Jews and Hollywood

The Indoctrination Game, Part 2: Jewish media influence as decisive in creating a positive public culture of homosexuality

Part 1

The recent Jewish sanctification of Alan Turing as noble gay victim and Nazi nemesis is the photographic negative of pre-and post-World War II Jewish efforts to smear Hitler and his National Socialist comrades as “sexual perverts.” For decades the supposedly sordid sex lives of Hitler and the Nazi leadership filled tomes. Allegations of homosexuality were often repeated in Social Democratic and Communist newspapers (often Jewish-owned and -controlled) in the years leading up to Hitler becoming German chancellor in 1933.

Jewish attempts to brand Hitler and other National Socialist leaders as sexual perverts have since been largely abandoned with the ascendant cultural Marxist assault on White heterosexual normativity since the 1970s. Two Harvard-educated (non-Jewish) homosexuals, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, authored what can only be described as an incredibly successful blueprint for marketing the radical homosexual agenda in the United States. In their 1990 book entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, they advocated the demonization of those opposed to homosexuality, painting them as evil as possible until the general public comes to view such people as moral pariahs and avoids them. The authors suggested that Christians and others opposed to homosexuality should be labelled Klansmen, Nazis, racists or unbalanced freaks. Obviously, this approach draws on the long history of the media demonizing and pathologizing Whites who identify as Whites and see pursuing White interests as legitimate, a tradition that has its intellectual roots in the unholy nexus of the Frankfurt School and psychoanalysis.

Although TOO has emphasized that homosexuality should not be condemned by White advocates and that White homosexuals should also realize they have interests as Whites (see, e.g., here), the movement to promote a public culture of homosexuality is injurious for a variety of reasons, and certainly does not further the biological/ethnic interests of White homosexuals. It is deplorable that sexual non-conformists have become a central component of the “culture of the aggrieved” that permeates all Western societies and is a pillar of the political left.

Typical of the left, it has used its power to go beyond vilification to direct infringement on the freedoms of speech and religion of those who disapprove of homosexuality. With “gay marriage” legalized in Canada, Catholic Schools are having a difficult time teaching Catholic precepts on marriage and sexuality and an Ontario statute compels Catholic schools to host “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs. In the U.S., many individuals and groups are being punished for what amount to thought crimes, such as the couple from Oregon (the same state that allows 15-year old children to have a state-funded sex change operation without parental consent) who were ordered to pay $135,000 for “emotional suffering” to two lesbians when they refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.  Read more

The Indoctrination Game, Part 1: Constructing Alan Turing as Jewish Proxy

The Imitation Game is a 2014 historical thriller film based on the biography Alan Turing: The Enigma by the mathematician and gay rights activist Andrew Hodges. It stars Benedict Cumberbatch as the British cryptanalyst Alan Turing, who, working with a team of experts at the country estate Bletchley Park, devises a machine that, after much trial and error (and official interference) cracks the Germans’ notoriously difficult Enigma communications code. This breakthrough turns the tide of World War II and hastens Germany’s defeat. Turing is later prosecuted by a British court for his homosexuality and commits suicide as a result of the hormone treatment he is forced to endure.

The film was a huge commercial success (grossing $219 million against a $14 million production budget), received many award nominations, and won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. However, while The Imitation Game was critically acclaimed, it was also slated for its many historical inaccuracies. Largely neglected in all the commentary about the Weinstein Company’s historical drama is the Jewish ethno-political agenda that runs through the film.

One Jewish source notes that, despite Benedict Cumberbatch being “so gentile it’s almost shocking,” the film has “significant Jewish angles” while being about “a non-Jewish mathematical genius from Cambridge University, Alan Turing, and his efforts to crack Nazi codes in the bucolic British countryside.” It admits that, given the Jewish domination of Hollywood, “perhaps it’s not shocking that the film’s producers are Jews (the clues are there in ‘film’ and ‘producers’)”—these producers being Ido Ostrowsky, Nora Grossman, and Teddy Schwarzman (the son of billionaire Jewish financier Stephen Schwarzman) who “were drawn to Turing’s story as a tale of a brilliant outsider forced to work with others to win the war against German evil.” Ah, the venerable heroic Jew as outsider theme. Read more

Jenji Kohan and the Jewish Hyper-Sexualization of Western Culture

As detailed in The Culture of Critique, Freud and his followers regarded anti-Semitism was a universal pathology which had its roots in sexual repression. The theoretical basis for this can be found in Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality where he linked aggression to the frustration of human drives — especially the sex drive. Kevin MacDonald notes that: “Although Freud himself later developed the idea of a death instinct to explain aggression, a consistent theme of the Freudian critique of Western culture, as exemplified for example by Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich, has been that the liberation of sexual repressions would lead to lowered aggression and usher in an era of universal love.”[1]

According to this view, anti-Semitism, regarded as a form of aggression, results from the denial of sexuality, and the role of the Jewish mission of psychoanalysis was to end anti-Semitism by freeing humanity of its sexual repressions. Individuals preoccupied with sex were considered unlikely to concern themselves with the activities of Jews, much less to organize politically against them. People who spend most of their time in search of sexual stimulation are unlikely to organize pogroms or threaten the rich and powerful Jewish establishment. In his /issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38 [now a hijacked site] widely cited 2004 essay from the Jewish Quarterly Nathan Abrams observed that:

Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Goodman wrote of the “beautiful cultural consequences” that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would “ennoble all our art” and “humanize sexuality.”

The hyper-sexualization of Western culture (the most conspicuous result of the Jewish takeover and virtual monopolization of the Western media and entertainment industries) can, therefore, be viewed as the practical ethno-political application of psychoanalytic theory to a traditional Western culture regarded as inherently authoritarian, fascistic and anti-Semitic due to its “repressive” sexual morality. MacDonald points out that “psychoanalysis has been a veritable treasure trove of ideas for those intent on developing radical critiques of Western culture” with these ideas influencing thought in a wide range of areas, “including sociology, child rearing, criminology, anthropology, literary criticism, art, literature, and the popular media.”[2] Read more

A Review of Jewcentricity by Adam Garfinkle — Part 2 of 4: Hollywood

Part 1.

In his book Garfinkle laments the fact that “negative Jewcentricity” has often resulted from “exaggerated” claims that “Jews run Hollywood” and have subverted the traditional morality and social practices of the United States (and the broader West). He notes that:

The best way to get at the subject is perhaps to briefly review some irrefutable facts about the entertainment-business culture in the United States. The first of those facts is, as already suggested, that this culture has been and remains disproportionately, overwhelmingly, even astonishingly Jewish. This does not mean that Jews “run” Hollywood. No one runs Hollywood, and besides, “the Jews” are not a monolithic group that gathers secretly somewhere just off Santa Monica Boulevard to plot the moral downfall of America. “The Jews run Hollywood,” whether spoken by a Jew or a gentile, either in pride or anger, is a Jewcentric statement. It is a bald exaggeration.

But Jewish prominence in Hollywood is a fact that impresses even when it is not exaggerated. The heads of nearly every major Hollywood production studio from the beginning were Jewish, as were many of the directors and not a small number of the cinematographers and actors. Jews have been only slightly less prominent in the New York theater business for nearly a century, and in many aspects of popular music, as well.[1]  

So, according to Garfinkle, it is wrong to say that “Jews run Hollywood” despite the fact that Hollywood is “disproportionately, overwhelmingly, even astonishingly Jewish.” This is an argument that hinges on a semantic distinction of no persuasive power whatever.

When one finds arguments that are so ridiculous that even a child could see through them and finds them in a book published by an elite academic press,  it can only mean one thing: Garfinkle has plugged into a dominant religion-like mindset in which the causes of anti-Jewish attitudes are entirely beyond rational discussion.

Jews totally run Hollywood. If Jews did not control Hollywood, and, as leftists assert, it was run by corporations solely fixated on profits, we would see occasional unsympathetic portrayals of Jews and Judaism alongside the relentlessly unsympathetic portrayals of Whites (especially White men) and Christianity; we wouldn’t see blacklisting of overt Christians. The absence of such portrayals is definitive proof that Jews exercise editorial and creative control over Hollywood productions, and the consequences of this control have been incredibly damaging to the interests of the White people (and other groups). Read more

“Birth of a Nation” at 100 Years Old


Liberals and multiculturalists hate it when confronted with works of obvious genius which don’t fall into the pattern of their worldview. Along with angst-fuelled hand-wringing over certain works by Shakespeare and Wagner, a more modern manifestation of the problem is the cinematic landmark, The Birth of a Nation (available in part here), which will quietly celebrate its centenary this week. Compelling, innovative, trend-setting, and epic in scale, D.W. Griffith’s astonishing and unflinching vision of the Civil War and Reconstruction-era South remains powerful viewing even on its hundredth birthday.

I was an impressionable eighteen-year-old college student when I first viewed it. Despite the admonitions and careful commentaries of my film and media professor, I remember seeing past the fact that it was silent and interspersed with grainy captions and being impressed by its ‘modern’ style and appearance, and the smoothness of the editorial process. But it was some years later before I came to truly appreciate the scale and meaning of what Griffith had committed to film. On this occasion I watched it in North Carolina, at the home of my wife’s very elderly grandfather. This remarkable old man was every inch a Southerner, and a true gentleman at that. There one humid May evening, with the AC broken down and the windows wide open, the old man pulled out some Civil War relics that he had collected over the years. Presenting a series of antique rifles, medals, and pictures of Lee and Jackson, his eyes regained a youthful spark as he spoke of his own family memories and connections (real or imagined) to a host of Confederate heroes. Later in the evening, after we set down the relics of war in favor of cigars and Scotch, he pulled out a dusty VHS from an old bookcase. It was Birth of a Nation. It’s a long movie, clocking in at over three hours, and the old man drifted off to sleep within the first half hour. But I kept watching. And it was that night, with the firebugs glowing and buzzing by the open windows, and with the fragrant Southern air drifting slowly inside, that I felt what Griffith had aimed to portray — pride of land, pride of culture, and pride of blood. Read more

Thoughts on Race, Biblical Epics, and Early Jewish History

One of many hypocrisies indulged in by organized Jewry and the growing legion of White ethno-masochistic Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) concerns the racial element in motion picture casting. A fairly recent example has been the months of criticism preceding the release of Ridley Scott’s Exodus: Gods and Kings, with most critiques revolving around the theme that the movie is unfaithful to historical racial profiles. Without getting into the debate over which ethnicity built the pyramids, there are probably more than a few aesthetic incongruities in the casting of Moses (if he actually existed) and Ramses II. Welsh-born Christian Bale, cast as Moses, doesn’t look even faintly Semitic. Nor does Joel Edgerton resemble in any way a North African, or Middle Easterner of any description. The rest of the major roles are populated by Anglo-Saxon actors like Sigourney Weaver and Aaron Paul.

Much to the annoyance of hand-wringing liberal commentators, Black actors feature mainly in the movie as slaves. The Sydney Morning Herald even noted that infuriated SJWs had taken to Twitter in droves to protest at the set, “particularly the nose on the Great Sphinx of Giza, saying it gives the statue a European profile.” Because of these and other creative decisions, criticism had been brewing since the cast was first announced, eventually forcing Scott to address his choices in an interview with Yahoo! Australia:

Egypt was—as it is now—a confluence of cultures, as a result of being a crossroads geographically between Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. We cast major actors from different ethnicities to reflect this diversity of culture, from Iranians to Spaniards to Arabs. There are many different theories about the ethnicity of the Egyptian people, and we had a lot of discussions about how to best represent the culture.

While I view the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians as being of token importance in the modern age and of little value in contemporary debates about race, I do take issue with critiques of the casting of Black actors as slaves. Giving the Exodus tale even some benefit of the doubt, and assuming that there was in fact a clash between the leadership of a proto-Jewish population and the Egyptians during the New Kingdom (c.1560–1070 B.C.), a careful look at the historical record suggests that Black slaves (coming mostly from Nubia) were a common feature of the Egyptian landscape. Indeed, the era of Ramses II has been described as the

most flourishing period of Egyptian slavery. The imperial Egyptian state controlled large parts of what now constitutes Israel, the Sinai, Syria, and the northern Sudan. … Nubia was forced to contribute slaves, and entire lists of captured Nubians from this period have been found. Although certain numbers given in the inscriptions are exceedingly high and might be exaggerations, it is obvious that tens of thousands of slaves were imported to Egypt during the great wars of expansion.[1]

Read more

Other People’s Money — The Film

“Indeed, from the very beginnings of the industry until the present, it is impossible to ignore the influence of Jews on the movie business or to overlook the importance of a Jewish consciousness in American films.”
—Lester D. Friedman

“The Jewish involvement in motion pictures is more than a success story; it is the basis of the disproportionate influence that Jews have had in shaping American popular culture.”
—Steven Silbiger

“The way Steven Spielberg sees the world has become the way the world is communicated back to us every day.”
—Stephen Schiff

(See Edmund Connelly, “Understanding Hollywood, Part I: Hollywood’s Jewish Identity

First, the argument: Hollywood, which is and always has been controlled by Jews, uses the medium of film to mask the vast power Jews have over the finances of America — and much of the rest of the world. In particular, Hollywood makes every effort to whitewash the reality of massive Jewish malfeasance in matters financial. This has been one of my major themes on TOO. See, for example, here, here, here, and here.  As you will read, I have documented this pattern and will supplement it with an extensive treatment of the 1991 film Other People’s Money, which gave us a command performance by the diminutive Danny DeVito.

The timing of this film is critical, for it came after a decade of highly publicized Wall Street deals, many of questionable legality or blatant illegality. When we consider the sad spectacle of these scandals of the 1980s, what we find is that there is no doubt about the identity of the vast majority of culprits — at least for those with eyes to see it.

Two writers who had both the eyes to see it and the talent to write about it intelligently were Connie Bruck — who is Jewish — and James B. Stewart — who is not. (Intriguingly, the obituary of Stewart’s mother notes that her son James’ “spouse” is one Benjamin Weil, who is Jewish.) Read more