just shy of a billion dollars, Paulson made history by earning $4 billion for himself in 2007, followed by $5 billion three years later. “Paulson, bucking the trends and the advice of other investors, gambled that the mortgage market would collapse. His bet paid off immensely. In 2007, the funds run by Paulson were up $15 billion — a staggering investment return rate of nearly 600%.” Of course, for career reasons, I can see why Lewis didn’t dwell on Paulson in the book, and naturally Hollywood was happy to let it go unmentioned.

Paulson’s mother was Jewish, and Paulson has worked in a highly Jewish milieu during his education and career, beginning with a Sidney Weinberg/Goldman Sachs scholarship. Later, he worked with Leon Levy at Odyssey Partners, then moved to Bear Stearns. His older sister, Theodora Bar-El, is an Israeli biologist. Perhaps I should read Gregory Zuckerman’s 2009 book The Greatest Trade Ever: The Behind-the-Scenes Story of How John Paulson Defied Wall Street and Made Financial History to fill in the missing gaps in this story. (And as far as I know, Hollywood has yet to make a film from Zuckerman’s book.)

Zooming out, we read in The Big Short that in total, according to an IMF estimation, about $1 trillion dollars was lost due to the subprime crisis. (Oddly, at the end of the film, we read: “When the dust settled from the collapse, 5 trillion dollars in pension money, real estate value, 401k, savings, and bonds had disappeared.” I can’t account for this large discrepancy.)

Let’s stick with the IMF’s estimate of $1 trillion. That’s a lot of billions in there, far, far more than Paulson’s money alone. So where did the money go?  More to the point, who is responsible? Lewis allows his characters to blame stupid investment banks, but others point directly to those in charge of America’s finances: “The Three (Jewish) Apostles — Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers,” as well as Greenspan’s successor, Bernanke.

Time Magazine’s Entry in the “Most Ironic Story of the Year” Category

Just as when you throw a rock in the air at a Wall Street soiree you’ll almost certainly hit someone guilty, one can turn to practically any source on Greenspan et al.’s roles and find many suspicious characters. For instance, let’s consider this unlikely source for suspicion about what The Three Apostles and other high-placed Jews were up to — Clyde Prestowitz’s 2010 The Betrayal of American Prosperity. Here, Prestowitz notes how in 1989 and 1993, financial instruments that later played a central role in the meltdown of 2008–9 were exempted from government oversight. For instance, Greenspan was adamant about getting the government out of the way. “In fact, Greenspan largely halted the Fed’s active oversight of the banking industry.” Joined by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and subsequent Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, “the three mounted an aggressive campaign to halt any efforts to regulate trading of new derivative instruments.”

When measures to impose constraints on these risky trades were being considered, Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers pointedly blocked them. Also, when Brooksley Born, Chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, attempted to do her job, Summers aggressively attacked her actions. Right on cue, Greenspan, Rubin and Arthur Levitt of the Securities and Exchange Commission pressured Congress to straightjacket Born. (I thought of the beleaguered Ms. Born when in the film version of The Big Short, Georgia Hale, an employee at Standard & Poor’s Financial Services, was grilled by a visiting Mark Baum [Steve Eisman].)

This bullying of Born persisted into 2000, as Greenspan continued to insist that Wall Street should be trusted and left to its own devices. “With those assurances, Congress went ahead and stripped the CFTC of responsibility for derivatives, and President Clinton signed the bill into law in December 2000.” Meanwhile, Ms. Born quietly left government service.

Money Monster. The last money movie I dissected was Money Monster (2016), starring two more big names: George Clooney and Julia Roberts. Clooney plays Lee Gates, the slick and jaded host of a TV financial advice show of the same name. Gates plugs a company which mysteriously loses $800 million, and many investors are ruined — including one who arrives at the studio and takes Gates hostage with an explosive vest.

The hostage taker is one Kyle Budwell (played by Anglo-Irish actor Jack O’Connell). Budwell is mentally challenged, as shown by his speech and childish behavior. For example, when his mother died and left him $60,000, he invested the whole amount in a company named IBIS, after Gates on a previous show highly recommended the stock. Budwell aims for revenge against Gates for his poor advice and against the CEO of IBIS, Walt Camby.

In the film people are busy behind the scenes finding out where corrupt CEO Camby is. It turns out that he made a secret trip to South Africa to advance his scheme to temporarily employ $800 million from his company to make a killing on a certain mining stock. The deal, unfortunately, falls through and the money is gone. This is then blamed on a “computer glitch” linked to sophisticated trading algorithms, but terrorist Budwell isn’t buying it. For that matter, Grant is becoming suspicious, as well as the head of PR at IBIS.

Emotions evolve. Even though enraged swindled invester Kyle Budwell has laced Grant with an explosive necklace, Grant has begun to feel growing sympathy for Budwell, and eventually we learn of another huge financial crime committed by the fictitious CEO Walt Camby. But of course, if you are going to have a financial criminal, he will have to be cast as not possibly Jewish. Wikipedia informs us that Dominic West, who plays CEO Camby, “was … the sixth of seven siblings … in a Roman Catholic family, largely of Irish descent.” So Jewish he ain’t.


Dominic West

Still, despite its obvious deception, Money Monster is instructive in a way. For those who understand which group is really culpable, a soliloquy by Budwell explains some of that group’s offenses:

I want everyone to know something. I might be the one with the gun here, but I’m not the real criminal. It’s people like these guys! [pointing to Grant and the set crew]. They’re stealing everything from us and they’re getting away with it, too. Nobody’s asking how. Nobody’s asking why.

You got to open your eyes out there. … the government’s no help. How they just look the other way, since after they’re done stealing our money, they barely even have to pay any taxes on it!  I’m telling you, it’s rigged. The whole goddamn thing. They’re stealing the country out from under us. Not the Muslims. Not the Chinese. Them.

It’s all fixed. They like how the math adds up, so they got to keep rewriting the equation. Which means, the one time you finally get a little extra money, you try and be smart about it, you turn on the TV. Boom. That’s how they fucking take it. They take it so fast they don’t even have to explain it! They literally own the airwaves. They literally control the information.

That is very good: “Not the Muslims. Not the Chinese. Them.” Ah, yes. Budwell is blaming people like Grant, CEO Camby and those like them. But if you replace “they” and “them” with “Jews,” his speech is instructive indeed. Is it rigged? Well, anyone reading accounts of the trading patterns of Goldman Sachs, for one, will agree with that. Just Google it — you’ll get about 800,000 hits.

Also informative about Goldman Sachs is Budwell’s claim, “They take it so fast they don’t even have to explain it!” Many of us still remember the charges laid against Goldman in this respect. In brief:

While the SEC is busy investigating Goldman Sachs, it might want to look into another Goldman-dominated fraud: computerized front running using high-frequency trading programs. . . .

[Called] High Frequency Trading (HFT) or “black box trading,” automated program trading uses high-speed computers governed by complex algorithms (instructions to the computer) to analyze data and transact orders in massive quantities at very high speeds. Like the poker player peeking in a mirror to see his opponent’s cards, HFT allows the program trader to peek at major incoming orders and jump in front of them to skim profits off the top. And these large institutional orders are our money — our pension funds, mutual funds, and 401Ks.

Sort of like how the Kosher tax skims money off the food industry. I think what made the most pointed sense to me was Budwell’s linking of financial deceit with the power to create the (un)reality we see and hear: “They literally own the airwaves. They literally control the information.” This has been a key point others and I at TOO have made for years: Jews have immense media control throughout the West — and it’s killing us.

White societies throughout the world have been and continue to be subverted culturally, diluted through scandalous levels of non-White immigration, and drained of wealth and treasure, which Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents summed up so accurately:

Jews, of course, more than any other people, are aware of the necessary conditions of collective survival. They are concerned to secure these conditions for their own people even as they deny them to us. The obvious conclusion is that they mean for us not to survive as a people. America is being corrupted, exploited, degraded, and murdered by the organized Jewish community.

Johnson later added another idea relevant to my article here: “White Nationalism is an intellectual movement. We are a vast online educational project.” Indeed, TOO lives only on the Internet.

(I confess I was miffed when I read recently the following lines from Andrew Anglin in an otherwise good entry: “The grounds are fertile and the time has come for an open discussion about Jews in society. What we need now is an unironic, non-humorous take on the Jewish problem from serious people who are able to speak seriously about this serious problem.” Has TOO not been a leading source of serious discussion of this topic for two decades?)

Strike Through the Mask!

To recap, I’ll repeat the reasons for linking financial scandals with Hollywood: First, Jews run Hollywood. It is indeed an empire of their own. Second, Jews throughout modern history have been involved in immense financial scandals, reaching truly astonishing proportions in the last half century. Third, Jews use their Hollywood propaganda machine to obscure these facts. Case in point: This is the sixth major film I’ve featured that advances the deception about the Jewish role in financial skullduggery. As I’ve said, this is an explicit disinformation campaign.

 

Again plugging the recent TOO article from “Publius,” we see how the author has gone through volumes of evidence of interlocking Jewish financial and political activity. He then adds a nice literary touch when he quotes this, then expounds further:

“So you see, my dear Coningsby,” the Jewish Benjamin Disraeli wrote in his novel Coningsby, “that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” It is my goal — and if I may be so bold as to speak for others, that of the other writers at the Occidental Observer and other dissident voices I’m sure — to shoulder our way into the conversation and show plainly the architects of this modern horror show. With any luck, figures like Steyer and Bloomberg will continue to drop the mask and show the public who they really are, making our job that much easier. To combat the pernicious agenda of the globalist establishment, we must first understand it. We must know the what’s, the when’s, the where’s, the who’s, the why’s, and the how’s and proceed accordingly. [emphasis added]

I’m glad Publius saw fit to mention the word mask, for that has been a driving theme of this essay. Joyce uses it by demanding that we “Strike through the mask!” and later explains how “these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by hiding behind the mask.”

I’ve tried desperately for years to help others see through this mask, in large part by examining the products Hollywood has inundated us with since the advent of moving pictures. My appeal to you is captured by Publius’s plea: “Do you see how all this works? This is how a decadent ruling class operates — governing for its own benefit and, for the preponderance of Jews, that of its tribe” [emphasis again added].

The half-dozen or so Hollywood films I’ve examined here at TOO play a central role in covering up what is so stunningly obvious. We need to understand these propaganda techniques and somehow teach others to see them as well. Otherwise, organized Jewry will continue to siphon off vast sums of money from the greater economy and employ it against the whole of the goyische world.

In closing, I’ll say that after “striking through the mask,” we must follow an observation from leading unmasker of Jewish behavior, E. Michael Jones, where he concludes a recent video with these simple but profound words: “Consciousness is the beginning of change.” MacDonald, Joyce, “Publius” — and, yes, Edmund Connelly — are doing everything humanly possible to “strike through the mask.”

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

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? Read more

Review of Money Monster

money-monster

Actors George Clooney and Julia Roberts have now joined an illustrious group of starring actors in an ongoing disinformation campaign. Look at the company they join: 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.

Their role: 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 actual Whites. Consistently.

In Money Monster (2016), Clooney plays Lee Gates, the slick and jaded host of a TV financial advice show of the same name. Gates plugs a company which mysteriously loses $800 million, and many investors are ruined — including one who arrives at the studio and takes Gates hostage with an explosive vest.

And talk about delicious serendipity! Though written long before Trump emerged as a serious challenger to the corrupt status quo in American politics, the film has the hostage taker voicing outrage over financial and media corruption that almost perfectly parallels what Trump has often thundered, including recently at a West Palm Beach campaign rally. Read more

Woody Allen’s Café Society

cafe_society

“I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.” [i] — Joel Stein

Woody Allen’s crepuscular film Café Society (2016) is as boring as it is instrumentally instructive as a testament to Jewish cosmopolitanism, domination and reshaping of American values and culture. Set in the 1930s the film centers on Bobby Dorfman (Jesse Eisenberg), the youngest son of a New York Jewish family, who leaves his father’s jewelry business for Hollywood. If Fellini used Mastroianni, as an idealized surrogate-self, Eisenberg is used rather as Allen’s mirror image, neurotic, shlumpy, physically weak, lascivious, overtly sentimental but quick-witted, clever with high verbal acuity – a certain Jewish je ne sais quoi.

Jesse Eisenbert, Kristen Stewart, and Woody Allen in Cafe Society

Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, and Woody Allen, on the set of Café Society

The conflation of Dorfman and Allen is made even more obvious with Allen’s voiceover narration throughout. The Dorfman family trio functions as a trio of Jewish stereotypes, his elder brother a gangster, his sister married to a Marxist intellectual, and both he and his uncle settled in the entertainment industry. Radical intellectualism and entertainment are a microcosm of the Jewish cultural enterprise, and the explicitly crude expression of usurious tendencies in the gangster are a stand-in for a still-common Jewish phenomenon of exploitative business practices (see Andrew Joyce’s “Jews and Money Lending: A Contemporary Case File”).  Each of these enterprises supports and affirms the other.

Continuing with the Jewish stereotypes, Allen intersperses scenes with Jews who fleetingly pass off stock tips, whispering in an ear at a party – implicitly showcasing ethnic networking. Read more

The Big Short: Film and Book

I’ve never worked a day of my life on Wall Street and, in fact, have never knowingly spoken with someone who has. Still, it is child’s play to uncover the vast roles Jews play in New York’s financial district. For that matter, it is not that hard to show how Hollywood consistently covers up those roles, particularly when it comes to gross misbehavior.

This is sort of the case when it comes to Michael Lewis’s 2010 book The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, as well as the film version in 2015. I say “sort of” because, first, in both stories, it is unclear whether the unfathomable sums of money lost on Wall Street was a result of fraud, stupidity, or simply not understanding immensely complex financial instruments.

Second, this time Hollywood cannot be faulted for seriously downplaying Jewish identity. Lewis has already done that for them, although it’s quite likely that he understands the Jewish nexus of the whole thing.  He describes himself as a “toy goy” — he has had close connections with Jews and Jewish institutions throughout his life, beginning in grade school and continuing throughout his professional life: “Some of my earliest memories are of playing dreidels, singing Jewish folk songs and defending myself against anti-Semitism.” This is a guy who knows how the world works and what he can and cannot say to defend himself against charges of anti-Semitism.

Author Michael Lewis

Author Michael Lewis

Plot summary: the story is about four men who came to believe that the subprime mortgage industry was slated for a big fall, so they devised ways to place bets on such a fall. To them, there was a serious housing bubble and they meant to collect when the collapse of the bubble came. Read more