Jews and Hollywood

Woody Allen’s Café Society

/16 Comments/in , , /by

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

/32 Comments/in , /by

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

Jeff Gates Revisited: Deception at the Oscars

/42 Comments/in , /by

It was like meeting an old friend after a long absence. I’ve been listening to this top-notch radio interview show for about a year now, going back further and further into their archives for new interviews. Lo and behold, I found one from Feb. 2015 that featured the author of one of my favorite books!

First, I was elated that the author is still focusing on the same topic. Second, I learned that a new book on this topic is in the offing. Trust me, this is reason for celebration for the Occidental Observer crowd.

GuiltIn early 2009, I ran across the book Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. The author of this 2008 book is Jeff Gates, and he’s a fascinating  — and very rare — Washington insider, because he is heavily on page with respect to Jewish issues.

I wrote a review of the book seven years ago here and followed it up with a shorter blog here.  Today, I’ll draw from both of those reviews, as well as last year’s Internet radio interview. Without a doubt, Gates is a man worth listening to.

For starters, he’s a highly accomplished man, having served as a convoy commander in Vietnam, followed by law school. Later, he spent seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, and in that capacity he was responsible for much of the federal law on pensions and on employee stock ownership plans, which are now in place in roughly ten thousand U.S. corporations, covering approximately 10 percent of the U.S. workforce. He later practiced law with Senator Russell Long of Louisiana and Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada, who chaired Ronald Reagan’s three presidential campaigns. In addition, he has been an investment banker, advising the governments of thirty-five countries on financial matters. Read more

How They (Continue to) Lie to Us — The Richard Gere Film “Arbitrage”

/57 Comments/in , , /by

moment

In a fairer world, I’d have won accolades for my analysis of Hollywood movies, including my current series that shows how consistently Hollywood conceals 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 then projects them onto innocent, often Nordic looking Whites. Consistently.

Let me explain further by making a very bold claim: Leonardo DiCaprio, John Travolta, Brad Pitt, Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth, Jeremy Irons, Kevin Spacey, Danny DeVito and Gregory Peck are all involved in a tight-knit conspiracy to utterly whitewash an ongoing theft of wealth, one transferring mind-boggling amounts of money to Jews.

Of course, this should be no surprise, really. Anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to Jews and money over the last, oh, thousand years would actually expect this sort of thing. And why be shocked that Jews have tried to hide this conduct? Read more

Merry Christmas Movies . . . NOT! Part 2 — Anti-Christmas Movies

/20 Comments/in , /by

In Part One of this column about the War on Christmas, I wrote that “the Jewish dominance of Hollywood is so obvious and undeniable that Los Angeles Times’ columnist Joel Stein recently made it official. What else can you say when all eight major film studios are run by Jews.” I’ve written on this theme extensively in The Occidental Quarterly (here, here, and TOQ Spring 2008). Or you could read Jewtopia: The Chosen Book for the Chosen People, based on the surprise hit play by Bryan Fogel and Sam Wolfson. Or you could listen to  David Mamet: “For those who have not been paying attention, this group [Ashkenazi Jews] constitutes, and has constituted since its earliest days, the bulk of America’s movie directors and studio heads.”

In The Culture-Wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World, Theodore Baehr and Pat Boone argued that “whoever controls the media controls the culture.” And a lynchpin of that media is Hollywood and its associated TV studios and networks.

Why does it matter that Jews control Hollywood? In essence, it matters because it represents the loss of power of one group—majority white Christians—to a group with a long history of hostility toward the people and culture of the West. Jewish control of Hollywood has been a crucial means for dispossessing majority whites from their place in the country they built. As some have argued, the twentieth century was “a Jewish century,” and much of this was because Jews controlled the image factory known as Hollywood. Read more

Jill Soloway and the “Transgender” Agenda, Part 2

/65 Comments/in , , , /by

Part 1.

Promoting the idea of “gender fluidity”

The ideological glue that holds Jill Soloway’s Transparent together is the deconstruction of the whole concept of gender. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? As one character in the show puts it, “We’re just a bunch of bodies, that’s it. No penis, no vagina, what does it matter?” According to Soloway, “The show questions the binary; trans people question the binary. Trans-ness demands that people live in the gray. The word ‘trans’ is about traveling the space between the binary. Judaism/feminism/trans politics — they can all really be woven together. Living at that ground zero place of otherness is inspiring to me.” Soloway is passionate about normalizing the concept of “gender fluidity”: Paste Magazine notes that: “In Transparent sexual identity loses its ‘statehood’ and becomes fluid, treated like an ongoing process with its own ebbs and flows.”

As Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, noted, the reality, as distinct from Soloway’s ideologically-driven fantasies, , is that far from being a normal healthy behavior, “transgenderism” is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment. Noting that changing sex is “biologically impossible,” McHugh observes that “people who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.” Read more

Jill Soloway and the “Transgender” Agenda, Part 1

/7 Comments/in , /by
soloway

Jill Soloway and son Isaac

 

In a recent article I explored the Jewish role in the hyper-sexualization of Western culture. I made the point that this phenomenon — the most obvious result of the Jewish takeover and virtual monopolization of the Western media and entertainment industries — represents the deliberate ethno-political application of psychoanalytic theory to a Western culture regarded as inherently authoritarian, fascistic and anti-Semitic due to its “repressive” sexual morality. This hyper-sexualization agenda, which has had disastrous social consequences for White people, operates in tandem with the Jewish-led “civil rights” movements which demand deference for non-Whites and sexual non-conformists — these serving as proxies for Jews as the prototypical outsiders in Western societies. With the legality of “gay marriage” seemingly secured (largely as a result of Jewish efforts) the focus of the “identity politics” agenda has now shifted to deconstructing traditional Western views about what it means to be a man or a woman.

As with the other “civil rights” movements dominated by Jews, the motivations underlying the  “transgender” rights movement are ultimately grounded in the subversive doctrines of the Frankfurt School — and in particular The Authoritarian Personality which found that those who ranked highly on the ethnocentrism scale (i.e., those more likely to harbor “anti-Semitic” views) tended to live in worlds with rigid gender boundaries, where attractiveness was grounded in traditional conceptions of masculinity and femininity, and where sexual mores were clearly delineated. Kevin MacDonald notes that “Jews, as a highly cohesive group, have an interest in advocating a completely atomistic, individualistic society in which ingroup-outgroup distinctions are not salient to gentiles.”[i] It is therefore in Jewish interests to subvert all non-Jewish social categories — whether these be based on race, religion or gender boundaries and roles. Hence their recent championing of the concept of “fluidity” which is the very antithesis of anything separate, homogeneous, or with clear boundaries. All cohesive (and evolutionarily adaptive) social categories that have characterized Western civilization have been subverted by Jewish activists. White masculinity has been a particular target. In his book Theorizing Masculinities the Jewish intellectual Michael Kaufman notes that:

If the hypotheses so patiently investigated by the Frankfurt School were right, this was a masculinity particularly involved in the maintenance of patriarchal ideology — marked by hatred for homosexuals and insistence on the subordination of women. But it was not the only show in town. The Authoritarian Personality analysed this character type in contrast to a “democratic character” that could resist the appeals of fascism. Inadvertently, therefore, the research documented different types of masculinity, distinguished along lines other than the normal-versus-pathological categories of clinical psychoanalysis.[ii]

tap

Read more