• Toys in the Attic. Review by Raeto West

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of Film 4 June 2024 Toys in the Attic

From about the mid-1980s, Ivor Catt and Clive Sinclair were in negotiations around Catt's 'wafer scale integration' invention. Sinclair (Jewish origin name, Schlesinger or something, was an ornament of Mensa, along with Serebriakoff). I later contacted Ivor via his publisher of The Catt Concept, and exchanged notes.
Ivor thought he'd make a lot of money with Sinclair, which is where this play/ film enters the story. It started as a stage play by Lillian Hellman, who was 'romantically involved' with Dashiell Hammett. Toys in the Attic seems to have been made into a play in 1960. It was filmed, including Dean Martin. It can be watched online. It is black and white, including tricks of the time, for example heavily patterned shadows cast at odd angles, and thuggish violence attributed to goyim. It seems to have failed as a project, losing money. And with good reason, as it doesn't hang together. It's about a family from New Orleans, with synthetic accents. Dean Martin is obviously meant to be a con-man, but Hellman in true Jew fashion, doesn't discuss what he does, so there's plenty of confusion, and sudden change of character—"Don't you dare say that ever again" style.
The title seems have had some legs; I wonder if it was hers. Pink Floyd used it somewhere.

Anyway, back to Ivor, anticipating his large windfall. He fell out with his then-wife, in a series of events. She (a lecturer in law) had no sympathy with his ambitions, disbelieved he would get money, thought another couple had patent rights, and was hostile to him. And annoyed him by talking of curtain fittings in the small hours.

His son took his wife's side; and a psychiatrist was called in—Bryan Robinson, who became involved in Greenham Common. He said "men are now divesting themselves of all assets before divorce; and in about 2000 the system would be dead, because there'd be so many single men they could form a political party which would change the system."
Ivor had a micro-theory of power to describe what happens, blaming women as a group: in graduates of his age-group, feminists got together, and said things like "Of course, we can't live on his salary." They won't do the simple arithmetic; they don't realise the aristocracy and so on pay for private education by their grandparents.."
He told me the play is about "an inventor who's destroyed by his wife and daughter: he had to be a failure, he had $100,000 in his pockets.. they fixed it so he was robbed.." which is not the film plot; the screenwriter may have changed it. Anyway, when he [Ivor] was about to sign a contract with Clive Sinclair for £500,000, he said, they called in a psychologist, who was there till early in the morning. He must have been mad; people don't sign contracts like that. He had to have ruined everything he touched. They ensured he signed early; if they had waited he'd have got a million, he said.
More of this story in science-revisionism.org

As a result of all this, Ivor spent years of rather futile protest, including Families Need Fathers, the family law system, and legal system, putting clippings from the Sunday Times into a small publication called Ill Eagle.
But the real punch-line completely eluded Ivor and the surrounding males. None of them understood the secret jewish backing for family destruction. To this day they still fail to understand Jews.

RW 4 June 2024