Page illustrating a chapter by Colin Wilson in Great Unsolved Mysteries, attributed to John Canning, 1984, paperback published by Orion Books.

Review December 2016 by Rerevisionist of 10 Rillington Place Many movies, books, TV productions

(((British))) Cause Celebre Re-examined. To include post-1945 Jews, Finance, and Other Immigrants.

Contents-
Intention of this Review
Timeline of Selected Events from 1945
Rachmanism
Truth About Jews, Loan Finance, and Housing
Oddities in Evidence and Inquiries

What is this Review for? [ Back to Top of Rillington Place ]
John Reginald Halliday Christie (1898 or 1899 - hanged 1953) claimed to have been injured in a WW1 gas attack. At any rate, in later life he seems to have been only able to whisper. He is variously described as a multiple killer, as gentlemanly, and as a petty criminal. The point of this piece is to re-examine the case sceptically somewhat in the style of Miles Mathis.
As Jew-aware people will know, one of the triumphs of Jews has been to get away with murder, and to repeat these triumphs, presumably under the principle of rubbing it in. 'Jack the Ripper' in London, and Leo Frank in Atlanta are two examples, each receiving vastly disproportionate Jewish media attention; the only thing the 'Ripper' media items have in common is not mentioning Jews. 10 Rillington Place had a similar media history; could there be a common backstory?
Preliminary note on Richard and David Attenborough. David Attenborough at a young age was a 'controller' of the BBC, with no obvious qualification. He claimed in Attenborough on Air to have received H G Wells' Outline of History in part works—although in fact these were published before Attenborough's birth. Their father of both, Frederick Levi Attenborough, was 'a scholar and academic administrator' at University College, Leicester. Richard Attenborough (b. 1923) acted in what I remember as a black-and-white film, but in fact in gloomy colour, 10 Rillington Place. He later directed, among other films, Gandhi and Cry Freedom, each of course peddling the Jewish views on Gandhi and on South Africa.

Selected Timeline of Britain from 1945– [ Back to Top of Rillington Place ]

Eisenhower's Rhine Killing Fields. 1945. Eisenhower was a 'Swedish Jew'.

[NB these dates all Gregorian (Western) Calendar, not 'Jewish']
1944-1948 British Army personnel served in Palestine during the period 1944 - 1948
1945– Britain 1945-1962. General overview, taken from my article on a magazine, Private Eye
1945 Labour Party victory, often falsely describes as a 'landslide'. The previous General Election was in 1935; a 1939 election was prevented, presumably as part of war preparations
1945 Karl Popper ('Jew' from ?Austria) had The Open Society and its Enemies published in 2 volumes, on Plato and Hegel. Probably the origin of Soros' (Jew from ?Hungary) anti-white activities slogan later. Popper was one of the Vienna School or Vienna Circle.
1946 Bank of England Act. Sometimes wrongly named Bank of England Nationalisation Act, to hide the system of control.
1946 National Insurance Act effective 5 July 1948
1947 Indian Independence Act
1948 British Nationality Act and National Assistance Act
June 1948 'Empire Windrush' - Caribbean to Tilbury. Andrew Joyce on Jews importing Africans
1950 Timothy Evans hanged March 9, 1950
1953 John Christie hanged July 15, 1953
1953 Scientific and Medical Evidence in the Christie Case, Francis Camps (Medical Publications Ltd, 1953)
1953 Coronation of Elizabeth II
1954 Rillington Place, Notting Hill, London renamed Ruston Close. (Rillington Place, a small terrace of houses, was demolished in 1970).
1955 'Dixon of Dock Green' starts on BBC, presumably to reassure sceptics that the British police are trustworthy and honest
1957 Ewan MacColl 'folk song' about Tim Evans 'Go Down Ye Murderers'. (Added note: see Miles Mathis on Jewish infiltration of 'folk' music. MacColl's ... real name was James Henry Miller. ... On his mother's side, he was a Henry, a Taylor, and a Steel. ... None of those names, including Miller, is Scottish. The name was originally Mueller. ... We are told MacColl joined the Young Communist League at age 15, writing humorous verses and skits for the Socialist theater and factory papers. As usual, this makes no sense, because we were just told in the sentence before he dropped out of school after an elementary education. ... At the same time he became an actor. ... Since the radio was a public entity, why would they hire an 18-year-old outspoken Communist in 1933? Answer: they wouldn't. ... Communism was a hard sell in the 1930s, since this was when Lenin's atrocities were being discovered in the West. ... But in the bios of those such as MacColl, this is totally ignored. He is sold as some kind of hero of the people for promoting Communism, but he was just the opposite. He later wrote songs praising Stalin, and they are still included in his anthologies.
Joe Stalin was a mighty man and a mighty man was he
He led the Soviet people on the road to victory.
He ['MacColl'] was still defending the song in interviews in 1985. ... Very strange. At age 19, MacColl married Joan Littlewood. She later became the partner of Philippe de Rothschild... [etc]).
1958 Notting Hill Riots 1958 for a few days. Presumably white protests; perhaps Jewish-promoted.
1960 b/w silent news film of Rillington Place before demolition
1961 Ten Rillington Place by Ludovic Kennedy (published by Jewish propaganda publisher, Victor Gollancz). Kennedy also wrote on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and murder—another Jewish crime. In each case, Kennedy completely suppressed the Jewish element. The Two Stranglers of Rillington Place by Rupert Furneaux (Panther) speculated about Tim Evans and Christie—a perennial topic. Hanged by the Neck by Arthur Koestler, Rolph, and others, was published by another Jewish propaganda publisher, as a 'Penguin Special'. An appendix listed many murders in Britain.
1965 Death of Winston Churchill
1968 Enoch Powell's most famous speech
1971 Richard Attenborough as Christie in a film, which he regarded as an argument against the death penalty. Producers: Leslie Linder and Martin Ransohoff. Script by Clive Exton based on Ludovic Kennedy's book. Director: Richard Fleischer, who also directed The Boston Strangler in 1968. (See Miles Mathis on the 'Boston Strangler').
1975 The Nation Wreckers: Jewish Influence in British Politics is a sample of Jew-aware literature

Rachmanism [ Back to Top of Rillington Place ]
The website of the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has information on a 1950s neologism, 'Rachmanism': 'the exploitation and intimidation of tenants by unscrupulous landlords'. Peter Rachman (b 1919; a Jew from Ukraine and/or Poland. He came to England during the war 'as a refugee from Poland'). Rachman allegedly died a millionaire in 1962, though in his early 40s I'd suspect he may have been smuggled to Israel. A website says: Rachman started work in an estate agency in Shepherds Bush [in inner west London] but soon branched out on his own to exploit the post-war housing shortage. From 1957 onward he bought up many run down old houses in Paddington and North Kensington, using loans from his building society. To maximise his profits he wanted to get rid of sitting tenants and relet the properties at much higher rents. He developed an effective three step approach to dealing with "unprofitable tenants". [1] Tenants were offered a modest sum to leave [2] tenants' lives were made intolerable with all night music and parties in the rooms next door [3] Rachman's henchmen would go in and cut off electricity and water and break locks and lavatories. The new tenants were usually immigrant families from the West Indies who had nowhere else to go and had to pay extortionate rents for tiny squalid rooms. By 1959, a special police squad was set up to investigate Rachman who by then lived in Hampstead [Upmarket north London area] and travelled in a chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce. Detectives discovered a network of at least 33 Rachman-owned companies controlling his property empire. They also uncovered his sideline, prostitution. Rachman was prosecuted twice for brothel-keeping. ... Another version says The houses had been sub-let and sub-sub-let without our consent, and they were filled with prostitutes, burglars, murderers and negroes.
Much of this material is more or less mythical, as was the 'land fit for heroes' idea which was part of the mythology of the First World War. The Second World War had reduced the population; and the negro immigrants were provided by Jews. Even the 'National Assistance Act' was timed to coincide with coloured immigration.

Truth About Jews, Finance, and Housing [ Back to Top of Rillington Place ]
We can convincingly fill in many of the blanks. Britain had been bankrupted by WW2, and Jewish and American paper money dominated. Probably Rachman took legal advice from Hampstead Jews, who would use people like Rachman as arms-length intermediaries. The Building Society no doubt worked on the same lines. The identity of thugs and 'winklers' was more or less secret. The police, probably for the first time, were faced with an impossible situation (analogous to that of police faced with Muslim child abuse in the last 30 years or so). Some no doubt were paid, but put themselves in a precarious blackmailable legal position, as they would be made aware that powerful lawyers, and of course Jews in high positions—such as Home Secretaries and Attorney Generals—could prosecute them and publicise them in the Jewish media. As Churchill planned, London had been partly bombed; on the other hand war deaths had cut the population. No doubt this was part of the reason for Jewish backing for immigration; just as it is now. Rents would be paid from public money and borrowing by the government and local authorities.
It's worth noting the Jewish push for the end of the death penalty, despite the fact that capital punishments were very rare—far fewer than road deaths, for example. And Jews were very keen on the death penalty for Germans. The motivation was probably to make things worse in Britain, to make life easier for thugs, and to remove the death penalty for traitors, though this seems to have had to wait for Blair of the so-called 'Labour Party'.

Oddities in Evidence and Inquiries [ Back to Top of Rillington Place ]
[1] See the page from a 1984 paperback, above right. All three photos have odd features. Tim Evans, described by some as feeble-minded, by others as of average intelligence, and as a good catholic from Wales, who was executed for murder, is shown in an obviously doctored photograph. The photo of Christie is odd; the right side of the jacket, and the surrounding hardware is odd; Christie was not tall, and the head is out of proportion. Evans' wife (with her wedding ring) seems to be intentionally unflattering.
[2] Here's a typical Internet comment: The interesting thing about the case is Ethel and her involvement if any. Those houses in Notting Hill were quite noisy (I had several friends living in such houses in the area in the [19]60s, and flats had not changed much in the post-war years). Any carpeting would be very thin, and it was impossible to move stuff around without everyone hearing - even next door let alone in the same house. But what truly is amazing, is that no-one SMELT the bodies as they decomposed. Murders hidden in domestic settings are usually fairly quickly discovered due to the noxious smell of the corpse.

[3] A 1953 Inquiry, the Scott Henderson Inquiry, HMSO 1953 Cmd. 8896 '... into certain matters arising out of the deaths of Mrs. Beryl Evans and of Geraldine Evens and out of the conviction of Timothy John Evans of the murder of Geraldine Evans'. (A pdf of the original inquiry is downloadable from the Wellcome Institute website: 1953 Scott Henderson Inquiry). (Appendices from p. 20).
And later, a much longer report The Case of Timothy John Evans, HMSO 1966 Cmnd 3101 is downloadable: 1966 Brabin Report ordered by the Jewish Home Secretary, Frank Soskice.
(NB neither pdf is perfect: tickets, scribbled notes and bookmarks obscure a few parts).

[4] The 'Brabin enquiry exposed police malpractice during the Evans case, such as destruction of evidence' e.g. a necktie. Thus Wikipedia. About ten years later, the police start to get blamed. There are numerous oddities: such as an apparently thorough builders' renovation of the house's back area; body parts which appear to have been overlooked, such as a human femur support, in the back garden (14 by 16 feet), and skeletal remains; signed statements, with assorted inconsistencies. Two bodies were supposed to have been in the garden by 1945.
[5] Other information appeared later, including blacks moving in, and a threat of legal action by Mrs Christie against one of them. I haven't been able to search either of the reports, but my impression is such events are not mentioned in them. The prostitute allegations, dear to the hearts of Jews, seem to be made with little foundation. Black crime has persistently been unreported then, as now, and of course not only in Britain. Black serial killers are unreported; the serial rapist Delroy Grant (see below) is a good example of Jewish media suppression. One of the characters in the drama is described, probably not in the Inquiries, as a 'Jamaican landlord'; I leave it to the readers' judgment whether, under the circumstances of the time, that's a credible description.
[6] There's quite a bit online, which I'll leave to the interested reader. Christie seems to have hoped to be declared insane; he looked forward to being cared for.

[ To big-lies main site | nukelies site | Jews ]
Text, HTML, research, website Rae West first upload 2016-12-12

Review of Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill Darkest Hour
Rerevisionist version of: Review of Darkest Hour by Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review, April 2018.

‘Darkest Hour’: Great Movie, Defective History Review by Mark Weber April 2018
-Thus Mark Weber, who seems to like being lied to—a 'Great Movie'. Just a few rerevisionist notes on edited-down Weber.

Top of Page “Darkest Hour” is badly flawed history. ... a few weeks in the spring of 1940. Following the stunning German success against [Jew-controlled] British and [Jew-controlled] French forces in Norway, parliament has lost faith in the ability of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to continue leading the nation. Churchill, who is well known for his fierce hostility toward Hitler and Germany, is called on to head a new and more broad-based government. In spite of grave misgivings about his judgment and temperament—shared by the King and many colleagues, including leaders in his own party—Churchill becomes prime minister.
[Translation: Jews hated Germany, because it was the last European country to give Jews freedom to corrupt. Churchill was funded by Jews to rant against Germany, despite his ignorance of the place. Jews armed Germany enough to make them seem formidable; the idea Germany could take over the world (militarily) would be seen as impossible without this.]

On the battlefield things quickly go from bad to worse. German forces overwhelm the British and French on the European mainland, and the remaining hard-pressed British troops are forced to retreat across the Channel from Dunkirk. With the country facing a military disaster without parallel in modern history, key members of his own inner circle press Churchill to open peace talks with Germany before their negotiating position weakens further.
[Translation: Hitler under Jewish orders intervenes to allow the (((British))) forces to retreat. For the moment, Britain and the USA are allowed to work with the Jew-controlled USSR.]

... Churchill seeks to understand the mood of ordinary citizens ... in an entirely fictional scene, Churchill who had little respect for public opinion who meets with ordinary Londoners. The people he speaks with unanimously express their determination to carry on the fight, no matter what. [Comment: Gary Oldman portrays Winston Churchill as he delivers his climatic [sic] “Never Surrender” address to parliament, June 4, 1940.]

When Chamberlain returned from Munich in September 1938 after concluding a settlement of the “Sudetenland” crisis with the leaders of Germany, France and Italy, most Britons welcomed him home with feelings of gratitude and relief. The public overwhelmingly approved what most regarded as a reasonable settlement of a crisis that had threatened to set off a new European war. Churchill’s outspoken scorn for the Munich agreement and, more generally, for Chamberlain’s “appeasement” policy toward Hitler’s Germany was sharply at odds with the general mood. It was precisely because his zealous hostility toward Hitler and Germany had been so drastically out of step with the attitude of most members of his own party that he was chosen to replace the less belligerent Chamberlain as prime minister.
Churchill was out of touch with the concerns and hopes of most Britons. In July 1945, some weeks after the end of the war in Europe, in the first general election since before the outbreak of war, British voters decisively rejected Churchill. The Jew-controlled 'Labour' Party was elected. [Interpretation: though most Britons had no idea who was behind the scenes]

“Darkest Hour” reinforces the widespread belief that Churchill’s speeches played a crucial role in sustaining British morale. A scholar who has carefully looked into the matter has found that this view is largely a myth. After examining government documents and surveys, as well as contemporary diaries of ordinary people, professor Richard Toye of the University of Exeter concluded that there is “little evidence” that Churchill’s oratory was important in bolstering British wartime resolve.
“Churchill's first speeches as prime minister in the dark days of 1940 were by no means universally acclaimed,” says Prof. Toye. “Many people thought that he was drunk during his famous 'Finest Hour' broadcast, and there is little evidence that they made a decisive difference to the British people’s will to fight on.”
Toye also examined Home intelligence reports and mass observational archives to learn what people thought of Churchill’s speeches at the time compared with what they later remembered, or thought they remembered. His famous “Never Surrender” address in parliament was never broadcast, but people convinced themselves they heard it.

Churchill’s reputation as a great orator is based on a handful of often-repeated passages from just a few of his many addresses. While those memorable phrases are undeniably stirring, they are also exceptional. All too often his speeches were verbose, meandering, difficult to understand, and sprinkled with misrepresentations and factual errors. In fact, Hitler never asked for, or sought, Britain’s capitulation. He only wanted Britain to cease its war against Germany. [Translation: this at least was the story prepared for Germans. It meant Germans indignant and warlike, in preparation for deaths in the USSR and by British bombers.]

As one who for years had voiced great admiration for the British, Hitler as chancellor worked for German-British friendship. He was immensely pleased when the two countries concluded an important naval agreement in 1935. When Britain and France declared war against Germany in 1939, he was shaken and dismayed. Still, he continued to reach out to Britain’s leaders, both in public and through diplomatic channels, to somehow bring an end to the fighting. After the spectacular German victory over French and British forces in May-June 1940, and French acceptance of an armistice, Hitler made a bold effort to end the war. In a major address that was broadcast on radio stations around the world, he dramatically appealed to the leaders in London, and to the British people, for an honorable end to the conflict. It was Churchill who insisted on continuing, as he put it, to “wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might” in pursuit of “victory at all costs.”
In the historic address that concludes “Darkest Hour,” Churchill rouses support for his war policy by suggesting that peace with Hitler would mean swastika banners flying over London. This is nonsense. Even in countries that were allied with Germany during World War II, such as Finland and Bulgaria, swastika flags never waved over their cities.

Churchill had been contemptuous of his predecessor’s conditional appeasement policy toward Germany. But after he became prime minister, Churchill adopted his own policy of even more far-reaching appeasement—this time toward the Soviet Union. Although Churchill told the world that Hitler could not be trusted, he repeatedly proclaimed his whole-hearted trust and confidence in Soviet dictator Stalin. [Translation: Churchill was told what to do by Jews].

When Britain declared war against Germany in 1939, leaders in London claimed that they were obliged to do so because the Hitler regime threatened Poland’s independence. [Translation: support for Poland (i.e. Jews in Poland, and Poles) was obviously bogus, an excuse; Poland was invaded by Stalin, the Jew nominally running the USSR]

“Darkest Hour” reinforces the widely held impression, which Churchill himself encouraged, that an honorable or lasting peace with Hitler was simply not possible. But as he himself later acknowledged, that’s simply not true. In a confidential message of Jan. 24, 1944, Churchill wrote to Soviet premier Stalin: “I am sure you know that I would never negotiate with the Germans separately ... We never thought of making a separate peace even in the years when we were all alone and could easily have made one without serious loss to the British empire and largely at your expense.” ... In 1940 or 1941, a British leader could readily have reached an agreement with Hitler whereby Britain would have kept its sovereignty, its great naval fleet, and its empire. To be sure, this would have meant acknowledging German hegemony in eastern Europe. But at the end of the war, Britain accepted Soviet Russia’s harsher and more alien dominion over this region.

Given Hitler’s respect for the independence and neutrality of Sweden and Switzerland throughout the war years, he certainly would have respected the sovereignty of the much more solidly defended Britain. As it was, Britain emerged from the death and destruction of World War II not so much a victor, but rather as a subordinate ally of the real victors—the United States and the Soviet Union. [Translation: Jews in the USA transferred the British Empire to themselves. Most of the alleged US Roosevelt policy was to get more, by faked promises of independence around the world.]

The British leader’s famous “We shall never surrender” speech was little more than “sublime nonsense,” says British historian John Charmley. “In sharp contrast to all those admirers who have strenuously denied that an honourable peace could have been made in 1940 or 1941,” Charmley explains, “Churchill knew better. Peace could have been made. It would not have depended upon 'trusting' Hitler, but rather upon the presumption that he would be bound to come into conflict with Stalin.”

Alan Clark—historian and one-time British defence minister [known for dismissive remarks on East Timor]—has given a similarly harsh verdict of Churchill's war policy: “There were several occasions when a rational leader could have got, first reasonable, then excellent, terms from Germany ... The war went on far too long, and when Britain emerged the country was bust. Nothing remained of assets overseas. Without immense and punitive borrowings from the U.S. we would have starved. The old social order had gone forever. The empire was terminally damaged. The Commonwealth countries had seen their trust betrayed and their soldiers wasted ...” [Translation: Jews wanted the war prolonged to maximise deaths (a Jewish Talmudic principle) and to cause damage, rendering populations helpless and Jew war debts larger]

British journalist and author Peter Millar affirms this assessment: “... The accepted view that his [Churchill's] 'bulldog breed' stubbornness led Britain through its 'finest hour' to a glorious victory is sadly superficial ... In no sense, other than the moral one, can Britain be said to have won. She merely survived. Britain went to war ostensibly to honour an alliance with Poland. Yet the war ended with Poland redesigned at a dictator's whim, albeit Stalin's rather than Hitler's, and occupied, albeit by Russians rather than Germans. In reality Britain went to war to maintain the balance of power. But the European continent in 1945 was dominated by a single overbearing power hostile to everything Britain stood for. Britain, hopelessly in hock to the United States, had neither the power nor the face to hold on to her empire ... The 'evil genius bent on world conquest' that most Americans believe Hitler to have been, is a myth. The evil genius had more precise aims in eastern Europe. A Britain that would have withdrawn from the fray and from all influence in Europe to concentrate on her far-flung empire would have suited him admirably.” [Translation: Jews in Germany, and the USA worked with Jews in Britain to get the USSR in control of vast territories in the east. The 'moral victory' idea is just more nonsense repeated by 'journalist and author' Millar.]

... Churchill later reflected with some chagrin on the war’s outcome. A few years after the end of the fighting, he wrote in this memoirs: “The human tragedy reaches its climax in the fact that after all the exertions and sacrifices of hundreds of millions of people and of victories of the Righteous Cause, we have still not found Peace or Security, and that we lie in the grip of even worse perils than those we have surmounted.” [Translation: Churchill enjoyed life in his huge stately home, but never stopped lying about Righteousness. Hardly anybody investigated how he could afford his huge house.]

Top of Page

Black Beauty 1994. Prince Noir is I think the French title.

My copy is dated 1994. 'Warner Bros family entertainment'. 'A Robert Shapiro Production.' Includes Sean Bean. '... stunning new version of Anna Sewell's beloved tale.'

I've made no attempt to check the accuracy of this 'version' to the story, but it looks accurate enough, based in England and with rural and town life shown in 19th century form. It has an unusually large number of scenes—30, plus beginning and end, perhaps because of difficulties with filming.

I quite liked this film (though I can't imagine it was very popular). It's a biography of a black stallion, with no human race implication. Without making any attempt to check, my guess is that Anna Sewell liked horses and was brought up with them, and noted examples in their lives of treatment and mistreatment. Unlike motor vehicles which (so far) have displaced them, they are alive and sentient. But they seem painfully lacking in things they can do: rearing up on their hind legs, kicking, running, and touching muzzles is about it. People who spend time with horses develop some understanding, of course. And sympathy; as machinery surpassed horses for various tasks, ploughmen worried about what would happen to their horses.
But they provided motive power on land for immense stretches of time, and deserve some sort of acknowledgement. Not everyone's interest, though. I feel sometimes the difficulty of explaining such things, for example praising stainless steel cutlery as the end product of a long journey since the iron age, and being told "they're cheap." Or investigating the story of sailing ships. Or electricity.

We have the star's birth and the amazingly rapidly-acquired skill in running. Followed by the amazingly rapid weight gain, just from eating grass. Perhaps speech needs safe time to develop? And then training 'and becoming one' with the rider. And being shoed, the hot iron impressing itself on the single giant fingernail on each foot. Blacksmiths now being so rare their name seems meaningless. All this was shown rather well, though I'd guess there must have been moments when the determination not to harm them must have weakened. The film showed a lifelong sentiment from early life, with the horse recognising his trainer from years earlier, and being relieved at returning to his home for his old age. But I can't tell if this is Anna being sentimental. There was an amusing scene with oats, the outcome on man's breeding from grasses to produce fast food and suggest the metaphor and practice of the nosebag.

In between, we have scenes of stables, as far as I can tell accurately shown, pre-electricity and pre-concrete. The nice people groom them with horse brushes—I see online an 'EZ-Groom' modern version. There's an illness, where the horse is not given a horse-blanket. There's a fire in a barn, with an heroic rescue. There's a love scene, with a ginger mare, though nothing unseemly takes place. And there are events which I'd guess Anna remembered: an over-raced horse with its knees damaged; a bearing rein forcing the neck to arch, with Eleanor Bron as what may have been a Jewish intruder into English life; a horse being sold at a horse fair—horse-traders being the then-equivalent of used car dealers. And the dread of being rented. City life with horses and hansom cabs, with whips and uncomfortably fast rides and impolite drunkards. There are horses pulling heavy loads; in this film, bags of grain. There's a death—there were in fact occasion horse carcasses in paths and roads. What horses do when they raise their tails is not quite shown.

RW 22 July 2023

Some 'sacred' Jewish texts refer to sex with animals; for example women with male dogs. Perhaps Steven Spielberg might direct such a movie some time? Another intellectual treat

Top of Page

Bridget Jones's Diary

Here's a tiny ten-year window into Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Richard Curtis, and lots of others:
1993 Four Weddings and a Funeral, written by Richard Curtis
1999 Notting Hill, written by Richard Curtis
2001 Bridget Jones's Diary. 27 songs in 93 minutes for 'product placement' types.
2002 About a Boy including Rachel Weisz (who tried to act Deborah Lipstadt!), and Nicholas Hoult (now 30)
2003 Love Actually, commentary Curtis and others

Helen Fielding's diary (some of it on the DVD) started in 1995 in the Independent and soon developed a cult following. Or so claims the DVD; sceptics may point out that the Independent was a new start-up, presumably aimed to help Jewish neocons; the BBC promoted it, but its sales were tiny. Fielding was a restaurant and food critic. Andrew Davies and Richard Curtis commented.
A blurb somewhere says ‘Bridget Jones's Diary is a 2001 British-American-French romantic comedy film directed by Sharon Maguire (it took three years) and written by Helen Fielding, Richard Curtis, (and Andrew Davies who wrote Pride and Prejudice on TV, the version with Colin Firth, in 1995). I had to look them up on Internet—the Playbill fount tiny credits on my DVD are nearly unreadable.

The Bath. Photo by Eve Arnold. Some connection with Bridget Jones.

I looked up what's online about Curtis (apparently married to Emma Freud); it seems likely he's another Jew who received what's regarded as a good education in Britain. Sharon Maguire featured largely on the factual parts of the DVD. She did an English and Drama degree, and a 'postgrad degree in journalism' which seems to have taken a year.
Sharon Maguire appears on the DVD. I had no idea that the London background scenery was computer-generated; I suppose by then software allowed building to be invented from a map, with detailing and textures and colours selectable fairly easily. She mentioned an edit suite, things you 'have to kind of settle for.' She said the scene where Zellweger said she'd rather wipe Saddam Hussein's arse than work for him, Hugh Grant as Cleaver, the publisher or agent or whatever was a 'wish fulfilment scene ... leaving a job'. Helen Fielding on Breakfast TV (started 1980 in embryonic form) had humorous anecdotes. A lot of the story seems to have been her life story:–
Sharon Maguire was a first-time director, a friend of Helen Fielding. Judging by her commentary, her budget was on the low side, typically two takes in hasty circumstances. She talks of 'rushes' (notably of Hugh Grant in an Anglo-Japanese embrace) and I think the film was partly digital and partly 35mm. Maguire doesn't say much about the techniques; most of her commentary, in her very well-spoken voice, is about persons, though she mentions a locked-off camera, steadicam, and an aerial shot

Based on publicised Jewish themes, Curtis (after Blackadder) might be expected to leave a trial including homosexuality, immigration, anal sex, anti-white family material, mixed race adults, and replacement by non-whites in all non-Jewish jobs. Much of this is present in all these films, but in Jones there is a woman-making-a-career element, and there's also Jewish activity for immigration into white countries, represented by the highly-paid barrister Colin Firth, and a made up Kafir Ogani-Eleanor Healey case, which everyone is supposed to have heard of. This presumably was fairly realistic; many immigration cases seems to have had a couple of dozen barristers, taking Jewish paper money. I would guess such a plot-line would be viewed more uneasily now: Firth defending Muslim rape gangs, or Jewish pornographers and perverts, or absurd art might not work.
There's a scene with 'Bridget' trying to be intelligent with 'Cleaver' in which he says he couldn't give a shit about Nagorno-Karabakh. I owe to 'Victor S' the comment that Armenians in America, aware of the prior genocide in Armenia (1915 to 1923), took some action against Jews in the USA, for example against the ADL. No doubt Grant was dutifully disposing of Nagorno-Karabakh in the Jewish fashion. 'Victor S' added: ‘Now, Israel has been aiding Azerbaijan to commit genocidal “cleansing” against the Armenians of Karabagh/Artsakh and Armenia.’
It's quite painful to reflect that many women must view news presentation—reading heavily-censored bullshit (here's a short account of BBC tricks by Nick Griffin)—as a positive career for the new empowered woman. The film is almost half-way through when she determines to start a new life, from publication, to TV. She thinks she's finally in a job showing her intellect. "No self-esteem - no confidence .. trying to find her confidence - begins to find her self esteem". Inner voice says: am now a hard-headed journalist - ruthlessly committed to etc. Firth: "I came to congratulate the new face of British current affairs'". On Zellwegger's humble rented flat in south London, imagined as near Borough market, with its cast iron and Crystal Palace style. Maguire said "This is what a 30-something's life is like - believe me!" It all reminded me (slightly) of Withnail and I. "Loneliness, but dressed up as comedy".

The infinitely sad lifestyle—the fatuous imbecilities of press releases, the junk unsubstantiated 'documentaries', the money thrown away, the refusal to consider anything informative—must I imagine repel any person with intelligence and guts. The 'successes' resemble parasitised creatures acting against their own interests. I suppose the pecking-order provides some solace: Bridget's mum has an affair and a sort of career demonstrating things, starting with an egg peeler made to resemble a dildo, a TV life ridiculed in a slack sort of way.
The 'blue string soup' scene led to blue soup parties, we're told. Hugh Grant's Anglo-Japanese subplot seemed unconvincing to me; I suppose twists and turns have to be implausible. The book has more than three friends. The fight scene is not in the book. Scenes of fumbled expressions of feelings, though a scene in which Bridget said she loved Firth was excised. A 90 minute romcom. It ended with Hugh Grant fumbling around with male impersonators of women, possibly a payback by Maguire to anonymous men in her past. After all, it's hard to believe he'd have such difficulties.

Prompted by Miles Mathis on families and actors, I noted the backgrounds of some of these people: Curtis got a First (in English), though ever since I found out that A J Ayer was awarded a First despite, not because, of his performance in final exams, I've been sceptical about these things; and of course in the US Jews are awarded professorships more or less ad lib. Nicholas Hoult, shown as attending a London school containing unwanted immigrants—but wanted by Jews—is a specimen of another such conflict. Looking at Love Actually we see a comic wedding with Keira Knightley and some presumably half-caste actor (i.e. not 'black'), part of course of the Jewish push for miscegenation of non-Jews. As is the financing by Jewish paper money of fake refugees: in Germany, they get more money than working Germans, no doubt to the delight of such 'Chosen people' as Merkel. They must love idle but financed aliens, though not in Israel of course. Come to think of it, a comedian was promoting drugs—hilarious. The homosexuality—early-death risks and all the rest—is a fascinating instance of universal Jewish media dominance; I read, and believed, that every single instance of on-screen homosexuality was treated favourably, in about the years looked at here. The odd thing about Love Actually was how little love was in it. As with Erich Fromm's book The Art of Loving. I doubt if Jews can even think of whites without some manipulative scheme inserting itself.

Rae West 15 Dec 2019

Christmas 2020-New Year 2021. Radio Times the (((BBC))) mag, has a piece on Helen Fielding, including a photo of her plus a much larger image of Zellweger 20 years younger than now. It's fascinating to read the inbred stuff of Jewish lies. I'd guess she's just another Jew with a cover story. 'Studied' at Oxford, knew Curtis, presumably got a degree, worked as a journalist, sweetened the Jew-project of the absurdly-named Independent newspaper, married a now-dead person on the Simpsons, comments on sexual politics, comments on the absurdly-named 'human rights' industry. Something worrying may have happened in the USA; she talks of community and 'the solid core of decency' in Britain, which Jews are working to destroy. Amusingly she comments on Keir Starmer, another (((Labour Party))) Jew, who she's quoted or misquoted as saying he's good, decent, and intelligent. Not intelligent enough to know about 'COVID'. The only thing he's done is make people realise that Keir Hardie must have been another Jew.

9 Feb 2021

Top of Page

Children's Books Retrospective, Including 'War Romance'
Miss Potter (2006)
Goodbye Christopher Robin (2017)

Compare and contrast piece on two movie/videos on two children's book series. Beatrix Potter started as an illustrator, I think an engraver, when biological work by naturalists was popular, partly in the wake of Darwin, and photography was not advanced. She was 36 when her first children's book The Tale of Peter Rabbit was published. She was born in the same year (1866) as H G Wells: in the same year, later, that Wells was writing, in his Jew-naive way, about problems of world government, Potter was writing about a woman who 'pressed shirts for gentlemen', or something similar which I've lost. Her popularity began before the 'Great War'; she died in 1943. Her appreciation of the Lake District is reflected in the movie, including purchasing land for eternity. In Dr Johnson's day, the Lakes were remote and forbidding; now it has motorway access; but then it was a railway adventure journeying into isolated areas.
The subplots are treated fairly accurately—no big homosexual clubs. The dyke-ish woman whose advice she seeks when the young publisher (Ewan McGregor, now fronting TV ads for Jewish refugee scams) proposes shows the aforesaid dyke-ish type telling her she'd be silly not to marry. Children's book sales must have been high before 1914, with large wealthy families. This movie had BBC input. Zellweger looks quite like Potter.

A A Milne (Alan Alexander) 1882-1956 was brought up in Kilburn and had an Oxbridge education. He wrote novels, plays, comic pieces, short stories, poems, screenplays. Nothing radio that I could see. His son was born in 1920, followed in 1924 by When We Were Very Young and two Winnie-the-Pooh books by 1926.
The movie has a narrow beam on the Milnes, which seems a bit inaccurate. Milne wrote on the composition of children's verse, emphasising the inevitable selfishness of children and their constricted viewpoints, which were to be made part of such poems. If I've remembered well, the acts of prayer and staircase scenes were carefully crafted by Milne.
Richmal Crompton, the author of the William books, wrote a satirical treatment, Anthony Martin, or a similar title. “Anthony Martin is doing his sums.” It also featured carefully-arranged interviews with carefully-selected magazines, and a brattish screaming episode. How close to life these were, I can't tell. Richmal Crompton seems never to have had her life filmed. Though there was a TV series, I think the BBC including Dennis Waterman, probably a Jew in place of Crompton's out-of-place middle class boy.
Milne wrote an inter-war book on peace, no doubt influenced by his Great War experiences. He must have been Jew-naive; almost everyone British was. His Second World War package of beliefs seems to have been conventional. This film shows the parents of Christopher Robin receiving a telegram to say he had been lost in action. The attraction of the Pooh books was stated to be that people had forgotten what happiness was, during the War. The population clearance in Europe was of course presented as unavoidable. Though population replacement is not even a whisper. I can remember when Russell's Autobiography was published, the idea of British neutrality had never once been presented to me.

RW

Top of Page

The Imitation Game (2014)

The Jewish-run and controlled Second World War gets another lightweight trot with Cumberbatch, supposedly as Alan Turing, despite looking nothing like him, and Keira Knightley as a blonde. I noticed Charles Dance in it. All very comedic; it's now known, and indeed obvious, that Bletchley Park was packed with Jews, and they all communicated with each other. Charles Dance trying to impress as an intelligence person was hilarious; he threatened Cumberbatch with being hanged as a spy, when spies had riddled Britain, the more of them roughly as Britain became temporarily wealthy. I'd guess Churchill figured in this (I didn't bother to watch most of it) though I'd guess his knowledge of British bankruptcy wasn't stated. Hitler appeared, in the usual ridiculous setting as a single actor. The numerical stuff was obviously judged by the hack writer to be out of the range of most, so that the only way importance etc could be suggested was by open-mouthed gasps or gestures of support. When there's something more or less unbreakable, the obvious technique is to get a sample; I'm told a German sub had its Enigma taken, and a microphone in a German office listened in to the morning setting. Good story. The idea that duplicated letters were not permitted sounds wrong to me; obviously some grand shuffling technique will do that occasionally. Another story is that the Poles gave their Enigma machine to the British. Whatever the story, it's likely to be wrong. IF the Charles Dance types were serious, they should have bugged Jewish bank transfers, and the purchase of weaponry by Stalin. That sort of thing.
The lesson from this rubbish is that Jews are anxious not to allow people to speculate on their huge frauds, including the nuclear fakes, and, I think most important above all things quasi-Hebrew, the simple idea that Jewish money after the Federal Reserve, plus increasing international communications, enabled the huge catastrophe of the Jewish coup against Russia and its breadbasket, Ukraine. Plus the follow-up war between whites, killing huge numbers of goyim, to gain currency, rather than be squashed. Anyway; funny, in several senses.

One of the persistent myths about WW2 is that the wars were shortened—there's a scene with breathless incomprehension between Knightley and Cumberbatch. Watching these things, one has to wonder how many mistakes are deliberate, just as the same puzzle faces you watching some inept bunch of actors doing a psyop. Surely 'homosexual' would have been pronounced 'hommosexual' by educated people? The point was to maximise deaths of goyim, not to shorten war, or not have a war in the first place. This is an important point, and I *think* possibly the main object of Jewish censorship, exceeding the Talmud fraud, nuclear fraud, the Holohoax fraud, and the 9/11 fraud. I'm judging by online reactions. In fact it's obvious enough—1913 Fed, income tax, Balfour, money from New York Jews to Lenin, show clear liaisons between Jews. People inquiring into this might look at hexzane527 and/or my unfinished long page How the Master Race—Jews—won WW2. This subdirectory is specifically on Jews at Bletchley Park.

RW Dec 2019

Top of Page

Review of The Theory of Everything | Movie 2014, 2015

Einstein was the most successful explicitly-Jewish fraud in the world of astrophysics, and marks the intrusion of Jews into all academic worlds, the more so where opportunities of fakery and money-making are present. I believe this process started to receive its due attention in about 2000. NASA frauds are less personally identifiable. So are nuclear frauds, and the constellation of Jewish-generated wars, and financial frauds.
Hawking is by comparison small beer, interesting mainly through his real or supposed biography. Readers might like Miles Mathis, the first detector (as far as I know) of fake Hawkings: April 2015, and April 2018. And/or you might like How Much Modern Physics is a Fraud, or my personal survey of would-be science revisionists. Other sad names include Couper and Henbest, at least in Britain.

What follows is largely official; at some point it must diverge from truth. Hawking was born in 1942; Cambridge in the early 1960s therefore figures at the start of this film. He wasn't shown as a very precocious chap, but one of a group. Conventions at this time, the result of computer processing of images, allow the selection of a style throughout the film—in this case a rather blurred yellowness, to suggest old Kodak film, in the early scenes. Cambridge scenes show adolescence, and wife-to-be with 'arts'. Jane Beryl Wilde; any relation?—I don't know. Hawking is shown talking or boasting of a single equation of everything. At that stage he was shown with the early stages of motor neurone disease. And given two years to live. There was nothing at all on neurology; diseases caused by synthesised chemicals (e.g. polio seems to have been caused by DDT contamination of water; BSE in cows caused by OPs is perhaps the best known, unless you count Vietnam War chemicals spread by Americans/Jews.)

One of the disastrous effects of Jew influence is that paper money overrides technical competence, as can be seen in the present Jew-pushed climate rubbish. In one scene, Jane was shown talking about quanta, and about relativity; another aspect of the same thing.

Eddie Redmayne apparently went to Eton. I wonder if he met Cameron, another Jew-related politician. Or for that matter Boris Johnson, who seems to have been related to Turkish Jews at the time of the Armenian massacres. You might like this short ((British))) Prime Ministers video.

The 'dons' if that's the word were largely recycled Harry Potter actors. No pipesmokers though, despite the historical accuracy. One of the conventions in Jewish films of course is the signalling of approval; just as TV 'news' includes frowns (foreigner, German, non-homosexual) or big smiles (bomb powerless people, mention Jews) here we have wild applause, phrases like "brilliant", and the rest of it. The generally correct assumption is that the audiences know nothing. Redmayne is shown with a big blackboard with math on it, rather than diagrams of time, space, change. Blackboards seem the only way Jews have found to indicate profound symbolic thought. Though an equation of everything might need a rather large board.

At some point, in a shabby lecture theatre, Redmayne sits in front of professors. He talks about something like a a black hole losing mass. He's changed his mind. Wild applause, and indeed Wilde applause. A couple of look-the-part actors storm out. And a USSR cosmologist (Russian accent) praises him. Something to do with Jews controlling money and thereby controlling science.

It's fascinating to see the light touch on genetics. There were three children, but no consideration of the possible genetics of a long-term degenerative illness. Maybe this is from sympathy with Jews, whose supposed eugenics include the production of many offspring with genetic defects.

Another film convention—giving the script writers time off—is to show affection by filming people horsing around in each other's company; smiles and laughs being understandable by any audience. There's a subtly depressing scene where Redmayne, following Jewish indications, says "We are just a normal family". It reminds me of a current TV ad for McCain's oven chips: so-called disability, it doesn't matter this or that, anything is love, presumably to allow for child rape, sex with cows etc. If the film had been made now, maybe a mixed race child would appear, or Hawking would be in a rainbow-coloured skirt.

1988 was A Brief History of Time. There a scene I think in America, a book launch with inane questions. At some point the 'mind of God' had a mention, apparently a device to sell more books to the not-too-bright. Pitiful catchpenny stuff. This was with Elaine Mason, shown with another Jew interest—Penthouse, a link with Jewish porn—who married him later; or may have—see Miles Mathis, above.

Meanwhile Jane married a friend called Jonathan, both shown as C of E types. What is not mentioned is the financial arrangements of Hawking, with his ten million claimed book sales.

2002 On the Shoulders of Giants was published. I wrote a review of this somewhere. The cover shows Einstein joining four goyim. You have to laugh.

One of the end credits says Hawking had 'No plan to retire.'

©RW 16 Nov 2019

Top of Page

Review of Dennis Wise Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story NEVER told Formats: Youtubes, DVDs, zipped video files

Collected Hitler Material Almost Ideal for Second World War Presentation to People Naive About Propaganda. (However, it is only a half-way stage to fully intensive revisionism). This review first uploaded July 8, 2014

Update: 17 Jan 2018: I've recently 'launched' Was Hitler a Jewish Agent? (with A C Hitchcock) on my website and on Youtube, examining the idea that Jewish power, submerged and kept out of the way, was easily large enough to encircle Germany and fund, corral, and invent what became the NSDAP. Although this idea must be common in Jewish circles, it was new to me. I have to suspect that the de facto copyright permission, and the acceptance of Dennis Wise's DVD in public, are tacitly approved, because they serve the idea that Germans and Russians had to fight, of necessity. An alternative view, that the war fever was generated with the usual Jewish methods, is therefore missing from TGSNT. Dennis Wise might test this idea by adding another episode, to see how well it fares.

Update: 8 March 2018: Dennis Wise has a Youtube interview Claims of Hitler Being Controlled Opposition with Kyle Hunt (107 minutes, 28 May 2017 was the version I found), and which includes mention of his video Communism by the Back Door.

My own view is that Jewish spying has been underestimated: Bletchley Park had large numbers of Jews, which are understated (Andrew Hodges on Alan Turing says nothing about the issue), and there are reliable reports of cables in gardens which could have been used to broadcast from Britain. Jews in the USSR must have had elaborate communications, including landlines for their money transactions. The USA didn't yet have the CIA, but of course had spying—for example, on the Japanese. So it's unquestionable that, while the war continued in its own way, Jews were carrying out their own secret operations. Whether Hitler was involved is a controversial issue for many, but Wise takes the conventional view at all times, Germany vs USA, USSR, Britain, without realising Jews were (probably) shaping things to suit themselves.

Here are some of Wise's remarks:

Wise has a Catholic view (probably taken from his father; Northern England has remainders of this view). He regards the French Revolution, 'Russian' Revolution, Spanish Revolution, and Mexican Revolution "and on and on" as more or less the same, in which royalty, and the church, were destroyed. This seems only a partial view, to me; it does not cover the US Civil War, as Wise notes.
After the First World War came to an uneasy end, there was a communist revolution in Germany (and some other countries). "Europe was looking for someone to turn to. Communism in Europe, a German book available online in English, describes how Germany was taken over for a few days. At this time, Hitler started—the passion is unreal" says Wise.
Many issues are mentioned: Why not conquer Switzerland? Did Operation Barbarossa lose Hitler the war—it would have brought down Stalin, but for Roosevelt and Churchill supporting Stalin. What about offers of peace, sending Rudolf Hess? Was Hitler a secret Freemason, and/or a coward? Hitler did in fact lose the war, with huge numbers of deaths and the Jew world order! The Holohoax—nobody in the 'west' could investigate Soviet camps. There were two sets of Jews in the USSR—Americanised capitalist type, and Soviet—and Stalin perhaps disliked the former and was anti-Semitic in that sense; Stalin distrusted and killed when possible anyone who'd lived outside the USSR. Then crypto-Jews, hidden Jews, and outright boasts they want white genocide. Night of the long knives "always amuses me ... how people who hate Hitler worry about infighting in the Nazi party ... treaty of Versailles - SA far larger than the army... a leader has to have a ruthless streak"

I didn't find Wise's material to be very convincing (especially from someone who'd spent years working on the subject).

Rae West 16 Sept 2017 A new video series, in (I think) ten parts, typically averaging more than an hour, EUROPA - The Last Battle, has been uploaded on Youtube by EUROPA Tv (that link may cease to work, of course). It is in a similar style to Dennis Wise's video series. The only written plans for genocide during the 20th-century was not a German plan to exterminate the Jews but rather Jewish plans to exterminate the Germans. ....

Important note on Revisionism Miles W Mathis (as far as I know) pioneered the work in a new school of thought, according to which the whole Second World War was orchestrated behind the scenes by Jews, with Hitler and Mussolini and other 'public' figures acting their parts. By Mathis' standard, both Wise's work and Europa Tv fall short of the truth, though no doubt they were and are a necessary stage in revisionist progress.

Dennis Wise—a pseudonym, I think—started his work on Adolf Hitler (I'm pretty sure; some of these statements may not be precisely correct) in 2012. At that time, Youtube had a 15-minute limit on videos, at least for most uploaders. Wise's videos, issued under the nickname TruthWillOut, seem not to have been numbered at the start. Wise added to them, completing his series in 2013. At least, that seems to have been his plan: since then further segments or episodes have been added: Part 25 is post-German defeat reminiscences (Patton, several Germans) plus a survey contrasting war (and peacetime) criminals Stalin, FDR, Churchill and Truman with Hitler. Part 26 is 'Sources', or 'Credits and Thanks': these are in three parts: books, youtubes, and websites. These are not very professionally identified: books are listed alphabetically, by title, without publication dates, and not in the usual author name sequence. Youtubes (in any case difficult to identify, as the titles can easily be changed or imitated, and the accounts can change or vanish) are listed alphabetically by first names; and websites are in alphabetical order, some recommended rather than relevant to the videos. There is no list of influential suppressed authors (Henry Beamish, Ezra Pound, Archibald Ramsey, Paul Hogan, F T P Veale...).

When I watched a download (online viewing isn't recommended by me, unless your broadband is very reliable—the full Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told is nearly six hours) I was amazed to find that none of the material was independently filmed by Wise; it seems to have all been taken from downloads. The version I watched is 640 by 360 pixels, not high resolution and in fact not good enough to make easy reading of the scrolling text (white serif text on black; some titles in red) which presumably was written by Wise, who avoided voiceovers. The result is a mixture of old black and white film, with some colour film from the time, and 'faction' style filmed reconstructions, so that occasionally well-known actors appear playing Hitler. I think I recognised Jeremy Irons' voiceover in several places. There are cinema newsreel sequences. And extracts from much later TV documentaries, in colour. All the subtitles are in English; if there are subtleties in translating from German, they are lost. I'm told for example that Blitzkrieg was not a German word, but was invented by British propagandists, embarrassed at German success.

The soundtrack is for my taste obtrusive: Wise has modelled his video on traditional documentaries, which of course have unsourced film, commentaries intended to be authoritative despite being read by actors, music tracks, and almost no signposting apart from occasional names in subtitles. But traditional documentaries are generally part of the Jewish lie factory, and unconcerned with truth. Maybe Wise made a mistake in not rethinking. His soundtrack has a 'Lord of the Rings' feel; there are some repetitions, Saga's Slaget ved Stalingrad, some tracks from Globus's Epicon. I don't remember any Wagner or songs by Sleipnir.

It has to be said the spelling and style of the on-screen titles and scrolling text is a bit erratic. 'The greatest story Never told', 'upmost' for utmost, civillian, decisions, both Pearl Harbour and Pearl Harbor, illustrate the sort of thing. Wise talks about 'Earnst Zundell' on his Youtube site; spelling is obviously not his strong suit. His sentences sometimes get a bit lost: 'Under National Socialism, Germany in only a few short years had dragged themselves from financial ruin and social degradation, to lead Europe in science, technology, art and literature will now be surrounded.' However, the most recent 'remastered' version may have cured all this.

I was fascinated by the copyright infringement possibilities, and not surprised to find his videos had been taken down by Youtube, though Wise doesn't seem to state anywhere what his attitude is to infringement. Many of the clips are old; there are issues with 'fair dealing'; the proportion of six hours taken up by any one clip isn't very high. My impression is that his website https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv (also www.tgsnt.tv) has a pay area for club members; from there, people pay to download, on condition they do not resell or otherwise use the material for profit. This seems to be to get round copyright issues—he's not legally allowed to charge for copyright segments, but joining a paid club allows for income. Cash flow is difficult for any revisionists, and I'd love to know if his business model works. But I don't.
The DVDs on sale are mp4 format, zipped, and therefore don't play like normal DVDs. Copyright is claimed by Dennis Wise.

NB Amazon hosts large numbers of media things entitled The Greatest Story Never Told, but Dennis Wise's videos aren't included in them, and aren't on Amazon anywhere that I could find, perhaps because they can't be sold without copyright complications.

Here's a sample (in no particular order) of topics, each usually in one episode:-
• Mussolini's rescue by Otto Skorzeny
• Eisenhower: death camps for Germans after WW2, only recently publicised
• Battle of the Bulge
• Katyn massacre of Polish officers, and the slow process of revealing truth
• Ukraine and the 'Holodomor'
• Stalin's extermination of Uighurs etc; the vast area of the steppes, Siberia, and Muslim territories included large numbers of tribes dating back to prehistoric times. Dennis Wise hints at the death rates.
• Stalingrad. I don't think the earlier name of this city is mentioned. Stalin's orders to keep all civilians in Stalingrad, and send troops to machine-gun any deserters or retreaters (or returned prisoners), are outlined
• Porn in Berlin
• Cossacks and their treatment by the British Army
• Japan and Singapore and the Japanese empire, and Pearl Harbor, are of course mentioned
• Danzig, cut off from Germany by the Versailles Treaty. And Jews in Poland committing atrocities against ethnic Germans given as the cause of Britain and France being 'at war with Germany'.
• Dunkirk
• Dresden bombing
• 'The British received over two dozen peace offers [from Hitler] between 1939 and 1941'
• US policy of Mexican repatriation in the 1930s
• Germany-USSR PACT ('Nazi-Soviet Pact')
• Rommel, the 'Desert Fox' and his career
• Indianapolis, torpedoed by Japan, returning across the Pacific from the supposed Hiroshima atom bombing.

I think most people would pick up some new detail or other, even if they think they know a great deal about Hitler and the war. By the standards of full-on revisionism, I'd say this package is about 2 out of 5, where 5 is some limiting state not yet achieved. If revisionism were graded like fuel, in octane levels, in my view it's true Wise is not at the highest level. On the other hand, most people don't have Formula 1 brains, so it makes sense to pitch things at a lower comfortable level. Many people simply have no idea of the weakness of the traditional case built up in the 'west'. See my short youtube of 15 or so Britons dated mid-2014 "Have you heard the idea that the 'Holocaust' was a fraud?" for examples of unawareness. For people like this, Dennis Wise's compilation seems to be exactly right and ought to work well. The division into bite-size chunks makes sense; and the viewers will, literally, have seen a lot of it before, so it won't seem weird or fantastic. The scrolling commentary will be new and surprising to them: just one example is Hitler praised as the most popular leader ever.

There are of course missing items: the start of the 'Great War'/ 'First World War' (as opposed to the Treaty of Versailles) is missing. The Bengal Famine I think isn't there. Faurisson's four giants and three dwarfs could have been mapped more clearly: the USA and the western hemisphere, plus the British Empire, plus the interlocking French Empire, and the vast area of the USSR, against the peanut-sized Germany, and Italy, and Japan. Probable murders by Jews (Patton, Forrestal, Roosevelt, Keynes? ...) and vast population movements forced by Jews might have been mentioned more. There isn't much on Jews funding both sides of wars, loving divide-and-rule, making money and laughing at patriots who do it for nothing. The criminal inaction of churches, refusing to expose the Talmud; detail on the BBC lie factory; the simple soldiery doing whatever they're told are understated, as of course is traditional.

A few myths have got through, for example Hiroshima as 'atom bombed', now known to have been a fraud: Wise's video uses BBC computer-generated imagery as 'evidence'. I'm suspicious of the widely-promoted idea of joy at the announcement of war, notably the 'Great War'. There were many newspaper accounts of cheering crowds and so on. But newspapers were mostly Jewish-owned. How enthusiastic were ordinary people, in fact?
The apparent normality of such people as Churchill survives because of the intense censorship. One gathers his whole mentality was destructive—he delighted in planning explosions, death and destruction. It seems he often stank of his own excreta, rolled around drunk, buggered little boys when young and maybe older, planned murders where Jews supposedly benefitted; in view of his talentless schooling, one has to wonder whether his writings and speeches were in any way written by him.

More generally, there's a tendency, derived from the source material, to show things which are immediate and obvious: tanks moving, artillery shooting shells, marching men, bombed buildings, firestorms, impassable snowdrifts, and Hitler and others bellowing out oratory. But planes and bombs and tanks and weapons have to be designed and made; ships have to secretly unload huge numbers of tanks for Stalin; factories must make munitions; Jews in the USA and Europe and USSR co-operated to make war by secretly transferring money for Europeans and Americans to build factories in Russia; intelligence secrets (and decodes) went on, accompanied by lies and deception... these things are just as important, in fact much more so, but more difficult to get onto film. Questions about what might have been are difficult to show, too. Was Normandy invaded because it was clearly going to be a slow process, to allow the 'Red' Army to get to Berlin?

And the fragmented approach makes it difficult to appreciate the apparently inexorable flow of lies: as all this was happening, Harold Wilson in Oxford University in wartime Britain was already planning vast coloured immigration, Jewish control of unions, expanded low-criticism education after the war; Monnet and others were working on a Soviet-style European régime; Jews were planning ways to keep the USSR from any investigation, the fraud of the 'Holocaust' was being shaped, and the paper dollar was starting its long decline as Jews dipped into it to fund their huge range of projects: hiring collaborators and dupes, paying for Israel and destroying Palestine, publicising lies about race and slavery, using the promising new one-way medium of television, promoting legal corruption, political corruption, anti-white propaganda, anti-Christianity, NASA and many other fraudulent sciences, lucrative wars against almost defenceless people in Korea, Vietnam ....

Top of Page

Review of China's First Emperor and the Terracotta Warriors
National Museums Liverpool, for much of 2018. Book: James CS Lin & Xiuzhen Li, ed Karen Miller, of Shaanxi Provincial Cultural Relics Bureau

Click here

Top of Page

Review of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Film Nov 2016 This review 6 Dec 2016

More J K Rowling. Possible Scene-Setting for Powerless White Kids in a Holocaustianity Fantasy World

Claims to be written by J K Rowling, and set in 1926. There are question marks over Rowling's education, but anyway the dialogue is in painful uneducated Americanese—it's, like, not real pretty. Supplemented with the usual actorial conventional face-pullings.

This movie is not, as the title suggests, a whimsical look at invented animals. It's just a feature film as the genre has developed for the typical US audience—silly, propagandist, ignorant, lightweight. As its advertising shows.

A decade or so after the Harry Potter films, the green screen technology is fully mature. British film unions used to insist that sets were destroyed, so they couldn't be reused; maybe there are legal battles now over the reuse of computer-generated scenes: ship to shore gangplanks? Bridges in Central Park? Streetscapes with shops? The New York skyline? New York main streets in their several rebuilding reincarnations, overhead elevated railroad, computer generated old car images?

Special effects include computer-generated swirls of fogs in several colours, varieties of grey; maybe these were doodles from computer generated clouds, or colour-adjusted flame simulations? We also have black ash fragments fluttering in the air, and deformed parts of the built landscape—fire escapes, lamp-posts, brick and stone detailings. Computer-generated high-rise images, and wide landscapes, are by now familiar, leaving only absurdly deep, precipitious, cliff-hanging drops.
But the most distinctive filmic devices are 'explosive' and rapid action effects, a few frames with frantic action of vague tubular shapes, and sounds which are loud but unidentifiable. In modern cinemas, meaning at least six speakers around the theater, we have sounds which move—cracks in the earth, lightning flashes extended far longer than in nature, cracks in buildings to signal vast forces to the folk mind.

1926 means (of course) depression; even J K Rowling knows that. Nothing on US Jewish bank policy of extending loans hugely, then cutting them back; but J K Rowling provides a sample of human misery—a plump baker, I'd guess a Jew from Poland, wanting to recreate his mom's very special pastries. Probably because of all this the video's colour palette is mid-grey varied a bit: sometimes dark grey, other times light grey.

1926 in the real world had the Jewish crime syndicate's promotion of Stalin. In Rowling's simple world of simpletons there's of course no sign of this, no mention of Jews supporting the USSR. Though there is the secret magicians' club's own newspaper, a counterpoint to the truth, in which Jews passed information amongst themselves. British-voiced actor Redmayne leads. He may be British; I don't know—Rowling was said to have insisted on British actors in the Potter films, but someone pointed out 'Daniel Radcliffe' thinks he's a Jew. (2019: I see Radcliffe is in some crap film as a 'neo-Nazi', something of course promoted by Jews. NB if you don't know it, look up Miles Mathis on Rowling's background, promotional army of Jews, etc.) Redmayne has three fantastic creatures which fit into his battered, but animated, suitcase. Despite his non-muggle status, he is not given a more robust container—permitting the very old device of the accident exchange of a possession to advance what plot there is. We're told a number of times that none of the animals is dangerous—unlikely, since to survive a few million years must need defences, but anyway presumably in keeping with J K Rowling's ideas. Some of the creatures contain fire; some resemble the spinning quiddich devices. I'm tempted to quote Richard Dawkins: the wheel never evolved. Some are brightly-coloured.

In the film, the US witches (as opposed to no-mags, the US version of muggles—no magic, see!) have their big den somewhere in New York, led of course by a black woman, made up to look white, in the laughable united-blacks-and-Jews-against-whites fashion. There have been big wreckages and damage throughout New York. "Gee, we can't obliviate the whole of Noo York!" The British hero replies "Actually, I think we can!" and releases his phial of LED-bright-blue brain-influencing chemical which causes results "like waking up". An amusing parody of Jews and their 9/11 fraud. The Jew York Times is parodied as The New York Ghost. The whole arrangement is similar to Jews in New York, strenuously showing how proud they are to be 'Jews' by keeping it secret.

There's a dumb blonde with sexual cunning and magic—some confusion of roles here?—a dumpy and ugly, but honest and simple European or Jew. And a sinister baddy, here apparently called Grindelwald, signalled by smart monochrome clothing. I haven't followed the Jewish and media Harry Potter memes in any detail, and can't say what meaning is to be imputed to 'Grindelwald'—perhaps Grendel is in there? However, Grindelwald is a beautiful Swiss pine-forested place, and the baddy turns out to be, in secret, a blond male possibly with a 'fash' haircut—a bit like a hairy leek. The romantic interest excludes all the baddies—perhaps not a real-world observation by Rowling—and includes the blonde and the cook—just as in Jew-run USSR there were mass stories of romance between suitably low-grade goyim.

We also have an underworld sinister crook (with pointed ears and nose; I couldn't tell if this character was a computer artefact) of the 'Kosher Nostra' Lansky type. It was amusing to see deference to 'Jews', despite the supposedly vastly powerful unmuggle abilities, but of course in keeping with the Jewish narrative. The character needed to be bribed, though I didn't follow the place, if any, in the plot.

Not my sort of film. It may be intended to set up sequels, US-based series, based in the 1930s, though judging by the audience where I saw this, it will fail. (The published figures for costs and box-office receipts must be unreliable). I ought to recommend Miles Williams Mathis on J K Rowling: he thinks (via a Newton, founder of Bloomsbury Publishing) she's an agent, in effect a word nigger taking her instructions from north London, given endless publicity by Jews, and aiming her mythology at powerless and disenfranchised and unemployed young whites, peddling the illusion that waving sticks brings unlimited power. (Wands, like light sabres, and swords, and hand held pistols, and fist-fights, allow a lot of timewasting fighting time with few casualties). And Williams discusses Salem as a hoax. Salem in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is part of the leafletology of an anti-witch protest group, presented in the usual incurious manner needed by fake protestors of the hammer-and-sickle, 'social justice warrior' type.

Possibly this movie is planned as one of many in which Jews will be revealed to be the manipulators behind the scenes, who save honest and wonderful Jews, admittedly by the power of lies and cruelty and fake money, and imposed their glorious holocaustianity religion. But we all know what Burns said about the best-laid plans.

The Iron Lady

Review by rerevisionist of Meryl Peters in 'The Iron Lady' (2011) Review by Rerevisionist 21 Feb 2018
Directed by Phyllida Lloyd

For some reason I confused Phyllida Lloyd with Judy Cramer, because of the Mamma Mia connection.

Astonishingly bad film, but with a few lessons. One is the shortage of male second-rate actors; this film clearly was made to show British politicians as undifferentiable schoolboys, and there's some pleasure in identifying the actors and being amused at the attempts to transfigure them into once big-name (or at least big publicity) politicians.

The main point about Thatcher (and I owe this to 'Exorcist', in the Nuke Lies forum, in 2011 or 2012) was that her constituency in Finchley, London, has a lot of Jews. They wanted to get British communal assets into Jewish hands. That's what 'privatising' meant. These assets had of course been built up slowly, sometimes for centuries; it's analogous to the British Empire being taken over by American Jews. Another issue was cruise missiles; it's now known the whole nuclear issue was a Jewish fake—no wonder they were relaxed while naive women with no science were paid to campaign against American bases. And another issue was the coal industry, absurdly costly, since Britain had thin seams of coal while (e.g.) Pennsylvania had much better coal in deposits near the surface. And we have the Malvinas/Falklands which may have been important; was their oil under the seabed? The main interest of Meryl Peters' acting was her hairstyles, and latex face lines. Jim Broadbent in my view was unconvincing as Denis Thatcher, who was (it seems) something in the oil industries. But since the entire film was unconvincing, as far as I know (I don't think I saw it all), it hardly matters. At least British actors got a cash infusion, as with Harry Potter, and some of them weren't even Jews.

This film was obviously intended to suggest an old country run by homogeneous white males. It's curious how Jewish lies keep repeating, like a stale stink from unpleasant stomach contents. In fact of course, in the phrase of Harold Macmillan, there were Old Estonians with some Old Etonians, and the Bank of England was still owned by Jews and controlling much of the world. (The cost of the Naval adventurism was put as though it was purely a cash concern. The loans and eternal repayments were omitted). David Cameron, another Jew-approved 'Prime Minister', coined the phrase 'Torah Party' using a Jewish phrase. The changes in the 'education' system as far as I noticed were of course unmentioned. There was a small section—I imagine the scriptwriter and/or people hired to check sweated over it—in which Thatcher wove in Pearl Harbor, Churchill ('the greatest Prime Minister') and other events given the Jew fantasy treatment.

The coup, or whatever, attributed to Geoffrey Howe and John Major (who knows if anything like it was true; maybe the Jews supporting Blair were replanning, and getting their pet monkey arranged) showed two more actors doing their best to be sheepish.

[ Back to top of page ]

IPCRESS FILE (2022)

Made for TV, as far as I know. Has Tom Hollander as lead actor; he was in Pride and Prejudice as the tame rector, assuring Keighley of the violence of his affections. Here, on a smaller scale, he appears as a small version of Michael Caine, with large-framed glasses. This is a propagandist piece, like the original. Part of the message is the horrid Russians; many people now understand that Jews ran the USA, UK, and Russia as the 'Soviet Union'. Presumably the TV version has been wheeled out for the Russia and Ukraine show, which seems to be designed to move Jews into Britain.
The other propaganda portion relates to the fraud of nuclear weapons. In the original film, this appeared as something like the 'brain drain', in which scientists tempted by Jewish money were got at with strange sound effects and an enclosed room. This version has a visual reconstruction of a supposed nuclear test, probably in Bikini Atoll. The computer graphics have a central zone of orange-red clouds with black smoke; very 1940s, hastily hidden by supposed misty water. I'd guess the age of the people is about the same as the age of the fakers of nuclear test videos.
See my 'Lords of the Nukes' very long video on all aspects of this that I could find. Here it is, in fact.

Lords of the Nukes 3½-hour video. Essential! 1280x780 1.7GB BIG!
A few weeks ago, that video had 20 terabytes of downloads across the world—maybe they were checking things out? Anyway, if I remember correctly, the film version showed Caine being tortured a bit, then escaping (in London) and shooting the correct baddie. This is all torture to watch. Let's hope the special effects get to work on Hollander. I forgot to mention a black at a desk job; part of the Jewish scheme to get non-whites into nominally national armies.

RW 28 Mar 2022

[ Back to top of page ]

Lost in Austen

Review by Rerevisionist (24 Nov 2019) of Lost in Austen Lost in Austen ITV 2008

Four episode TV piece, each I think four hours originally. Some of the original has been deleted from the DVD on copyright grounds. I don't know if this was distributed as a single cinema video.

Indirect spin-off from the Austen TV/films starting with 1995 Colin Firth's Pride and Prejudice, and constricted by the small number of supposed Austen books. (There was a 1980 BBC precursor, adapted by Fay Weldon, which received an award for costume design. And a Bollywood version, Bride and Prejudice more recently).

Now more than ten years old, I'm guessing the afterlife of DVDs has kept it in suspended animation. The DVDs include extras. I thought the acting was very good—attributable perhaps to digital cameras being cheap to re-use, with no cutting-room floor necessary, and interminable retakes permitting nuances of nuances. [Pause to look at names–] The scriptwriter was/is Guy Andrews. Mr Bennet is Hugh Bonneville, and Mrs Bennet Alex Kingston. She is impeccably catted out by Christina Cole, sister of amiable Tom Mison, but in turn recovers her verbal command to confront Amanda Price/Jemima Rooper, a modern woman who works at a Building Society and likes Pride and Prejudice (1813, but hers is a Pelican edition paperback with cover-design photo). She is paid £27,000 a year to the surprise of relatively uninflated 1800 people.
A time machine mixup allows AP and EB to change times and places; fortunately for the plot AP doesn't think of jamming the temporal portal open. The plot goes amusingly awry, though much is retained, for example the almost-unoccupied huge houses (extras being expensive), Mr Bennet's non-ownership of 'his' house, and Mr Collins, who remains awful, a difficult thing to act, I imagine. Hammersmith though is changed.

From a revisionist point of view it seems possible that the future will reshape 'Jane Austen' and 'her' books. Note that Cromwell's Jewish intrusion (mid-1600s) led to the 1700s in Britain being a process of digestion by fraud, changing many things. Many 18th-century houses, marriages and so on were Jewish events. By the time of the books by 'A Lady of Quality', and after the Rothschild coup after Waterloo, people would have talked about it. In the same way, at the time of 'Shakespeare', the Reformation was recent, but inexplicably absent from Will S.
The East India Company is another missing jigsaw piece.

I recommend Nicholas Ennos's Jane Austen for seekers after truth. Poor Jane seems to have been poisoned. Buy his book.

My review said: There's a certain horrifying fascination in reading comments by women on Jane Austen. I wonder if whites are genetically inclined to live in, or at least imagine they are in, fantasies and dreamworlds. Perhaps it's something to do with long dark nights in northern Europe: hobbies, obsessions, indoor activities, repetitions, survival necessities for some, escapism for others. I thought that was quite good.

RW 24 Nov 2019

[ Back to top of page ]

Hairy Bikers

Only after watching an episode including 'marshmallows' was I moved to write this.

Review by Rerevisionist of Hairy Bikers

Marshmallows, like liquorice, angelica, and peppermint, were a plant product. I don't think I've ever tried the real thing, which I visualise as white and frothy with a flavour which may be delicate and unfamiliar, or perhaps marshy and damp. I was pained to see the two Geordie-voiced (or perhaps from the other side of the river—I'm unable to recall their nickname— hairy heroes of the series utter praises for invert sugar, the source of USA obesity. This was in an ad thing for some girl in Leeds selling the stuff. I'd guess these people are all Jews, since TV producers tend to push them. I couldn't face checking the date of this episode, but after two years of Jewish COVID fraud has wrecked small businesses, the supposed home businesses leave me sceptical. I remember that World War I, the Great War, and no doubt WW2, the 'good war', disposed of many small businesses in the 'national' (read: Jewish) interest.

This series of programmes amuses me, since every single time the supposed motor bikers taste a product of someone they promote, they say how delicious it was/is. Wonderful. Real food. How wonderful it would be to see them say they don't really like it. Not oily enough, perhaps.

RW 27 December 2021

Watched an episode or two on Route 66, Chicago to Los Angeles (I think), started in something like 1948. Infinitely saddening stuff: here's the USA, a huge territory, built and made by whites, but parasitised all the while like energetic caterpillars being eaten from inside. At one point buffaloes ranged across the whole area, util the railroad cut it in half. Passenger pigeons darkened the sky. Not now. And the white inheritors are a sad lot. No wonder Jews call it 'flyover country'. I expect the bikers are (or think they are) Jews. Though possibly not, as they have to act as hardworking types before their travelling crew. Some of the whites have bees. Some of them grow real food, if you can call peppers real food. There were once-flourishing cattle markets. Fragments of haunting multiple deaths lurk some way away: the 'civil war', with more deaths than all other US wars suffered, but of course far fewer than they inflicted. The twentieth century world wars, which I suppose most of the camera-caught think they won; and other wars, no doubt barely-spoken of. Here we have old feeble people, with the leathery appearance of over-proteined junk-fed frames, with baseball caps, in dry failed landscapes, sucked dry and left as husks.

On Christianity in the USA I spoke with Barbara Smoker of the S.P.E.S. in London in about 1990.

"US and India are both very religious.. Quite similar in that respect"

"On a Greyhound bus in the south a woman asked me what I was doing. One of these gun-toting women. She looked at my passport near Mexico. 'What are you doing?' I've come to address an Atheist Conference. She yelled out to the whole bus: 'This English lady says she's an atheist!' and the whole busload roared out laughing.. "

"The Ethical Culture Movement in New York is about equivalent to South Place Ethical Society. Almost all Jews. ... They gave me a free Greyhound bus pass."

"60% or more go to church or other regularly.. There are so many different kinds.. Terrific fundamentalism.. Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson. It's sickening."

"Americans are more naive.. Mormonism is so recent all these things can be checked up.. Joseph Smith had six witnesses. Half of them retracted before they died. And there are these golden plates. He copied them out, then they disappeared into thin air..."

A non-American on American email comments:-
"Having read through a lot of the comments I have come to one resounding conclusion... Americans are not very well educated. It seems you believe everything you've been told, simply because it's everything you've always been told. There is very little room for rational or reasonable debate, as the American tactic seems to be "Agree with me, bend to my will or I will shout insults at you until I have given myself another aneurysm and have to take a lot more unnecessary pharmaceuticals to slowly kill myself"..... It's OK to be wrong from time to time, especially if you've been spoon fed lies and propaganda by your Government your entire life. What's not OK is thinking your way is the only way. The human race existed for thousands of years before the United States of America. And frankly, I don't care about the torrent of abuse that will be posted in response to this by Americans. I still haven't met one that could formulate a coherent argument. All you get is "Oh my God, you must be a Muslim or a black guy or a woman, you're so freakin' retarded, but you obviously don't believe in God cos you're such a douche bag".... yawn I'll applaud anyone who can make a comment that's above playground humour and petty insults. Oh and correctly utilise spelling, punctuation and grammar in a sentence. Peace?"

Very unpleasant: Here's a New York Jew on Vietnam War violence in about 1970. This is what winning Jews do. And what subservient 'Christians' do.

All this is why it's agony to converse with Lorraine Day on medical science being controlled by Jews. she knows they are corrupt liars. But then she turns to her Jew-written Bible and thinks it is all true.

RW 13 and 15 Feb 2022

[ Back to top of page ]

Masterchef

Review by rerevisionist of Masterchef BBC TV (in Britain). From 1990. 30-March-2017

Seems to be run, now, by two 'stars', John Torode (from Australia; could be a Jew), and Greg Wallace (from Britain? Could be a Jew). This is partly a promotional thing; Wallace seems to have one or more restaurants, and is keen on publicity for them. Episodes are oddly useless, relying mostly on viewers wanting people to be chucked out. As with most TV, unrealistic arrangements are made, remote from the real world: just as room makeovers don't show the pantechnicon outside and the support people tooling about, cookery programmes avoid food collection issues and techniques—raw materials are all provided, and things like timers and thermometers and microwaves seem to be banned. The technical food vocabulary is usually French, with a bit of pasta; probably this is to avoid expressions from around the world, however entrenched they may be in foreign places. The taster vocabulary reminds me of modern wine labels—notes of such-and-such flavours, textures and variations of such-and-such types, goes perfectly with this, reminiscent of that. There's (slightly worryingly) nothing scientific or biological: if it taste nice, but is slowly deadly, that's OK. If it's not part of the agribusiness food spectrum, it doesn't exist.
Being the BBC, part of the point here is to follow the Jewish policy of forced invasion by non-whites; viewers aware of this must note the intrusion of mixed-races and others. Issues of diet are suppressed: we see shellfish, pork, beef and so on, without a hint that these would cause riots in parts of the world. Vegetarianism is discreetly omitted. (There are other Jew-related issues: a recycled Gordon Ramsay shows lucky winners being allowed to visit Hugh Hefner's 'mansion', portrayed as though this is a wonderful occasion).
Anyway; unhelpful, voyeuristic, mildly gladiatorial. The winners get an M-shaped trophy. I wish them luck, but details on actual realistic pay and prospects are of course omitted. If you see a restaurant promoted by these types, try to arrange invasion by (say) Somalis, who can then spit the food out, and complain in an unforgettable manner.

I've recently noticed Wallace being shown around factories, and reporting on them. For example, how chocolate digestives are mixed, cooked, coated, packed, and boxed. I'm waiting for his report on kosher slaughter, complete with bearded freaks collecting money. I won't hold my breath.

[ Back to top of page ]

Review by rerevisionist of The Apprentice BBC TV (in Britain). 2005-2024.
Useful Idiot Entertainment for Fantasy Entrepreneurs
The Apprentice (UK) Click here

Review by Rae West of Dragons Den
The Only Other BBC TV Programme Aimed at Entrepreneurs
Wiki tells me the format was Japanese, nicknamed from a Japanese tiger general, or something like that. This makes some sense; Japan has been outed as having been taken over by Jews and US Federal Reserve money; perhaps this has been leaked as part of the long-term run-the-world scheme.
I noticed that Deborah Meaden said she's on the board of the Round House, monument to Chalk Farm's hill and the lack of power of older trains. It is (or was, or something) owned by Eleanor Bron, a monument to Jewish money. Worth a mention to puzzled people who don't own capital. There's little explicit mention of the activities of any of the dragons; what, for example, does Peter Jones do? Something electronic. Maybe he just puts money in; but where was/is it from? Their newcomer, Stephen Bartlett, has something to do with social media; all of course Jewish-owned. Touker Suleyman seems to be in clothing and fabrics; a long-term Jewish thing. And by 'long' I mean thousands of years.
It appears all the rigmarole with lifts is faked; but who knows—the BBC in Manchester must have converted warehousing.
Compared with the really big wheels they are small time people, crumbs rather than peanuts. None of the pleaders ever have business plans involving big matters. I just thought someone should mention this!
Rae West 12 Mar 2023

Benny Hill

Review by rerevisionist of Benny Hill from 1955... 6-April-2019

Thanks to websites showing old TV programmes, for example Youtube—though Youtube's ever-increasing censorship may shrink it away—anyone can find and watch Benny Hill, and TV interviews and general trash relating to people like Hill. We may watch a Jewish biographer of Hill, peddling his wares; some of Hill's colleagues in old age, who I suppose have to be called actors, all saying how brilliant and wonderful and skilful he was, in traditional Jewish scene-setting style; and a few of the women, who I suppose have to be called actresses; and people responsible for the rather embarrassing song-and-dance 'numbers'.

The whole thing is a sort of animated 'What the Butler Saw'—'Slapstick, burlesque and double entendres' says Wikipedia accurately enough—toilet bowls, cow udders, rubber gloves, fart noises, bottom hittings—seguing (with the technology) into colour TV versions of something like 'Downton Abbey' with incompetent servants and absurd goy upper classes. The slow colour film stock may account for outdoor shots; I'm not sure. And the fairly recent invention of nylon stockings must have assisted in the general effect.

Hill (said to have been born in 1924, in Southampton, south coast town) is said to have had a violent father and fond but weakish mother. I'd guess, judging by the Jewish references, he was just another Jew invader. Perhaps some of his details are online; I'd guess the usual name-changing etc happened. His parents sold condoms, we are told. He was called up, or something; many Jews of course preferred to stir up war, then keep out of the way. Hill was in some sort of entertainment group—one has to wonder if soldiers resented this. A formative experience was said to be seeing a poster for a variety show, and noticing the comedian got top billing, and presumably top money, and was surrounded by pretty girls, or anyway partly-dressed ones.

If the family stories are true-ish, they might well explain his personality: servile smiles replaced by resentful side glances; silly clumsy salutes; epicene cross-dressing combined with absurd eyelash-fluttering and wigs; language suggesting pathos resulting from years of receiving loud dismissive shouts. His shows probably appealed to the types who wear nappies in middle-age, and peeping toms, and what have you—sad and/or dangerous.
His formula had the helpful by-product of being endlessly fissiparous and malleable: a once-a-week output which was similar to, but not quite the same, as previous episodes, and promised to breed forever. This must have been a godsend to Controllers of Light Entertainment, and was widely sought—think 'I Love Lucy'. TV companies have ways of trying to measure audience sizes, I expect in greater detail than appears to the public. One thing that can be relied upon is that programme failures, and heavily critical people, and attention actually paid, will not be made public.

Hill was said to live in a rented, more-or-less bare apartment near Shepperton (I think). He was also said to have received huge cheques, though of course little actual evidence was produced. It would surprise me if he laundered money, rented girls, funded Jew causes. Whether he employed casting-couch techniques on actresses (or actors) seems not to be known. I hope details of the BBC will emerge, probably at some future time, when it is reconstructed or replaced. At present this wish is utterly unreal.

I leave readers the irritant task of piecing together possible Jewish influences. Some of his longer space-fillers (woman with Europeanish accent, saying that in Austria when she was young, everybody was so poor, even the servants and housemaids; composer with a European name who lived in Wales, whose music fell out of fashion...) suggest that. The 'producers' (i.e. money suppliers) and 'controllers' (much the same) all seem to be post-1945 'Chosen People' triumphalists.

[ Back to top of page ]

Blackadder

Review by rerevisionist of Blackadder BBC TV (in Britain). 1980s. 30-March-2017

After thirty to thirty-five years, this bunch of series of 6 episodes is advertised in review, apparently introduced with tame quasi-historian, the I-made-it-from-a-council-house homosexual David Starkey, a slightly Alan Bennett type. Rowan Atkinson came into this after Not the Nine O'Clock News, for my taste feeble and disgraceful material which avoided anything serious. His foil, or straight man, or joke inferior—no doubt there's a technical term—was Tony Robinson, somewhat reminiscent of Andrew Sachs visavis Basil Fawlty. The series were written by Ben Elton (Jew, probably contributor of stretched phrasing jokes, too long for normal speech) and Richard Curtis. Or something like that; this is from memory. Britain has a long complicated history; this is a typical Jewish presentation, omitting the bits Jews always omit—Elizabeth and wars? Great Fire? Cromwell and Jews? 18th century and Jews? Ireland and Jews? Scotland and Jews? Napoleon and Jews? War funding and Jews? The nearest thing I've seen to authentic history was Tony Robinson (Jew) introducing viewers to the HQ of Freemasonry—look, it's open, nothing to see here! And that was the nearest. Curtis went of to write scripts for a set of films with Hugh Grant and Colin Firth and others. Awful stuff.

[ Back to top of page ]

It's fascinating but depressing to review the BBC over its century or so of living death. Its main purpose is to present the Jewish worldview to innocent, or gullible, people, largely British. I'd prefer some other person or persons to do in-depth review material; but, at present, they certainly won't. So you'll have to make do with my sketchy effort at rummaging through sewage. Let us skip through thirty years or so of this material, following the guiding death star of such dark counterluminaries as Alan Yentob of Baghdad, now 'Creative Director' of the BBC.

The BBC's news policy, just like US Jewish media policy, is to understate anything relating to the many downsides of unasked-for immigration. In the case of crime drama, this means that factual material about black/coloured on white crime, however horrific, is censored. And that any related material is censored, too: Moslem heroin peddling, illegals living at the bottom of immigrants' gardens, children at school attacked by hammer-wielding mobs, blacks trading in body parts and eating brains (check it out), such cases outside the normal visual field as P.C. Blakelock (killed), Kenneth Erskine (black serial killer), Delroy Grant (possibly six hundred rapes of elderly women until caught—the case was briefly famous for an entirely misleading photofit picture).

There are of course more refined aspects to police work. Lawyers who make money from Jewish laws on bogus human rights. The use of infiltrators, often enough to corrupt organisations. The arranging of fake demonstrations. Corrupt officials in Common Purpose meetings. People making money from 'public finance' schemes, essentially moving Jewish paper money into the pockets of other Jews. Faked statistics of (for example) imported diseases, or handouts to fake charities, or stores of goodies to be handed out (under the Official Secrets Act) to Africans. Legal manoeuvres by Jews: see for example the real life of Lady Birdwood.

Let me insert a mention of Judge John Deed, 'created by G F Newman', who is credited with writing some or maybe all of these 'courtroom dramas'. Martin Shaw does his best to simulate a judge, though the club feeling seems to me to be missing, presumably to suggest a non-existent feeling of tension within the legal profession. The judge is shown reading his Times, or Guardian. The female characters are chosen to sound intelligent and middle or upper class; who knows. Episodes concentrate on 'politically correct' themes, for example the BNP as violent, and black gangs non-violent. Viewers who are Jew-aware might equip themselves with a scorecard: whites crooked, blacks good. Immigrants good. A constant theme of Jew 'news' is of whites as dangerous, presumably to spread unconscious fear, particularly fear by white women of white males—good-looking sex marauders, for example, analogous to the Sharon Tate/ Manson Jew mythology. Episodes with Jews planning frauds, hiring thugs, running voter frauds and so on do not exist. The policy seems to be for Newman or (probably) large numbers of subordinates to look out for some criminal event, then reverse races, sexes, or whatever to give a Jew-approved story. I just watched an episode I'd guess based on the case of a black mental inmate found eating a murdered man's brains. Newman reverses the races (though of course only Jews are a race) and has some pathetic actor sporting a pale swastika caught eating a black prisoner. Permitting some swipes at the prison 'service'. There were odd interpolations, I'd guess supplied by a wife, mistress, or goy prostitute.
Financial power never to be discussed—the 'national interest' never includes the floods of money controlled by Jews or defrauded by Jews. All crime attributed to whites. Well, not all: I glimpse bits of a dramatic presentation of someone from the Middle East allegedly murdering a girl—girls unable to escape Tel Aviv brothels are never shown. I imagine every episode has a major theme plus marginal interest to fill the time. And the major theme being an issue which the white peasants have to be told they are wrong to imagine is unjust to them, such as fake immigration material.
The overview point here is that Jews control, or try to control, a large number of Jew-directed frauds. Unsurprisingly there is potential tension between the real world and Jews, but also between Jew turf wars. This for example we see a good-looking white male shown as dangerous or psychopathic; part of the Jewish world view. But there are no episodes, I presume, showing a psychopathic Jew mass murderer of the Shipman type. We see a supposed HIV-infected woman, protesting against the medical establishments, but of course not making a good case; TV actresses don't do that. The AIDS myth is by now fading, of course. Probably it's late now to have 'astronauts' and nuclear frauds, but there are plenty more such things: forced fluoridation is a Jewish thing; so are jailed white women (but not fake refugees) who didn't pay the BBC tax. As anyone can see, the entire parasitic structure of Jews in Britain is disgustingly aimed at importing illegals and fake refugees into Europe. Again, the great judge rules in favour of them, and, implicitly, the entire import structure. Part of this process is making mixed race 'relationships' look normal, so we have a chimped-out black boxer, interspersed with TV ads by Jewish ad agencies showing supposed mixed race couples, preferably in bed—not of course Jews. Nobody refers to the Jewish 'Ripper' murders. No 'rabbis' are prosecuted for sex with small children. Corrupt Jews giving advice to thugs are not shown. Policemen have a good chance of being shown as corrupt. But blacks in the legal hierarchies are unlikely to be shown as incompetent; the series has at least one implausible token. Jews are not likely to be shown wishing deaths on the best of whites; nor are their Kol Nidre machinations likely to be dramatised.

Families: women unable to fend off immigrant males. Children unable to defend themselves. Clitoral excisions. Child abuse and official timewasting to cover it up. It's worth a bit of speculation as to whether the surge in the whole detective and police genre was propelled by feelings of instability and insecurity; maybe to get people used to the idea of heavy policing.
More or less by chance I watched an episode of Inspector George Gently, set in something like the 1960s, in north east England, which turned out to be the final episode, at least judging by the death by a 'hitman' of GG. This was made as late as 2017. It amused me to see the Jewish-finance-free stuff (supposed Trade Unionists etc helping remove work, obviously, by now, 'antifa' types; incidentally some accurate mention of 'Maoists', hinting at links with Jews in China) and the killer, presumably with the implication that such things don't happen now. London is presented as dangerous, a favourite Jew theme, though replacing such Jews as 'Jack the Ripper' and the Krays with actors of stereotypes, to explain why the low-grade immigrants they are importing, who need constant government borrowing from Jews in perpetuity. Some children are shown as playing—thank god, they're safe! In another Jewish mood, there are street parties celebrating the admittedly retarded monarch. And to see the character say something like the Bogart 'hill o beans' speech. What really matters? The really important thing was fighting the Nazzies. Gently, the super detective, hasn't detected anything about World War 2. What a brain, eh. Another episode has Enoch Powell's only speech promoted by the Jewish media (the one that says "we" must be mad, not Jews) as though it was broadcast live from its obscure Brummy hotel.

New Tricks has a fictional unsolved crime department, with the usual low-budget-ish interiors (easier to control than exteriors)—office, flats ('apartments' in USA), shops, etc. It's always difficult for hacks to generate something new: one of the characters is something like 'Data' in one of the interminable spin-offs of 'Star Trek'—able to provide helpful pub-quiz style facts or factoids. Another used to act in a similar half-comedy thing and would certainly be recognised by many viewers. There's characterisation with assorted families, wives, etc. As far as I bothered to watch, virtually all the crimes and deaths are attributed to whites—it's a similar policy to black 'gentle giants' as shown on the USA's Jewish TV 'news'. The police are often said to be insightful, or sensitive—in the streetwise sense. Let's hope so, anyway. They must discuss cases such as Delroy Grant (above). They must have stories about personal guards of such people as Diana Spencer and Lord 'Cashpoint' Levy. 'New Tricks' is hopelessly unconvincing. The impression given is of bad actors given lines which are unworkable. At least that's a convincing act.

On Foyle's War I have to confess to never having watched an episode, though I am aware it's supposedly ITV, not BBC. (Supposedly; who knows what goes on behind the scenes?) However, a detective series set during the Second World War in Britain, and a year after after, I read. I'll make a few guesses here; perhaps I'll be set right: nothing at all on Jews running black markets. Nothing on Jews in propaganda departments, making up atrocity stories. Nothing as the war as a continuum in Jewish planning—for example, during the war they were planning black immigration, and the Holocaust hoax, for which they were ready and prepared, with the oiled plump pimp Dimbleby ready to go to Auschwitz, with two professional liars, sons, genetically primed for lifetimes of lies. Nothing on support for Stalin the mass murderer. Nothing on 'repatriation' to the Jewish hell of the USSR of 'citizens of the USSR'. Nothing on Eisenhower and his fields of death. Nothing on torture and testicle-crushings in expensive parts of London. Nothing of the Jew monopoly of money. Probably included: Hitler as evil, Churchill as wonderful: nothing on Churchill as procurer of war. Some bomb incidents, but not in Germany or France. Deserters, unwilling to risk death to help Stalin. Prostitutes—Jews love degraded white women. And so on. I recognised the Jewish actor, smirking in his wartime trilby, who had been in Brimstone and Treacle all that time ago. Series apparently written or assembled by another of the master race, Anthony Horowitz. Something about the 'Cold War' and rigging it up to conceal Jewish crimes in Russia. Plenty more. I looked online to see if someone, somewhere, in Britain and the rest of the world, has managed to do serious reviews of this soap opera of Jewish soap. But I could find nothing, though I did find a Jewish media review, claiming the 'star' was comfortingly English, a piece of effrontery reminding me of Alan Sugar's claim to be Cockney.
Both First and Second World Wars are of course subject to lies. I was amused to see a trailer for some rubbish about Gallipoli: 'The men fighting to tell the truth about the Great War'. Says the voiceover. Yes, of course.

... Until now!! An episode presented itself, and in the hope of seeing the Jewish nuke hoax presented, I watched it. Sundry actors, somewhat debased: a Dr Who, a woman who played a supposedly liberated WW1 woman many years before, an actor who was in Notting Hill as mike controller for an actress. The direction uses big close-ups, an intermediate style less usable with ever-higher resolution cameras. But the technique makes backgrounds easier to control. Kitchen has a rather twitchy acting style; I'd guess they spend a lot of time while he poses and adjusts. The action included, of course, "We must fight fascism!" from an Italian with a small eaterie, unlikely to have a clue about that particular Jewish scheme. After a declaration of war by Italy, (why not see Sleazy things regarding the invasion of Italy), a crowd of white thugs with flaming torches was shown smashing up the prop restaurant. In real life people wondered about the Italian with the pet shop who clipped the budgie's claws being carted off.) The 'Nazis' were described as "smashing and killing their way across Europe" or something like that. There was nothing on Stalin's Jews massacring—all in a day's work for Jewish hack writers. After the First World War, we're facing "the same German enemy." Dr Who was shown throwing up his (admittedly absurd) pacifism, having discovered a fighting streak; I seem to recall a reverend in a G B Shaw play doing the same. Lots said "We must join up!" I think. One of the exquisitely absurd scenes was the ex-WW1 suffragette type shooting the anti-hero baddie with his own revolver—he was made-up with not very convincing red splodges, because he arranged the murder by grenade of a tiresome kid who looked unlikely to be a convincing, or legal, witness. She was shown saying "You killed a child!!". Um, well, there was a war on, and plenty of children were starved by Jews in, for example, Ukraine. Never mind. They'll all be dead soon enough.

... Finally, I watched Series 8, Episode 1. (First shown 4th January 2015. Or so it said onscreen. But in fact the 'atom bomb' episode called 'The Eternity Ring' was first shown two years earlier, in 2013.) Maybe it was renumbered later. I can't quite resist quoting a few online 'goofs' to illustrate the pifflingness of movie buffs: The police supervisor interviewing Sergeant Shaw is smoking a cigarette which changes length inconsistently between shots and Her hair is bunched in dark curls around her ears, beneath her hat but in the rest of this scene and in all other scenes her hair is straight and pulled back behind her head and a London Routemaster bus is seen but the first prototype of these buses didn't appear until 1954.
This seems to be the opener for post-Second World War Jewish constructs. Having played a modest part helping to expose the nuclear weapons fraud and 'Cold War' Jewish world-wide lies, I watched with some interest. (An Aside: here's Miles Mathis on Gore Vidal: Do you know why there is no mention of Harpagus conquering the Phoenicians in Herodotus? Because the Phoenicians were more relatives of the Persians by marriage. ... you will find that Gore Vidal and Jorge Luis Borges both wrote about this mystery. Why would famous Jews be writing about such obscure stuff 2,500 years later? Because this is what they do: they have to continue to misdirect century after century, or someone like me might catch on.) But let's return to events 55 years ago, in that brief line between the past and the future. Anthony Horowitz, an oddly monkey-like kike (there's a video on youtube, a definite sign of Jew approval), wrote or assembled the script; judging by the video, he's a media creation rather than any sort of intellectual. Maybe he's a failed actor; maybe John le Carre is a hated rival. Kitchen, the lead Jew, can at least pose and pout and hold a posture. He's shown making judgements: so-and-so should be funded, so-and-so not exposed, so-and-so permitted to do something. Detectives aren't easy to write realistically about; most of their time is spent trying to assemble pieces of a jigsaw—or of course rigging a case. Horowitz's methodology seems to be to include oddments of observation, in a similar way that screen doctors always have medical accidents around them.
The action starts at the 'Trinity' fake nuclear test in the southern USA. It has a curious mixture of what are supposed to be facts, plus added mythology, mostly from things like Pathe News in cinemas. (TVs were not common. Radio was, and for that matter 'newspapers' such as the big-selling Daily Mirror. I have no idea why these items are never mentioned. Maybe there's an unspoken treaty between media Jews). There was a prolonged flash, when the thing was supposed to be a tiny fraction of a second. A bit like filmed lightning. This feature in faked films. (Many came from studios in Lookout Mountain in the USA; I never discovered if there was a British version, though my best guess is that US film was voiceovered by a plummy Brit, or probably Jew). There was a cloud, like cement dust—they couldn't get a flame effect to look right. However, they did try to get the shape correct, as per Internet images, with the front made to resemble an erection. (On all this you might watch my 3½ hour video, Lords of the Nukes).
I guessed at this stage the main plot background: there would be fake atom spies, who would be Jews, though nobody would say so. This is to pretend there were secrets, and that the 'Soviets' needed to get them. Also of course Stalin's Jews mass killings must not be mentioned. Nor must the bombing war on Germans be mentioned. And the 'Cold War' Jewish hoax must not be explained; God forbid! Or perhaps Jahveh forbid. This type of censorship must be a deeply unconscious part of Horowitz's shabby, vicious and disgusting mental furniture. There are of course several actors with severe accents from Europe, one who left Germany in 1933. The mechanisms by which Jews moved to Britain were not of course recorded. Nor was there any comment on Jews funding Germans in the 'Great War', and how they made money out of it.
There are some English subplots: a general election seat with a Labour Party interviewing panel; it's obvious now that 'Labour' was Jewish, with more or less British front men (and women) and this encounter with the subservient kind was shown in I suppose a church hall or something. The returning soldier was another theme: this one had been a prisoner of the Japanese, though little was made of this, or of the firebombing of most of Japan. Obviously, Horowitz of the Master Race wouldn't bother about that. The soldier was shown with potentially flaring-up jealousy of his wife; and of course this was real—I heard of a Liverpool demobbed chap who found his wife had been shagging during the war, and barred her from the house. Another was the housing problem: someone said somewhere they wish the foreigners would be moved, but again Horowitz, of the Chosen Master Race, brushes it off or puts it in the mouth of a lower-orders actor. Another was a character wondering if "we really won the war"—probably a little joke by Horowitz the Chosen.
Some social changes get a look in: women are shown wanting to work, a common theme. They'd need to, to pay off the war debt, though nobody says so. The intelligence chap (MI5? Pipesmoker) is shown as dishonest, opening the way for a battleaxe type woman, I'd guess herself set up for another plot later. However, the general idea of women as employees is a theme along similar lines now to blacks (well, half-castes usually) as competent—not an easy role to fill! It's also worth noticing live entertainment is shown fronted with a black singer; a typically Jewish misrepresentation. Oh; may as well mention a homosexual in the 'intelligence' world, I'd guess being established as blackmail material, and an attack by the decent soldier. Horowitz must have heard of 'gay bashing'. For a bit of realism here, read my review of Spycatcher, a rather mistitled book since Peter Wright clearly had no idea what he was doing.
Anyway, there was a synthesized murder plot along Ian Fleming lines. With a thermos flask apparently just right to move stuff—I wondered if there was confusion somewhere about 'hot' substances. We had scenes labelled Arnwell I think, obviously Harwell fictionalised. Much of the action seemed to have green screens for the backgrounds; perhaps some was retouched or repainted. When it comes to Jewish fakery, no expense is spared as a rule, but there are limits.
The next episode(s) include the farce at Nuremberg. All of this is sh!t, of course. However it's recommendable to intelligent media studies people, if there are any; decipher the way your past is hammered out of shape by parasitic gnomes. At least in the USA the series was dumped in the Jew-controlled 'public broadcasting' waste basket.

It occurs to me I may as well link to my one-act play masterpiece here on the decision to invent the 'atomic bomb' hoax: Oppenheimer, Groves, Slotin, Spaatz get together in 1945.

Hetty Wainthropp investigates is set in Lancashire, an area including the stone-built houses of Darwen and parts of the cotton processing lands which formed part of the industrial revolution 150ish years ago. This is another series showing an implausible female detective, in this case Patricia Routledge, familiar to sofa potatoes from a sitcom involving 'Hyacinth Bouquet', who lent her name to quite a few flower shops in northern England. The detective series is perhaps noteworthy for featuring Dominic Monaghan, appearing a year or two later in Lord of the Rings. Under the Jewish regime, we have white thugs and innocent Pakistanis, reversing the historical truth of large-scale assaults on white girls. I expect Routledge is still alive. But perhaps she'll get what she deserves.

Peter James. One of the fascinations of the writing world is discovering some new slant, angle, or whatever. I was in the process of trying to recover the name of a French spy writer, since I think 1948, who wrote or is credited with about 80 books. He was and is entirely unknown to me; his name was inserted into a TV quiz, perhaps as a promotion. This led to another discovery; here's Wiki--
Peter James has written 35 novels, including the International best-selling crime thriller series featuring Brighton-based Detective Superintendent Roy Grace, which have sold 20 million copies worldwide and have given him fourteen consecutive UK Sunday Times number ones, as well as number ones in Germany, France, Russia and Canada, and he is also a New York Times best-seller. James's books have been translated into 37 languages... There's no Roy Grace known to me in the BBC; I've no idea why not. Peter James seems to conform to the Jewish model: born 1948, mother Cornelia Katz, Jewish-style name, no jewish crooks.
I still don't know the French author's name, though I had the feeling that stories about Algeria started him off.

Maigret is an oddity (in Britain): occasional one-offs, with Rowan Atkinson, perhaps best-known for the Blackadder series of quasi-history of Britain, with no Jewish detailing. There was a First World War episode with, of course, no serious background, including Jews Stephen Fry and Tony Robinson. Tony Robinson, of the (((Labour))) Party, once presented some rubbish on Freemasons—holding a door open. Look! Nothing visible!
Maigret is of course set in post-WW2 Paris. Educated readers will know that France was bombed more than any country in Europe, apart from Germany, then invaded by Americans and others, accompanied by rapes, and set up as another Jew-run 'republic'. Vichy France had access to the Soviet (i.e. Jewish run) embassy; naturally there is no mention here! Atkinson, trying to keep a straight face, says he had enough of Gestapo methods! So far as I watched any of these episodes, no reference whatever was made to these minor events. In France, Simenon included anti-Jew references in his books, which were immensely popular, I'm told. Don't expect any accuracy in any way. The sets are small, the cast mostly such things as prostitutes—an abiding interest of Jews. In any case, the French atmosphere can hardly be captured in third rate Anglo-American-Jewish travesties of reality. I'm amazed half the cast aren't African.

Both Morse and Midsomer Murders are set in what might be idyllic surroundings. It's curious how little indirect light is shone on Oxford University by Morse: I can remember no professors disputing over Talmudic material, or deaths in the Soviet Union, or bombings in the far east. It's in fact quite disappointing: the various murders have something like a green screen backdrop, essentially removed, almost in another universe. What fun it would have been to have statistics faked, or financial investigations stopped, or threats of the removal of Jewish money, or someone like Professor Evans ensuring intelligent young would-be historians were excluded, in favour of something like Alan Bennett protegées. This, or something like it, makes Morse hollow and unfulfilling. John Thaw was exactly the right actor: his ambition was to act someone intelligent, but of course he couldn't work out for himself what that was. It was interesting to find (in John Thaw, The Biography, by Stafford Hildred & Tim Ewbank, 1998, p. 172) 'Yet he [Thaw] insists years of playing the character have done nothing to improve his own powers of detection. Thaw admits he frequently finds it difficult to work out who is the guilty man or woman. He says: 'Even when I am reading my own script when it comes to the crunch I am always surprised to find out who is really guilty.'
Midsomer Murders has two pillars to its construction: one is money shortages, an easily-understood motive force, though contrasting oddly with the prosperous scenes. The other pillar, making for an unstable structure, is odd white people: probably people like Yentob laugh loudly and splutter out their BBC champagne at the eccentric misfits, so unlike Jews. There are whole genres ridiculing whites, even including TV adverts as a genre. Some TV watchers consider that every British TV series with poorish characters ridicules them. Midsomer Murders had some sort of internal tiff (carefully leaked accounts suggest)—one of the prime movers thought it should be white, even if not English. He seems to have been overruled, so the newer parts are filled with 'ethnics', and a new unimpressive detective, Dudgeon, though I don't know if there's some connection. I've seen new new touches of what might be called 'white realism', for example wills being juggled to avoid 40% inheritance tax.

Lewis is a spin-off from Morse.
I found six months ago that 'Lewis' is a name applied to the son of male Freemasons. I think "a Lewis" is the way it's used. Possibly someone's little joke.
A Geordie fart based in Oxford. It's amusing to see a black boss actor in these constricted plots. Here's a true story about Oxford policing. 'One girl, referred to as Girl A for legal reasons, felt brave enough to face her abusers in court, while others gave evidence from behind a curtain. She wept as she described how the gang threatened to burn her younger brother alive unless she had sex with them. She was repeatedly raped and sold for sex between 2004 and 2007 when she was aged 12 to 15.
When she went to police [in Oxford], no action was taken.'

As a touch of reality, readers might browse such sites as https://labour25.com/ looking at Labour Party paedophiles and sex criminals. Or perhaps (click the box) British Police, law, and MP crimes and scandals. They might try to find out about people traffickers, or perhaps the trade in young women for prostitution in Israel. The medical industry is a possible field for reality crime: a multiple-murdering doctor, like the Jew Harold Shipman? A science-fiction plot with poison added to water—obviously this is far-fetched... just like a plot with useless drugs foisted onto the public! Dangerous unqualified nurses 'appointed' by incompetent 'positive discrimination' staff? Gipsies? Medical staff forced to treat non-Britons who are never going to pay? Animal cruelty with alien slaughter methods kept hidden?

An inevitable aspect of the practice of using just a few writers is their lack of technical knowledge. This of course is part of the BBC's ethos, no doubt derived from public schools and Oxbridge and broadcasting history as based on state propaganda, unchallengeable, stupid, and with the uneasy arrogance of parasitic organisms. Nothing can be assumed to be accurate and there are many misconceptions—circumstantial evidence, blood tests, terrorists, blows to the head as an anaesthetic, electrical dimmings, DNA technology, effects of bombs, passwords—spread by these puppets of Jews and Mammon. There's an opposite effect, most strikingly brought out in TV quizzes, in which fake knowledge is inserted. A sample is the insertion of actors playing soldiers, off for a 'peacekeeping' mission. I was amused to see an aside by 'Lewis', something like "if I solved Jack the Ripper she'd complain at the cost". The 'she' being a female boss. Pretending the 'Jack the Jew' case is unsolved.

I've just watched an episode with Laurence Fox as the newish sidekick. The plot was based around an estate, long-established, and a death at a Ciil War re-enactment, I'd guess by one of the groups practising these things. It hadn't occurred to me previously—this sort of thing would be supervised by Jews, a precaution in case anyone would discuss the point of the war, to establish a Jewish Bank of England and move Jews from the continent to a new offshore home. Quite funny to see the hints about the Civil War '101'. King vs Parliament or something. Relative of course to families in country estates: this sort of thing is beyond 'serious' historians, let alone scribblers of hackery, but some of these families must surely have been eased out in defeat. Many were replaced more or less decorously by Jews. Also quite funny to see the lovely daughter betrothed for money to some middle-east alien. A reference to earlier such events?

Cracker 'To Be a Somebody' (1994) My DVD says 148 mins, and 'Granada TV'—'Granada' being an odd name selected by a Jew of so-called 'Independent TV'. I'd guess broadcast as 6 episodes. I've made no attempt to identify 6 'cliffhangers', as they still seem to be called.
The DVD cover credits include only Robbie Coltrane, Ricky Tomlinson and Robert Carlyle, omitting the females, and omitting Christopher Eccleston, not yet well-known as one of the interminable Dr Whos. The plot shows Robert Carlyle as an incensed white, who, after Hillsborough—Hillsborough disaster was a fatal human crush during an FA Cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England, on 15 April 1989. With 96 fatalities... sets out to kill 96 people, preferably police and Sun reporters. The plot has to be spun out; 'Albie' worked in quarries and might presumably have made a big bang at the start, rather than the end. He leaves a trail: shaves himself to 'skinhead' status, leaves a spray-painted clue, pins photos of two victims to his wall—inviting an episode with an incompetent policeman. He allows a survivor to get out of the front door. Luckily he's in areas without extras, partly no doubt to save money.
Coltrane (real name McMillan; following Miles Mathis, I wondered about rich connections, and/or Jewish connections, as in Jews in Scotland, but did nothing to follow this up). This time had John Major as nominal Prime Minister; Scots Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Cameron were in the future). Anyway Coltrane acts a multiple addict—cigarettes, a bottle of strong drink daily, and gambling. But not drugs—no suggestion of opium wars. The writers, mostly Jimmy McGovern, did not insert paedophilia or prostitution. Coltrane is shown as having a heart attack, as just another exciting incident, as he recovered more-or-less instantly. And his wife decided to move out, despite housing complications. All the families are shown as small—Jews don't like whites. His wife was shown, accurately enough, as seeking 'funding' for some official project or other. Both are shown as fluent, and both are shown as know nothings on small matters like Jew-promoted immigration and selective Jew-funding for immigrants.
The official Jewish memes are dished out in moderation: 'racist' occurs fairly often, following Trotsky in his white genocide policy. In 100 years, the word will have to be explained carefully. 'All white people are inherently racist' says Coltrane, putting the phrase into another's mouth. We also have the fake 'Holocaust' ('gas ovens and six million burning corpses'), and faked nukes. Coltrane's character made a comment I found disgusting, on his wife and her friends orgasming over Vietnam, which of course is another Jew censorship topic. Both main character's fathers 'fought in the war'—with of course obvious failure to comment on white deaths. At present, 25 years later, there's a controlled release of stories of WW2 atrocities; I expect McGovern's pieces now include those. Or perhaps the phasing-out of Britain from both world wars will continue, in which case McGovern will switch to false flags or black lies or something.
I was amused at the 'skinhead' scenes: one with Coltrane pissing, another with a sort of half-naked males with swastikas—and the South African emblem of the AWB. One of them was called "Einstein" by an intellectual cop. This was before the BNP's RWB festivals. The truth, which is that immigrants were far more violent than Britons, and supported by the police, is ignored by the writers, no doubt as instructed by superiors via some sort of chain of command. There's a bit of feminism, as usual not very plausible: the policewoman, and the freelance journalist, were of course near-victims of white males. No surprises here. Of course 'far right' and 'fascist' are sprinkled around in the usual low-comprehension style desired by Jews. Including "a member of the fascist party."
Coltrane is shown as something like a big Poirot without audible introspection, which at least helps the plot flow at controlled speed: Coltrane can produce his views at any moment. Carlyle is shown as working class (their word); but as intelligent. This is a problem, especially over football, which McGovern solves by giving Carlyle knowledge of Mozart. Probably books and art and history would be difficult. And by his selecting the Jewish Guardian as his 'news' source. Perhaps worth noting is that Carlyle seems to have had his ears pinned back, making close-ups look rather bat-eared; I suppose some make-up girl would do that. The police are all shown as disliking each other. And as defence-lawyer aware—there a scene where Albie (white?) wants to be photographed, as evidence, provoking Tomlinson to refuse, enraged—the traditional Jewish approach to law, of course. So are the public.
And so on. An interesting sub-theme, dear to Jews, is contempt for white workers, viewed, presumably, as more contempt-worthy than educated whites—as mass killings in Russia show. Interwoven with Jew-generated mythology, is Albie as the son of an honest working-class man, who took five years to die of an unspecified cancer. He voted Labour all his life; which would have amused the Jews who set up and controlled 'Labour', using whites as cannon fodder, or more accurately shell and bomb fodder. Though of course they had their fun, too. It occurred to me that pacing of thrillers must be approximately the same as pacing of comedies; a study of sitcoms suggested to me that one joke/ recurring theme/ 'sight gag' is needed about every ten seconds, and much the same must be true of thrillers, with menacing music substituting for canned laughter.
Anyway, then in 1948 we have Jewish-forced immigration. This Cracker video, 45 years later, displays the full hoax of the Holohoax. Very possibly 'Coltrane' thinks he's a Jew, backed up by Equity rules about prohibition of 'racism'. I recall J K Rowling saying she wanted English actors in the Potter films, including Daniel Radcliffe (thinks he's a Jew), Alan Rickman (ditto), and plenty of others. I wonder how long the fraud will last; or if it will last for the foreseeable future, in the way (((Christianity))) and its offshoots, including Islam, have done.
As regards the supposed background of Cracker, here's the Jane-Austen-Revisionist Ennos: It is interesting to look at psychiatry in general as a Jewish fraud. I think what is essentially fraudulent about it is that people who are suffering mentally are blamed for their own suffering, whereas it is usually caused by an outside element. This avoids having to examine and criticise this outside element. In particular people live in a culture of lies which cannot be healthy for their brains. I'd expect other episodes of Cracker to work to that pattern, no doubt mentioning Freud, just as Einstein was worked in here.
Postscript: An article in the New Observer Online Record Nonwhite Murder Wave Engulfs London: But UK Media Focus on "White Racists" shows how the Jewish media continue to lie. Just a single example.

Cracker (I'm unsure of the title; 2006; seems to have been a one-off). The DVD has shots of Jimmy McGovern asserting his avoidance of 'political correctness', by using Jewish catchwords—racism, homophobia, whatever. This 'feature-length' piece was in Manchester, and included 'don't mention the war' Ulster, the bomb clearance (1996) attributed to the IRA resulting in the Arndale Centre rebuild and permitting the script to describe ten years or so of 'complete change' of Manchester, 9/11 2001 ('Fitz' shown ruminating on planes flown into towers... not PC?), the Iraq War of Dubya Bush (2003, not the earlier one). Not included were Marx and Engels, those rich Jew phonies, and their Manchester haunts; and Ireland in 1914. Or Salford Quays 'Media City', started 2007; and the Manchester Arena fake explosion of 2017.
The motif in Cracker was the American mass destruction technique in wars, dating I suppose from the real start of the Second World War. The war crimes aspect was not stressed of course; rather there was emphasis on New Yorkers collecting for terrorism in Ireland, presumably Jewish. Recently, the indefatigable Miles Mathis has stated that all US Presidents, every single one, were Jews. It would need a serious psychological detective to assemble a story series from these rich elements. I wonder if the public is slowly catching up after the immense censorship of WW2 up to the chink of web light now. Clearance schemes are technically changed since late mediaeval fires. Now explosive are needed—think 9/11, the Pentagon, Arndale, though Grenfell Tower I suppose was less demolishable. 9/11 was immediately commented on as resembling controlled demolition, though arguably McGovern and his simple actors wouldn't be expected to mention that. The links of Ireland with Jews are still very hidden, and the consequent mass immigration gives some idea of the sincerity of 'IRA' funders.
There was a heroin subplot, and mention of the Taliban removing opium poppies. Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers presumably were part of the movement against that. It's very possible McGovern thinks he's a Jew: many came to Britain and hid their identities, voted 'Labour', and sometimes hid as Roman Catholics, themselves a violent Jewish outgrowth lasting many centuries. Jews also have a policy of disliking contraception, and therefore can hide as a multi-child Roman Catholic family. And of course the Jewish media industry has vast numbers of Jews, virtually every one of whom is a liar. To be frank, McGovern has a genetically-modified ferret facies resembling Noel Ignatieff. It's ofe some interest to see that the so-called Independent is still limping on, despite have carried out its main function. It has a large number of ex-editors, for example the amiable but ignorant Amol Rajan (see a TV 'antiques' programme). Presumably the losses are Jew funded, and it can be used as 'training'. It's still running the AIDS fraud.
The presentation of soldiers is a bit tricky. McGovern helps the issue by having his soldier suicidal, and his wife dim. Soldiers have to look as though ZOG takes them seriously, rather than discardable nonentities without even entitlements to housing. ZOG itself aims to use soldiers as violent killers, for anti-white use in future. But for home consumption they have to be presented as invading for 'freedom'. (Newsclips show briefly Dubya Bush saying they will soon clean up, with Blair as his ineffectual assistant. It's obvious in retrospect that Jews wanted to ruin and wreck the middle east. I've seen recent (2019) remarks that casualties in Iraq were much greater than had been announced. But of course many are white American goys, and therefore don't count.
Incidentally, the 1997 Firearms Act (following the Dunblane psyop in a remote part of Scotland) meant that firearms offences had doubled by the time this Cracker was made. No mention of this (or Cracker's supposed books, for that matter).

Poirot and other Agatha Christie thrillers have some interest in the light, or shadow, they throw on past worlds and more present media attitudes. Christie more or less spans the First World War (and Belgians) to the Second World War. And (is this really credible?) her sales were bigger than almost all other writers. We have German spies over the whole interval. However, I don't think there's ever been a Jewish spy, Jewish couple, Jewish fraudster, Jewish propagandist, Jewish murderer. Or any accurately-portrayed Jew. I like to hope that in the 22nd century, fiction in whatever the media will be will be replete with Jews in caricature, endlessly shown in their true colours. With matching factual material.

Just watched most of a 'Rebus' TV story; very long, with John Hannah whom I remember as the sensitive homosexual in Four Weddings... and miscast (no doubt because he spoke Scottish). I disliked the episode, mainly because it presented immigrants to Scotland, costing them a lot, and not voted for, as victims, and not the beneficiaries they were and are. Some notorious cases of sadistic violence against whites were in Scotland, but not in the media. Jewish paper money power has far-reaching effects. And these include subtle influences in Scotland, banking, wars, and mal-intellect (Adam Smith?) being a part. After a poke about online, I found Rankin was born in 1960, first novel about aged 27, followed by roughly one a year since then. I couldn't resist seeing if he knew the Harry Potter authoress (or perhaps alleged authoress), also in Edinburgh, and yes he does; I imagine they discuss lots of publishing matters so long as they aren't important. I see there has been another Rebus actor, who later appeared in the Hobbit film as an absurdly-bearded dwarf. He has a sort of wonky potato face, which seems more appropriate that Hannah's. Every Jew-aware person must be conscious by now of Jews in the media but not in the output of the media. If I'd had more interest (how much murder is there really in Edinburgh? How much murder in the world is seriously investigated?) I'd have tried to tie up the various strands pursued by carefully-separated Jewish pressure groups: Holocaust fraud? Must be here? Support for mal-education? Must be implicit. Climate change fraud: Low salt in food fraud: Blacks in adverts push: genetic defects in Jews—he appears to have the misfortune to have a genetically-disabled son; though it strikes me this may be a way to dodge publicity, such is my scepticism? He's now produced a 2021 book: I wonder if the Coronavirus fraud is in it? Maybe some website has insight into such things and writes entertainingly on them? I hope so, but doubt it.

Ripper Street was introduced (the BBC advertises its own stuff) as 'part of our continued fascination with Jack the Ripper', or similar words. I saw bits of their promotional short videos: London, which at the time was one of the world's greatest cities, was shown as a squalid muddy place. At that time, the East End was being flooded with Jews—this was before passports, and the influx was assisted by Churchill, filibustering Parliament. I'm not sure there's even an English word for 'filibustering'. In fact it is known Jack the Ripper was a Jew. But who cares about a few poor murdered dismembered women, after all? Certainly not the BBC. There's a well-established view that Jews like to celebrate successes in two parts: one is an announcement, inevitably covert, such as prefigurings of 9/11; followed by repeated celebrations. Probably 'our continued fascination' is a Jewish code.

An odd side-issue of BBC crime is the Jewish interest in perversions and sex: I vaguely remember an attempt at a life of Conan Doyle and influences leading to Sherlock Holmes, showing a huge brothel right in the middle of 19th century Edinburgh! And a 'Father Brown' story by Chesterton, updated with a village prostitute. And an episode of Endeavour with a neon sign 'girls, girls, girls'—in 1950s Oxford. (I misremembered this; it was attributed to Soho, I think). Another theme is white women trying it on with young black males. Another theme is anachronisms, such as women police; yet another is Jewish movements from the past, such as 'anti-racialism', immigrant rights but not for whites, Second World War, and so on. Colin Dexter, one of the authors supposedly part of the Thaw/ Whateley/ Evans series, seems to have some doubts about all this; but who knows. The sooner Jews are removed from all influence, except as awful warnings and cautions, the better.

I watched some of the final episode with the moustached 'Endeavour'. I'm told it has a happy ending, at least in the Jewish sense. Baddies shooting each other, police shown as honest and ethical, at least mostly. Interesting Freemasonry topic, which seemed falsely to suggest the problem had been removed, without of course mentioning the Jewish link. And personal issues settled as they go into the sunset. The main plot was based on the Ronan Point flats collapse. Based, here, on saving a bit of money on sand. It was amusing to see a town planning chairman as a crook. As always Jewish paper money, and its associated corruption, is not present.
The moustachioed 'Endeavour' is a remarkably dull actor; I wonder if the casting people have regrets. Incidentally, despite being young and inexperienced, there's no discernable attempt to show any learning processes in Morse. Maybe it's just too difficult to arrange much cross-episode influence on top of the career stuff. The TV colour and contrast palette, computer processed, is always dull and dim. No doubt there's an identifying name for it. Maybe it's to suggest tobacco smoke. Maybe it's to suggest dim whites.
This final episode had the usual Jewish joke subplots—a Jewish fake physicist, Jews dying in camps. And the usual few blacks: I happened to watch a 2002 Big Brother, including Jade with her apparently African albino face, and a miscellany of half-breeds. Richard Ayoade, a sort of all-purpose half-breed, with the F1 cross oddities in the future, appeared in an early episode of Endeavour (I think). I must have been cued into this by ads: learn 'life skills' with a black; TV shit on a 'serial killer' exposed as a fake; "on your feet can give a feeling of foot fatigue".
Inserted Feb 2020: Another Endeavour, reportedly new. If I remember correctly, directed or produces or written by Jews. Fascinatingly unwatchable: the 'British Movement' is shown, with an actor I presume as Tyndall. And of course immigrants, I think Pakistanis, with a fight starting up. I wonder if any English people watch this stuff, aware that the Jewish press does not report violence by blacks, Asians, or Jews. And does not report education for whites, ruined by Jews. Or profitable rented housing, for immigrants. "Oy, Shaun, your new series is doing well, yes, very well. Um about the next, we'll let you know boy."
Musing on Oxford, thinking of the King James Bible—the biggest propaganda coup in history, in the English-speaking world—I wondered how Oxford notables view their long-term TV notoriety. I'd expect negotiations as to which colleges and institutions would be allowed to appear, and for how much. I'd expect those not engrossed in their work, or distraction, to find it trivialising or mildly irritating. But I'd expect many of them to worry that secrets might be exposed, that the top-down pressure from Masters and money-processors and Professors might start to crack and fail.
Let me make use of a sadly-neglected oratorical device: the ritual curse! My apologies if the wording isn't quite right.

Lime of exorcism. I banish the snake; I banish the spirit of the 'Jews'; I banish the slimy fluid; I banish the creeping plant; I banish the Jew producer, the Jew director, the Jew scriptwriter, the Jew actor. I have sunk them deep in the sea. Vapour shall rise to hold them afar. I summon the Wakanda witchdoctor to treat, enfeeble, curse, and kill them all.

An (apparently) genuine example of the use of curses was in the Anglo-Scots border before unification by Royalty. 'Reivers' were loyal to their clan, which seems to have meant their surname in practice. 'Reivers' were not the same as 'rogues'. One of reivers' functions seems to have been to rustle cattle to eat. However, Gavin Dunbar, the Archbishop of Glasgow, composed his own curse, made up of lists of body parts, descriptions of hell and satan, and so on; this was read out from pulpits, though I doubt whether reivers were present. Dunbar was not the only such curser. Maybe these acts were part of the atmosphere of witchcraft.
Frost (or it may be called Inspector Frost) is by now quite old—you can tell by car registration plates. Interesting to see the way Jewish attitudes are inserted, and reactions to them. An episode dealing with 'paedophiles' naturally shows whites, not the usual Jews and Muslims. Naturally the episode has the traditional murders. And there are fake stats inserted: a female 'social worker'—note the 'worker'!—claims there are a few hundred thousand 'paedophiles' in Britain or England. The implication is that there must be a few hundred thousand murders of children every year—in fact, I heard an amateur Internet radio chap being told that millions of children disappear each year, where of course part of the propaganda process is to unfix normal procedures of counting and assessment. Insertion of desired reactions is another part of the Jewish 'PC' process: when the child murderer is found, the miniature inspector Frost lashes out once with a fist. This is presented as an appalling, career-imperilling, deed. It's easy to imagine an 'accidental' murder, and entirely natural. However, this, although natural to Jews, is forbidden to the gentile. On the same topic, Frost is shown agonising over death penalties: should there be death penalties, or should there be civilisation?
It's interesting to see the treatment of immigrants/ invaders. Frost belongs to the period of compulsory belief that Britain is 'institutionally racist', and that other races can't possibly be racist.

Endeavour advertised as the first part of the final series. (26 Feb 2023; I've just watched it, and scribbled notes.) I wondered if this might differ from the previous series, combining strange murders with reconstructed plots based on Jewish fake historiography, scene-set with Jewish fantasy. Unfortunately, it's the same again, as of course would be expected.
If anything, it seems to be set earlier than the other series; perhaps they want to reinforce the views of the Second World War which rule Jews. They 'return to Castle Gate'. Roger Allam seems to have a greenish trilby, perhaps new. Thaw's daughter returns as the Oxford Mail editor, so we can expect fake 'scoops', as pioneered in Hollywood about a century ago. Anton Lesser is still around, I think made up to look older. Sam, the son of the Thursdays, has left the Army or been kicked out. According to the conventions, the Army must be in the right, except when dealing with Jewish treason, obviously. Strange has lost even more weight and is implausibly betrothed to Joan Thursday. So we have a number of threads to each 2 hour episode. I scribbled down that Charlotte Webber is the Producer, meaning, I assume, that she had possession of money. Directed by Shaun Evans.

The starting scene, which may have been put there so it can be advertised with gruesome and bloody scenes from the start, showed an old bloke running to a red phone box, with an abduction and torture scene. The forensic chap in specs judged the body died "between 9 and 3". Tongue had been cut out and nailed to the floor. There's intermittent stuff on Tommy someone—despite the salesman-style repetition, I forget the name. But he was known to Thursday from before the [Second World] war, when he was in Cable Street. This was part of Jewish propaganda. I recently found a different view, here, from what seems to have been a genuine east Londoner.
Anyway, this has obviously been left for further expansion; I'd guess middle range, to appear less obsessive. I felt Oxford appeared less that before; one of the deaths was in 'an Oxford college garden'. Toleration may have leaked away.

The main plot, of course a murder, involved a Chinese or Japanese or mixed-race woman, called Christine Poole. A violinist, 'guest soloist' or perhaps first violin, cue for a fair quantity of scene-setting praise, gifted children, remarkable talent, and so on. She's shown gratefully thanking Endeavour; I couldn't help thinking this may have been to boost the image of cops, not often regarded as socially aware and expert. Or maybe it's to get goyim accustomed to Israel-trained thugs.
The suspects were a presumably non-existent orchestra, the 'Oxford Concert Orchestra', with a manager called Fischer and a conductor with a Russian or Russian-Jew name, who was identified for me as Nicholas Farrell, 'best known for his part in The Iron Lady', but also known for advertising Saga Holidays, but not I think in this evening's ads.
A complete review would be incomplete without mention of the ads. These are full of mixed-race 'couples'. Here are a few approximate highlights: "I was going through the menopause. And I didn't feel good about my hair". Dame Dench trying to get car insurance down (without mentioning uninsured Muslims). One or two ads for electric cars (without mentioning their problems). An advert for another crime fiction series; possibly these things are there to pretend murders are investigated thoroughly).

The main plot was a murder by nuts—the second fiddle was lethally allergic, though nobody seemed to be aware of this perhaps significant fact. This gave the opportunity for the conductor to yell "Is there a doctor in the house?" to the low-extras audience.

And so on. Then we have 'Our BBC' as a fatuous pretence. And a news headline: a boatful of illegals sank off Italy. Naturally there was an in-depth investigation into people smugglers, the inevitable Jewish links, and punishments. Well, OK, I'm joking.

Looks as though Cable Street, in ‘the Jewish East End’ [sic] is to be inserted throughout the UK this year in the Jewish media. Here's part of a piece by Andrew Joyce:

The Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) isn’t what it used to be. This year it plans to stage a play “exposing the blithe injustice of empire,” while another, Cowbois, promises a “rollicking queer cowboy show” and “a western like you’ve never seen it before”. It’s about a bandit whose arrival in a sleepy frontier town “inspires a gender revolution and starts a fire under the petticoat of every one of its repressed inhabitants.”
As well as producing such stunning and brave works as this, the RSC has helped produce The Merchant of Venice 1936. In this iteration of Shakespeare’s classic, the Jewish actress Tracy-Ann Oberman plays Shylock, “a widowed survivor of antisemitic pogroms in Russia,” who runs a pawnbroking business in London’s Cable Street, where Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists plans to march. Antonio, the merchant, and Portia, are British aristocratic followers of Mosley. The official advertisement for the play explains:-
It is London in 1936 â€” fascism is sweeping across Europe, and Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists is threatening to march through the Jewish East End. Shylock (Tracy-Ann Oberman) is a survivor of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia. A widow, she runs a small business from her dark and cramped terraced house in Cable Street, hoping to give daughter Jessica a better future. When aristocratic anti-semite Antonio desperately needs a loan, he makes a dangerous bargain with this woman he has spat on in the street. Will Shylock, bitter from a life plagued by racism and abuse, take her revenge? A vivid evocation of our history, and a warning for our times.

The usual lies. An interesting comment refers to Out of Step (1951), the autobiography of Arnold Leese, who implies Mosley was controlled opposition getting publicity, obscuring the 'Imperial Fascist League'.

I've just watched the very final episode of Endeavour, plus its associated summing-up with luvvies programme. Luvvies giving what looks like a lot of information, while not doing so. This latter states (I'm pretty sure) that Russell Lewis, presumably a Jew, wrote all the episodes, all of 2 hours. He sounds a similar type to Curtis of Jew-tinged romantic coms, rather unlike Spielberg's armies of word niggers. I'd doubt Lewis wrote single-handed, because he'd need to check the background detail, which would have to be Jew-compliant—think of topics like NASA and 'nuclear energy', political parties and race issues, the 'Holocaust' fraud—being re-invented probably with official approval and publicised at about the time of the videos—Stalin's mass-murders, flight and transport, secret groups, unions, money supplies and budgeting, TV and papers. They must each have their official Jew censors and 'experts' and 'professors'. My site has many examples, for example Rillington Place. So rigid is the system that it's often possible to deduce the hierarchy of lies at any one time. For example, the elaborate frauds involving Hitler, Churchill, Djugashvili, and Roosevelt still seem prioritised over nuclear frauds and Cuba, in turn prioritised over atrocities in China, Japan, and Vietnam. I'm not saying of course that Mr Lewis had any interest in getting things correct; just that no Jews should find anything objectionable.
There were inevitably some interesting sidelights: the beepy sound, which I'd assumed to be computer-generated, was indeed made by a computer, in the 'retro' form of a keyboard. The sheer quantities of techie extras is a surprise; all these simple types pleased to be 'working', spending years of their lives on these projects, living perhaps in modern strangely-shaped high-rise flats in Salford's studios. I don't think there was any estimate of costs anywhere in their overview.. It's not their money, of course. And how Jews must laugh at the simple American middle-aged women admirers. Gee, so wunnerful. Whether the vast assemblage of technicians, electrics, lights, sounds, extras, musicians, script manipulators, caterers, logistics types had any idea what they were doing, is an interesting question. Many would just be following orders, from Equity or whoever. Some would be in on the secret, hugging themselves and counting their assets. Many must be too stupid.
It seems obvious enough that Thursday, the Detective Inspector or whatever, and his family are intended to be stock figures of fun: plods, in fact. Thursday risking his life for a small house, his son in the army without mention (say) of bombs in Palestine. But the Klein bottle assemblage allows for Jewish actors to include their mockery and mimicry of the goyim.

Let me just link to this East Londoner on WW2 (apparently genuine and old) for an insight into the Second World War. My guess is that Blenheim Palace, shown near the end in drone's eye view, was a nod to the cult of Churchill.

Fascinating to see and hear some of the actors, including those in Lewis and the earlier Morse. Shaun Evans, who I always thought a dull actor, turns out to be a dull actor with a Liverpool accent. 'Joanie' sounds Irish, perhaps of the Shatter type. But perhaps they were acting, their little joke. Sam, the son, is shown as inarticulate, turning to drink and drugs. (Remember the 'old dope peddler' song of Lehrer, that Jewish comedian?). Obviously they don't want a mentally-active soldier, asking questions about Kissinger, atrocities, errors in World Wars. Incidentally there was a mention of students as likely targets for their drug gang. One of the few (I think) references to the post-1945 redbrick universities. I'd guess Lewis went to Oxford himself, part of the Jewish vice gripping poor old Europe.
With film or video, of course, unlike live theatre, scenes are short; they must accustom themselves to bits of dialogue of just a few sentences. I wonder if anyone has developed a standard list of mannerisms of emotional indicators, to be used as additional notes to scripts. We were told Russ, Russell Lewis, had 'very detailed' scripts though we weren't shown actual examples, just a glimpse.

The final episode included a bit from Freddie Forsyth (apply for birth certificate of dead baby, name taken from convenient headstone—assumed not to be checked). The murderer was an actor playing a blue-eyed Englishman, doing odd jobs and familiar with Latin, no doubt Russ's this-episode type of goy, killing professors, as of course they do, under the rules of anti-white hatred. It includes a threat, a conspiracy lasting forever, but attributed to a drug-dealing motorbike gang! Looks like another metamorphosis of Jews.
A characteristic scene showed the mock-solemn faces of the detection pair, inquisiting a cunning peasant extremist, wordless, frowning, Thursday presumably suppressing his easy-to-act impulse as a killer of some non-Jews baddy. In the real world, they'd have known something about controlling faked demonstrations, bent solicitors, public money directed to Jewish lawyers and away from whites, housing frauds, rape gangs from the newish Pakistan, immigrant controllers meeting under London railway station clocks. And the political undertow, such as Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of the time, helping Jewish 'businessmen' and secretly planning 'coloured immigration'.
There's what's called a 'child abuse' theme, though the reality of the times, including Edward Heath, an Irish boys home, Jimmy Savile, is suppressed, not just in Endeavour. Yet again there's a Jewish link, their holy texts including sex with 3-year old girls.

A 'Lewis' is someone whose dad was a Freemason, probably relevant here. The spray of dilute sewage, with occasional chunks, emerges from Lewis's capacious arse. But more so from minds saturated with desert-sand fanaticisms fermented from prematurely-copied papyrus. I wonder if electronic media—if they can survive millennia—will mutate into something relatively intelligent. I hop so; but it's impossible to guess. As impossible to guess whether financial controls will be less monopolised.

Oxford itself is a mute backdrop. And yet it plays its part accurately, reflecting the real world of Jewish conquest, keeping quiet on every important issue, contributing very little to truth, omitting tourists robbed by 'Albanians', students deceived by careerist academics, minimum-waged locals. A hive of genetically-similar insects working at repetitive tasks that need modest intelligence. One day students of propaganda will groan inwardly when burdened with seeing the whole series and instructed to note all the misdirections, lies, and fakery, and, most difficult, the Talmudic omissions and memes. Whether the vast assemblage of technicians, lights, recordists, extras, musicians, script manipulators, logistics types had any idea what they were doing, is an interesting question. Many would just be following orders, from Equity or whoever. Some would be in on the secret, hugging themselves and counting their assets. Many must be too stupid.

RW 26 Feb 2023/ 1 March 2023/ 14 March 2023

I just saw parts of a final Endeavour (not the third, definite, last episode; see above); it's striking how themes for films and TV recur. We have no (or one?) bullets left in a revolver reprised from Clint Eastwood of many years ago. The shooting-a-cop when youngster (mature criminals don't) obviously taken from a famous case, used by the Jews anxious to prevent the justice of 'capital punishment'. The actor who looks very like Kingsley Amis actually mentioned Cable Street and the slogan from the Jewish failure in Spain, 'No pasaran'. In another episode he called a 'bulldog' "Tovarisch"—perhaps Thursday is a hint at Jewish name-changing crypsis, or, more likely, goy gullibility. The mantelpiece note suggests 'She's Leaving Home' (should have been in the teapot). There's some Second World War material (Churchill's phrase) which surely must be wearing thin by now, despite forming a staple of media promotees, of the Patrick Moore type: the shrapnel fragment and suggestion of comradeship, in, say, North Africa; the suggestion of danger and 'fighting' when bombing women and children, or killing Koreans; the acceptance of poverty as a natural consequence of wartime uprightness; the thorough censorship of truth about the war and money; changed names based on the Mitfords, including poor old Thursday enraged at having lost 6 years of his life—how Jews must laugh; war considered purely as expensive equipment, the Jewish paper backing being omitted, and the 'heroes' ridiculed. And at a scene with a CP old woman regretting nothing; in fact of course WW2 was based on support for Stalin and his butchers. It's amusing to see inflation in firearms numbers: no piece is complete without several people simultaneously pointing guns at each other. And the absence of information which would be commonplace in chat between CID officers, for example how much paper money banks actually keep on their premises, in view of the obvious dangers. Naturally we have intrusion of blacks, which the Jewish owners and promoters of TV insist upon; I suppose the assemblers of the scripts work with a checklist. A part (not exactly an 'episode') had a mock-debate with an anachronistic comment ('There were Nubians at Hadrian's Wall - after you' by the wog actor) and with a faked protest, of course a Jew speciality. Needless to say, Jew-controlled panics, BBC fantasies and lies, the Oxford Mail as part of the Jew lie machine, Jew control of paper money, repayments to Jews for bombing civilians, Jew measures for nonwhite immigration, and Jew crimes are suppressed completely.
Some other issues (I'll jot these down; no immense significance) are presentation of demarcation issues, notably secret, government, civil service, military, security issues. I think I noticed a bit of Michael Caine creeping in. And the old woman thing—is this part of the pretence that the Queen is intelligent? And a bit of child murder, assuming that a minister would resign—despite the fact that the era of Edward Heath was looming up. There were a few references to Jews in schools, part of the process which has choked up education (including Oxford) with third-rate ideologues of the A J Ayer, G R Elton, A J P Taylor and many other Professor Demeritus types. 'Endeavour' as a stand-in teacher says "we'll having nothing like that here" on Jewish identification. Another point is on the Empire, of which virtually nothing is said on the carving up into parts, starvations, dead British soldiers in Palestine, and so on; obviously, Jews are interested in having obtained it, and in carrying out assorted related activities such as forcing coloured immigration and subsidising it from the locals.
Something hard to pin down in such batch-produced 'product' is the sterilised or vacuum-packed feeling, with anything serious removed, leaving a feeling of spotlights arranged to light only a portion of reality, or of a stench removed by sprayed powerful chemicals. It has to be said that, in my not very reliable judgment, the actors are better than the material they are given. I wonder if they feel high-souled frustrations, as with a Michelangelo forced to do adverts? For some reason, Endeavour the actor is shown as charisma-free; bystanders need to keep saying he's clever, in case the viewers don't notice or believe it. I think the idea is to contrast the supposed manner of the upper classes, as for example when he says the police are entitled to do something or other. Let's hope in (say) fifty years these things will be studied to show the astonishing persistence of Jew lies.

I saw parts of episodes of Vera (early 2018), another nod to Jewish pervasion of the media. This is supposed to be set in north-east England, in or near Newcastle. It's comical to see blacks shown as quasi-professionals, whilst being omitted from the perpetrators. The whites are shown usually as scuzzy (US expression), grubby, and so on. I noted the use of the Jew phrase 'sex worker', pronounced something like 'sexwukka', though this is unlikely to be part of the natural local vocabulary. But maybe she's an aged 'shiksa' and doesn't mind being called a whore by her Jewish employers.

I may as well add a crit of Jonathan Creek, which also appears to be produced by the BBC; for some reason I thought it wasn't. This started in 1997. Each episode as far as I know is long, which means of course subplots have to be inserted. TV detectives have to have some sort of home life; here we have a windmill. I seem to remember the sails moved in one episode. The overview is entirely end-of-20th-century. Looking behind the scenes a bit we have a 'British' Jew, a girlfriend or two, presumably a token stupid goy or shiksa, and of course a brash American for international sales. There's of course 'blonking', insertion of blacks and others, though of course not Jews, as peripheral parts, and of course not in the money or 'creative' side. There is a curious lack of interest in the backgrounds of such characters: A Vietnamese acting a Filipino miracle surgeon illustrates. Whites are generally shown as credulous, or old, or suicidal, or whatever. Many of the subplots involve stage magic, which in fact works well as a foil, allowing the intrusion of what might be clues. When I watch things like this, my interest mainly is in how the plots wouldn't work in actuality. We have for example: bloke bricking himself up in a tiny enclosure. If he did this, the mortar would poke out into the room, making an obvious patch in the brickwork. What about a handy-sized 'alien' made of solidified mercury? Wouldn't it start to melt? Or the woman shackled up in a closed cell, who however is revealed to have access to a hole in a wall through which...; but never mind. What about the odds of a huge lottery win? Or mirrors; at least two plots involved symmetrical buildings with reflections. But lighting varies; painters use mirrors to compare the lighting of different parts of scenes, which appear similar, after the brain does its perceptual work. Anyway, to be fair, these things are difficult, even with computer graphics. At least there's a nod to truth.

Serial Killers is a typically emotionally-charged series (or maybe a one-off) by Jews, aimed to influence social behaviour, while incidentally being entirely untrue. Thanks to the work of Miles Mathis, it's clear that the media-fostered material over Sharon Tate and Charles Manson and others was entirely faked. The question of course is the motive: the hot favourite must be blackwashing 1960s activists, and victims in Vietnam. Obviously war crimes, and scum such as L B Johnson and Kissinger, have to be evaded. In addition, black multiple murderers, and Jews such as Shipman, remain unmentioned, in the long Jewish media tradition.

Manhunt (3 parts, ITV, supposed to be truth-based, on a 2004 murder case, and several other unsolved ones, in London). With a now quite elderly Martin Clunes, as a rather ineffectual detective. By coincidence, 2004 was the year of the murder of Kriss Donald, by Jew-imported Moslems. Just one racially-motivated killing. 2004. I'd guess the murdered girls were blonde; I'd guess the real or supposed murderer, Levi Bellfield, has Jewish supremacist genes; and I'd guess Clunes's script mentioned nothing. I suppose I might be wrong.
NB 2005 is the publication date of a film called Mrs Henderson Presents, with (ooh, wait for it) Judi Dench. Wow. A 'true story' of a London theatre, understandably doing poor business in WW2. True or not, the theme is a Moulin Rouge style, so far as the pettifogging Lord Chamberlain will permit. We see Dench saying how unfair it is that young men may never see a naked woman in their lives, before being killed by Jews. Well, nearly that. And she says "we" will win the war. Well, half true. Oh, and that American serviceman are good and polite, before bombing Europe and helping Jews in the USSR promote rape and destruction. Bob Hoskins as a wartime Jew is her foil, with low-budget wartime accessories: sirens, threats, US 'doughboys', songs of Noel Coward and Vera Lynn types 'when the war is won' style. Nothing of course on Stalin and Jews. Sickening trash.
... the last bit of Benedict Cumberbatch in a 'Brexit' thing on Channel 4, or ITV4. Obviously there's a case for European discussion and detailed negotiation. As for the USA, when it was new. And the world. And the unification of Britain. And Italy. And Germany. But the case for Jewish control is a lot more doubtful. In view of its results so far, such as the U.S.S.R., perhaps something to be avoided. The bits I saw showed Cumberbatch looking older, and saying nothing of any use. He didn't even mention Soros and his promotion of buggery of small boys, and financing shipments of useless wogs. Oh, well. Actors getting old can't expect much. Look at poor old Tom Hodgkinson.

Deathwatch a result of late night TV in 2020, looking back at a 2002 story on a group of 'cold case' colleagues—similar idea to New Tricks> but with technical stuff on bodies and death. I was not in a good mood watching this, interleaved by TV ads of the usual Jewish formats. A J K Rowling repeat, with a message something like 'The more beautiful the village, the the uglier the something', no doubt aimed at whites in the Cotswolds. Then we're told 15 million people have a dry skin problem. Then an ad for gambling, including a frame or two of warning—stop if the fun stops. Or something. Jewish paper money working its magic. Then an ad with two actresses in blue, an actor in a white coat, and one of the potential few billion blacks unable to take care of themselves. On cancer or, more accurately, 'cancer research'. Another short item tells the viewers that 'Cancer doesn't discriminate', presumably drafted by a moron. Ironically, at this time an ad campaign is promoting 'coronavirus', with all the skill available to worthless media prostitutes, though the plans for it are obscure. And a mixed race ad, a theme which even the less aware Britons have noticed—this was a peculiarly florid multi-generation multimixed one, with no vocals.
I'd just looked at a Youtube (specialists in censoring non-Jewish videos) showing Anthony Julius, a Jewish lawyer, speaking twenty years after Irving's trial of the ridiculous fraud Deborah Lipstadt. He looks older and greyer; I wonder if he was paid for his trash.
After an advert for excruciating 'new' comedy, and for laminate flooring, we begin.
Deciphering car numbers, and following clues in the script, we establish the date is around 2000 and refers to events of about 1964, a hanging, before abolition. The intrepid detectives don't notice that wars have gone on after 1945; not exactly after abolition. Alf Garnett acts an ageing hangman, probably not accurate, as lethal injections appear to have been used. The executioner is also acted by a younger man, who looks nothing like him—one imagines an evergreen problem with reconstructions of oldish events. Even older ones only need skeletal remains. The team is Trevor Eve; I remember him being described as a one-time computer worker, who attacked his computer, though how much truth, if any, there was in this I have no idea. He looked older, but nowhere near as old as in Internet images. The team has one black and several women, in keeping with Jewish fantasies. There's of course stuff on concentration camps, the 'Nuremberg Defence, talk of sealed records and crack killer teams. The East End of London is implied to have been full of criminals. This is part of the standard Jewish process in which history is rewritten to, as they think, suit themselves, and suit their compulsion to destroy truth and tell lifetimes of lies. While the controlled immigration and, incidentally, controlled the police, in the process of replacing east London's population after WW2 depredations. The constant implications of police corruption may have had Peel wriggling in his grave—though Peel may have known more than one imagine at first sight; it occurs to me that perhaps controlled policing was the aim—for of course Jewish corruption, including Freemasonry, has penetrated everything. The last thing Jews want is honest police! And the second-last thing is exposing the reason for this.
Standard cut-outs include hushed references to the Home Secretary, omission of all references to crooked Jews including Jack the Ripper, Roman Catholics shown as superstitious but basically honest goyim, unable to be intelligent, an author and journalist supposed to be investigative (male, black leatherish jacket), and gang members based loosely I'd guess on the Krays and Richardsons. I was amused to see Sue Johnstone as a 'profiler', a sort of female Cracker, but with uninspired lines, character, and everything else. Psychoanalysis and supposed military types were her totality. And so on. A female character—they are always shown as very promotable—referred to the Jewish-owned Guardian 'newspaper' as the place for job ads of their type. Yawn. And sh*t.

Van der Valk has Marc Warren as the slim and tall blond detective (well - 5'8" and pushing 60) , with a dark-haired female sidekick (who was stabbed in the stomach area, but almost literally shrugged it off). Warren was famous for acting a really nasty, horrible character—as far as I recall, a British admirer of the classicist and MP with the Biblical name, Enoch Powell. I'd guess he had to suck off some Jews to get offered a part; who knows. Or shag some genetically hideous Jew woman. Anyway, the first episode dealt with something like the Jew 'politician' Geert Wilders. Pronounced something like 'Hair-t'. I found the story more or less incomprehensible: thug types, part of the reality of party politicians, kill a few people. Holland, or the Netherlands, has a little-known history—Jewish arm-twisting from Catholicism, one of the premier world powers, running, or perhaps run by, shipowners; a power in the Dutch East Indies. For some reason, Dutch people are often very tall. Famous for prostitution. I'd guess Amsterdam (“Delta of the Rhine”—thanks, E Michael Jones) was designed to make communications easier; before bikes they must have walked, or ran. Sadly, all this stuff is part of a vanished world—but countries come, and countries go. This was a bloke-held-in-container story; an updated version perhaps of the 'locked room' genre. Including several people pointing serious pistols at each other. Luckily a baddie sucked his own pistol. With special effects—green screen and rooftop heights. I quite liked it, though it has no background depth.
[Forward about 2 years past the 'COVID' fraud]. More seriously, we have an episode looking at Dutch free-ish spirits, with some emphasis on Spinoza, a Jew who is being groomed as a leading jewish thinker, or at least a Jewish thinker. (Yes, you've heard it before!) Fantastic how little is known of the era past about 1666. Jew-funded Cromwell was paid to do a takeover, and found the 'Bank of England'. The Talmudic theory involved the Kahal idea, of hostility to all non-Jews, and indeed that 'CABAL' seems to have tipped a wink to the idea. After assorted disasters poor England was left wrecked. The eighteenth century (of '18th century rationalism') represented victory for Jews, plus selected groups of aristocrats and money-makers and East India types, and people taking money and pretending to be religious. For many people it was a time of impoverishment. This was written up later by Macaulay. The 19th century was a mixed bag - some impoverishment, some apparent or real recovery. Very few observers predicted the future; most were blinded by discreet handouts. Then we have the 'Great War'.
It's perhaps unfair to expect Mr Stephens to have any idea of this, or to work it into his scripts. I just noticed that 'Endeavour' has reputedly filmed its last episode; a slightly astonishing series of misleading episodes spreading misleading stuff about post-1945 Britain, when the Jewish victory seemed certain. They obviously don't think so, and maybe they're right: the best excavator seems Miles Mathis, who takes his forkovers back to the Medes and Persians. Come to think of it, the dull slush of Downton Abbey casts its own agricultural sludge over the early 20th century. Ugh.

Top of Page

Review of Big Sister Jan 2nd 2018 start

All-Woman Big Brother 2 Jan 2018

I hadn't known 'Big Brother' was still around, but it appears to be, and here we have a dark-haired announcer—I think I'm right in saying all the women she introduced to their new aquarium were blonde. Every one of them; presumably a Jewish issue of course—Jewish brothels seem to full of them. There's some fascination in seeing the new Jewish presentations made flesh: there seems to be a move to push women in supposed managerial positions, except for Jewish controllers. Hence I suppose the synthetic yells for women from the outdoor audience, in the rain, across from the studio. Superimposed is the 'pronoun' issue: one of the participants seemed to have played a bit of football, but was now posing as female; how seriously medically was, mercifully, not revealed. But clearly the point was that nobody was allowed to say "That's not a woman, piss off", in accordance with Jewish prescriptions. I thought I detected some surprised expressions. And maybe there'll be a surprise shower scene.

This is supposed to be related to votes for women (over 30). I'd expected there to be a prostitute or MP thrasher type, but for some reason there wasn't—maybe their clients couldn't do without them. However, there was a real or supposed policewoman, who had been real or supposed sacked from doing something about white children raped by Muslims, claiming, of course falsely, to have been the first. In fact there were concerned people, even in parliament, for decades. And amid the BNP, come to think of it. We had an actress, if that's the right word, apparently from Coronation Street (or maybe East Enders), who at least had what was once considered an actress's voice. The first introductee was Anne Widdicombe, a Conservative MP, one of the low grade MPs who aren't even sure what they should be saying about Jews. She even said critical things about the IKEA-style interior decor. There was a blackish 'model' (Jews insert blacks in adverts, films, news, provided they never say anything intelligent—the easy part of the specification). I think there were four blonde 'presenters' or whatever, with the usual skimpy and uninformative biographies. There was a 'glamour model' saying it was her body, and she could do what she liked with it! So there. So long as Jews pay, of course. They stopped at eight of them; it seems they couldn't count on twelve, and in a few days there'd be a surprise, presumably carefully-selected males. The whole thing was like an inverse liberation of women; very sad. I'd faintly hoped there might be someone like J K Rowling, or maybe the aged and incompetent Jew, at one time 'boomed' (old fashioned word), Germaine Greer, or perhaps one of the godawful Jewess liars, the best that money and scriptwriters are able to produce; but if so they'll appear later, if the contractual stuff permits. Or a sportswoman? No. Or a hanger-on to some blackish promotee, like the woman who is or was with Trevor Phillips, the professional equalitarian, overpaid by Jews? No. Or that little fat woman? No. Maybe a professional in charge of (say) flu jabs?

Gosh, I am irritable. Maybe the overdose of Jewish hacks in the 'Royal Variety Show', maybe that 'Hootenanny', maybe the prolonged race mixing adverts by racists, maybe the ridiculous diet advice, maybe the lies about Dunkirk, maybe the sad Churchill impersonation by Oldman or Numan... There's a saying, not in polite use, to the effect you can't polish a turd. But the Jews in the media show that you can. But how their smell lingers.

Top of Page

My Generation. Directed by David Batty. Who was born in 1962. With Michael Caine, David Bailey, Twiggy, Mary Quant. The cultural revolution that occurred in the 1960s England...

Interesting-ish account of the supposed revolution in the 1960s in England. Fascinated me by its omission of the post-1945 Jewish money, kept submerged in the background.

Yes. Interesting to speculate on legalities: much of the soundtrack was The Kinks (though there was a non-Bob-Dylan version of ... Baby Blue I'd guess for copyright reasons). Fascinating to see the second World War in effect submerged; correctly from their point of view—Jews won, Jewish paper almighty dollars ruled, the mass deaths of whites and others were ignored, and 1950s England was shown as grey and under-maintained, as it was, of course. There were a few references to the Empire, but not to who got ownership. Significantly, there was absolute zero on the Jewish promotion of immigration.
Michael Caine 'presented' it, supposedly a working-class Londoner called Micklethwaite; why these people (including Paul MacCartney) don't do their own stuff is a mystery to me. Probably they're used to other people scripting stuff, buying interview segments, arranging it for them. The title referred to The Who's song of course; there must have been something going on there, for example Roger Daltrey's voice

The main idea (I think the script may have been by Batty, but of course with endless Jewish input) was a wealthy working-class revolution, young people learning to be themselves and 'do their own thing'. This of course must have been mainly Jew-pushed. Plenty of parts of the world had no wealthy young people. Most of Europe was under the vicious Jewish thumb; I'd guess the main reason England was chosen was that the violence of Cromwell and the 'Civil War' had long ago been suppressed to the point where it wasn't even legendary. John Lennon was shown making a puzzled statement about the media not talking about Vietnam; not quite his wording, but the sentiment is fair enough. Vietnamese girls at the time were being forced into prostitution by American troops, for example. There was high definition film of London, hairstyles, and so on, before the time of digital sound and video. Mary Quandt sounded bright and to the point, but it was impossible to know if the words were her own. Barbara Hulanicki (or whatever) presumably was another Jew-funded Jew; It wouldt surprise me if 'biba' wasn't a rag trade Yiddishism. Andrew Loog Oldham (shown as Andrew Oldham; I'd guess a Jew with more-or-less false name) was shown with an eye for commercial girls' faces, and vague talk on making anyone a star—meaning, obviously, putting money behind people, and contacting media people, though of course there was no detail on the contacts and contracts and money. It was amusing to see people probably with background information, being careful not to divulge it. And the puppets, such as 'Twiggy', and maybe David Bailey, probably not understanding what was happening. Bailey spent three years every working day with his Hasselblad and Jean Shrimpton, we're told, ut not where the pictures went. It was amusing, but painful, to hear people say that education was free, and it was good education: meaning that the era of the sort of lightweight fake education foisted on Americans was over here, too. Caine of course was in Educating Rita tracking the same banal groove of Jew-approved literature, and doing possibly an unconsciously good job of portraying featherweight 'thinkers'. The business of popularising and promoting drugs is better understood now, largely thanks to the website of Miles Williams Mathis.

Batty, the 'award winning' 'talent' I'd guess is an Australian Jew. He seems to have been busy behind the scenes, though there seems little point in bothering to investigate.
I rediscovered my ten-years-old review of Michael Caine: What's It All About in this same file; click the return key to get back here. And me in this file on Rachmanism, a Ukrainian Jew, London Jews, and post-1945 London crime and 'homes fit for heroes'.
Come to think of it, here's me in another file, on Jewish social engineering in a few mostly US movies.
The 1960s were past the peak of fake nuclear test films (Peter Sellers, a main Jew in ... Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb incorporated many fake clips) and replaced by 'Cold War' films, Jewish co-operation between USA Jews and USSR Jews. James Bond being what'd call the 'iconic' thing; I recall Caine as an agent blowing up a safe on New Year's Eve, to do with the South African embassy—Africa being a point of interest of Jews, wanting to get African riches with the aid of a few African thugs and collaborators and, I think, people like Mugabe; can it be just chance that prevented any enquiry into what happened to Mugabe's thefts? Zulu had Caine not very plausibly cast as a British officer, with no references to future Jews in South Africa. It goes I suppose without saying that there was nothing on the Great Replacement; many whites had been killed, fighting each other under Jew control; Eisenhower, Churchill, and Stalin being the puppeteers. The control of the military, parliament, the civil service, and education and our half-witted monarchy and the intrusion since 1900 of Jewish 'professors', as I say, would not appear in any Jew-controlled medium. Fantastic and sad. As indeed were the jokingly-described film critic, awash with banality.

Top of Page

Review of NATIONAL TREASURE Green screen and green script

More superficial 'Judaic' crap 21 Sept 2016

This is an attempt to deodorise the Jimmy Savile and related events and cover-ups. We have two male elderly comedians who have given their lives to their double-acts. We also have green screen effects: just as Andy Serkis complained, or stated, that computer-generated image sources don't get credited in the fatuous awards ceremonies which fill time and provide material for pub quizzes, so CGI people don't get credit. The opening scene-setting showed carefully-dressed women doing their best to smile spontaneously, with odd backgrounds simulating a room of professional entertainers' tables, presumably post-dinner. A proportion of the plot was taken up with scene-setting, to tell the viewers that comedians are involved, in case they all too plausibly failed to get it. It's curiously like Jews drafting the script of the Old Testament, with scene-setting of with miracles and strange events to show the simple goyim that their fictional Yeshua is 'holy'.
Robbie Coltrane plays half the comedians, with Julie Walters his wife. They're both made up to look old and pale, with Walters perhaps overdone to shock the audience. They live in a modernish house, with its front door designed to fit in with unscrupulous reporters and papparazi and neighbours and friends—if indeed they are friends! The family set-up is introduced more-or-less naturalistically, except that secrets are held back for the future. There are two half-caste boys, amazingly incongruously, being taken care of by the old couple, and set-dressed with a sort of undetailed grammar school style of minimal chat. Produced by their daughter, who is revealed have had problems, or been a problem. The two of them show no mental life: they must have (for example) lived through wars off-stage, and the fantasies of Bob Geldof and his Jewish promoters, and mass invasion. Obviously one hesitates to regard this as exceptional. It's amusing to see a whole host of blacks as police, legal advisers, and what have you; this of course is yet another sigh-inducing Jewish convention. Coltrane (if that's his real name, and his real country) may be aware of Scottish history: the Jews behind the scenes, royal families, Adam Smith failing to mention finance, the push for non-whites, the lack of democracy. Anyway: there's a knock on the door and a rape allegation from something like twenty years earlier. It goes without saying—except here—that Jewish sex with three year olds, Jews in Israel kidnapping Slav girls for forced rape, the corrupt policing, the Muslim stuff, is omitted. It's just whites. Maybe fat white actors need the work, though. There must be some rule-of-thumb as to the number of characters and the length of time in which they appear. After one episode it's set up for further discoveries about the Coltrane character (he spends the night with a woman, though the viewer is spared the details apart from moobs). And the daughter. And no doubt some secrets for Julie Walters. And legal shenanigans—I'd guess the black lawyer, the police interrogators, the sleazy but rather outdated stringer type through whom scandal is funnelled will have their day. I'd like to think 'BBC Children in Need' might be attacked, but of course it won't be.

Top of Page

Would I Lie to You? Comedic Filler I'd guess with studio audience from Salford, if they exist at all. If the present coronavirus fraud works, and Jews secretly come to rule everything, this show gives some idea of the 'entertainment' which may come to rule, until audiences kill themselves or their 'chosen-by-G-d' lunatics. The main player is the recorded applause; sometimes a ripple of laughter, sometimes an explosion of vocal approximations to amused persons, sometimes a piece of average applause which can be cut off instantly without being too obvious. The participants applaud each other, and themselves, and individuals, in visually obvious ways—handclaps, toothy grins, backslapping, smiles intended to suggest how ingenious was the repartee. The backgrounds seem to be colour-coded, perhaps to allow substitute backgrounds for foreign TV stations or networks who buy them for astonishingly small sums. You can sense them doing voiceovers for dying animals or unlavatoried foreigners (not of course maimed Palestinians, dead Afghans...) with a sum arranged by agents.
One of the unadvertised results of Jew domination is the destruction of any other culture: libraries, books, languages, habits, laws, are all crushed and wrecked. Intruders, parasites, killers, people without civilisation, perverts, fools are encouraged. This must be more-or-less instinctive. There is no end-product of all this; at no time in the past could they do more than nibble and corrode. But this is no longer true; possibly the human race, if it exists, will exit as a collection of nonentities echoing nothing to each other. Accompanied by their own shreiking applause.

Top of Page

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of Conan Doyle and the Case of the BBC (2010- ) 18 Jan 2014
The first episodes of this BBC series ('British' Broadcasting Corporation) are not new (2010 I think); however there seem to be more planned. ...

Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes
Conan Doyle (born 1859) has a good claim to inventing the detective story genre. Hugh Greene, once director-general of the BBC, brother of Graham Greene, wrote (or was credited with collecting and introducing) The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes (1973); but examination shows that all the stories (the ones I checked!) post-dated by many years A Study in Scarlet, the first Holmes story of 1886. Conan Doyle's youthful five years of medical studies gave him a solid factual grounding in the human body; his travels included British towns, and sea voyages to faraway lands; his father was reputedly drunk and mad, and must have provided psychological lessons. At the time Conan Doyle began to write, many publications needed (reasons included cheaper paper) many short stories; and a clutch of writers, including H G Wells, noted and surfed that wave very successfully.
Conan Doyle's science was up-to-date; it's easy to visualise a mahogany box with a military surgeon's equipment, and the chemical analysis techniques with shelves of proper-named reagents—he can hardly be blamed for failing to predict mass spectrometry. And his syringe, often containing morphine or the wonder drug cocaine, publicised by the up-and-coming Dr Freud. He knew poisons, and could still put poisons not yet known to science in his stories. It's less easy to sympathise with Sherlock's deductive skills, but I think it's likely the everyday stuff was realistic. In a time before vacuum cleaners, washing machines and detergents, boiled starched shirts were reserved for the horse-drawn carriage to the Lyceum. I suspect the ink marks, and mud splashes, and types of dust and cigar ash, were there, lingering, waiting to be observed. And the influences of long hours of work—the shape of the compositor's thumb, the 'military bearing', and for that matter the immediate identification of 'loafers'—were promoted by Galton at the time, partly to oppose Darwin.
Sherlock Holmes has remained popular (probably) because the stories (sixty, including long ones; more if you count parts) are reassuringly Victorian and (later) Edwardian, with very distinct British localities and characters—Cockneys, dockland opium dens, housekeepers, Norfolk jackets, railway journeys, hansom cabs. And they are fairly short, not very complicated, with not too many classical references, and not too many technical matters. (Compare R Austin Freeman's microscope-minded Thorndyke, for example). And as with Richmal Crompton's William, and, perhaps in future, J K Rowling's Harry Potter, the public preferred slightly cartoonish and established creations.
Holmes stories usually work out the consequences of crimes of passion: one storyline gets to the brink of a fake marriage, in the style of Goldsmith; many have revenge for past wrongs to women. Conan Doyle (or his publishers) avoid topics such as white slaves, homosexual blackmail, child sex. Many stories concern wealth, but usually as inheritance and bequests, valuable antiques and paintings, gems and treasure, Derby winners and the Pink 'un (a 'sporting' paper, much the same colour as the Financial Times now). Conan Doyle's stories belong to the world of immediately accessible riches, in the lottery winning fantasy style.
I think he must have started his stories with some suggestive item, probably in a newspaper, and then invented sufficient detail to work out a full story. The Man With the Twisted Lip reads to me as a story expanded from and constructed around an account of a beggar making a fortune in the City of London, for example. 'Sherlock Holmes - His Limits' looks very much like Conan Doyle's preliminary outline of Sherlock's knowledge and character, no doubt based on Dr Joseph Bell. Incidentally, a note on Professor Moriarty: professors were quite rare then, far more so than military types, not today's ten a penny (or ten a cent).
Sherlock Holmes stories have numerically manageable and easily-identified casts of people, and are well suited to radio, and to filming; enter (among others) Basil Rathbone in his Ulster and cravat, and deerstalker and meerschaum—props not quite in the books—Holmes's headgear seems to have been unspecified, though probably not a top hat, and he smoked clay pipes—but with tremendous mimetic presence.

Conan Doyle's Atmosphere
[1] London and The World
We've looked at Victorian and later surrounding. The relative difficulties of transport tended to keep things close together: large and small houses, many small shops: hat makers, for instance, and bookshops, and the place where Sherlock bought his Stradivarius; public baths, libraries, railway stations; markets such as Covent Garden and Smithfield, with dealers, and suppliers like the wife in Brixton bringing up her city-bred geese.
There were no telephones; no audio recordings or moving pictures. The fastest transmission of messages was by telegraphy, but there were small boys—'street urchins'—who carried messages. The postal system had I think five deliveries per day; there were morning and evening papers; and The Times had personal advertisements on the front page, something that survived until long after the Second World War. There were large numbers of post offices, and corner public houses ("pubs"), and many new churches designed to look old. London clubs defined many men. The mythical Diogenes Club, the club for 'unclubable' men, included Mycroft, who was a lazy auditor. There were many large houses in the country—the expansion of tube lines and suburbs came later.
Land tenure and banking were not topics in Conan Doyle's sights. As a first approximation, the Church of England was the principal landowner; the Duke of Westminster owned and collected rents on large chunks of London; the Bank of England had its mysterious presence. Landladies (and their staff) were ubiquitous and must have been salaried agents, I think—including Mrs Hudson—doing the housekeeping for their furnished rooms. In only one story (The Adventure of Shoscombe Old Place) is a client of Holmes 'in the hands of Jews', and he was saved by owning a Derby winner. Conan Doyle saw the big planned influx of Jews into London: the stories in His Last Bow were published by 1913, and The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes by 1927, but the stories were set around 1900, as Watson's recounting of Sherlock's adventures.
Conan Doyle, or anyway Watson, was ambivalent about London. "A cesspit of Empire" (Conan Doyle's words) and yet also four million people living orderly lives, to Holmes' discomfiture when adventure was lacking. It's interesting to be reminded of times when there were no passports; and interesting how pale and faint 'nationalism' was—Bertrand Russell said such freedom 'is as dim a memory as crinolines'. Conan Doyle is always described as Scottish; in those days Scots were a higher percentage of the world than now, famous as (for example) engineers. I suspect 'Sherlock' was a Scottish/Irish surname.
Worth mentioning is Conan Doyle on the Boer War: he was what was called an 'Imperialist'. Despite the Jewish link this was a common attitude in Britain. It must have favoured him with Jewish publicists.
Conan Doyle's characters detected a 'bitter wind from the east'; Conan Doyle thought this would be cleansing. I assume this attitude was derived from newspapers, which even in those days had Jewish correspondents and agencies, always putting out anti-Russian propaganda, or anti-German—whatever their instincts or collectivity commanded. Even leading thinkers were heavily influenced. Family deaths, and one hopes the carnage of the Great War, turned Conan Doyle into the rather futile path of spiritualism.

[2] The Stories: Don't Forget Magic and Violence
Magic
The Epic of Gilgamesh helps illustrate that magical powers and force have at least as much staying power as pity and terror in the theatrical scheme of things. Conan Doyle recognised both: as shown by his interests in table-rapping and (later) dinosaurs and fairies, and his Brigadier Gerard stories of the Napoleonic Wars and (later) the Boer War and agitation against Congo atrocities.
As to magical powers, one touchstone is the ability to fly; almost everyone can understand it's not humanly possible. However, Sherlock can appear unexpectedly. Usually he's given acting skills, so this works, just about; but it's easily extended and caricatured, as derivative non-Conan Doyle works show. Invisibility is another: several stories have painted numerals or characters appearing overnight in all-but-impossible circumstances.

Force
The US 'Civil War' is in Sherlock Holmes' stories; European conflicts such as the Crimean War were also fairly recent; and Dr Watson was in Afghanistan. High tech then was the 'Turbinia'; now it's drones. Watson, as with the modern equivalents, has no idea about the causes of wars, or the British presence in India, though he's aware that the Army provides some income security: the evil Moran, 'second most dangerous man in London', served in various campaigns, but is now 'unemployed'. Watson shows little awareness of Hindus vs Moslems, and indeed anyone vs Moslems, but knows about Sikhs. He shows little awareness of Egypt, Disraeli, and eastern topics.
Sherlock is 'an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman'. A 'singlestick' appears to have been something like a wooden sword, or indeed tapered broom handle, not sharp, complete with a guard for knuckles. A 'cudgel' may be similar, but without the guard. There are also suggestions of hand-to-hand oriental styles of fighting, now called 'martial arts'. Firearms aren't mentioned much; maybe because of expense. Or because they are too final. Or to avoid giving the lower orders dangerous ideas. Or possibly because they are less showy and less well-adapted to the poseur. Anyway, Sherlock shows no sign of expertise in firearms; expanding bullets, from the Indian Mutiny, are the limit.

Stories
Sherlock had his own reference collection: a 'row of formidable scrap-books and books of reference ... index of biographies from the shelf. "My collection of M's is a fine one, said he. "Moriarty himself is enough to make any letter illustrious, and here is Morgan the poisoner, and Merridew of abominable memory, and Mathews, who knocked out my left canine in the waitingroom at Charing Cross, and, finally, here is our friend of to-night." Only five M's, one notices, probably largely clipped from newspapers, supplemented by notes in Sherlock's own immaculate handwriting. (I don't know what to make of the reverse alphabetical sequence). The very first alphabetical Who's Who (not the preceding simple list of MPs etc) only appeared in 1897; it would be pleasant to think Conan Doyle played a part in its genesis.
Watson must have used the Encyclopaedia Britannica in one of more of its incarnations. I'd guess for example information on the horrible squat ugliness of the Andaman Islanders came from it.
Watson's diarist role, something like an annalist recording an analyst, is a realist technique, similar to Joseph Conrad's novels and many Kipling poems. Jack London, the man of action, has a more direct technique. I feel something could be made of this, but I'm not sure what; nor of the assumption which many people must absorb from these stories, that the police are a bunch of bunglers.
Most of the stories involve fairly ordinary people; this is worth mentioning, because as we'll see post-Holmes stories expand into affairs of state. Conan Doyle was happy with ordinary impulses disguised or pushed rather far: the chap heavily disguised, chatting up his own daughter to keep her from not 'marrying well'; the revenge on a sweetheart by a contrived murder charge against her own son; the distraction from crime by the 'Red-Headed League'. And with the unfinished statement, or writing, on death, to be ingeniously decoded. And with mysterious deaths; a snake, some from the east, even a 'gas chamber' (in the 'Retired Colourman'). As with Poe, there's a transcription cypher, an experiment each author only tried once. And there's the cunning handling of publicity in the press and by letter to lure or otherwise influence the baddies. As the 'Baker Street Irregulars' and the informal chats (often with payments) show, Sherlock was happy to get information from informants and witnesses; we don't have spies in telegraph offices, for example.
However, the Prime Ministers, the military types, the VIPs are not in Conan Doyle. We do have a King of Bohemia, and Irene Adler, 'the woman', a scheming woman foreigner. And 'anarchists', who were in fact Jews in the Pale killing Russians, though Conan Doyle was unaware of that. Conan Doyle specifically inserts Jonathan Wild into a story, a man occupying a time before the police force had been invented. He seems to be the model for Moriarty: Conan Doyle regarded him as an organiser of crime in the early 18th century, taking 15%.

[3] Aside on Spy Thrillers
It's essential to mention another genre, only hinted at in Holmes: foreign agents, nasty Huns, sinister spies. Sapper and Buchan's The Thirty-Nine Steps set the mental scenery. Conan Doyle was interested in secret societies (including the Mormons as they were then) though it's uncertain to me how much this was to provide background colour. Agatha Christie had spies in her earlier work.
But in spy thrillers, the Great War imported intelligence chiefs, new secret weapons, trench warfare, war propaganda such as the Bryce Report, war propaganda to get the USA into war, the Western front, eastern Europe's Jews and Russia and Hungary etc. I suspect Hitchcock and Ian Fleming/James Bond had a lot of emphasis on double agents, turncoats etc, as part of the influence of Jews: after all, much of Jewish activity was in concealment, and probably many of the tricks onscreen were things familiar to Jews, but rewritten to be less obvious. Anything with nuclear weapons in it, or world wars, or drugs, must be assumed to have a basis in Jewish activities.

At this point magical powers enter: the sinister baddie in The Thirty-Nine Steps (1915) is an actor so good he can be present at a Cabinet meeting and impersonate a Minister. However hard it may be to tell politicians apart, this seems incredible. As does the idea of memorising the schematics for a new design of engine. The spy thriller genre is important to understand the modern versions of Holmes, who is shown hob-nobbing with the powerful, if not great and good. The nearest any Conan Doyle story gets is perhaps the Naval Treaty, but the entire plot only concerns the missing document. Conan Doyle visualized Sherlock Holmes as a behind the scenes detective, typically giving the credit to the 'little sallow rat-faced' Lestrade.
The apex of magic and force is something like the James Bond films, but not the books, which try to be fairly realistic descriptions of people of the 'operational type'. The film imagery of burning and exploding objects and machines, large internal spaces the size of big studios, unrealistic chases, tourist scenery, and individual baddies with supporting staff, seems an immovable part of the current folk film psyche.
Interesting comment from Simon Sheppard: 'Blonking' is supposed to be a term used by cameramen [he may mean directors], meaning 'putting blacks on camera.' Possibly the earliest instances were in old James Bond films, where Blacks were placed conspicuously in the background to associate this with sophistication, i.e. to be cosmopolitan is to be sophisticated. I remember this earliest in Till Death Us Do Part.

Let's try to put these components together as part of the commentary on the 'British' Broadcasting Corporations' 'Sherlock'.

[4] The BBC's Sherlock Holmes
Technical
Computer graphics, and green screens and performance capture/ light suits, came of age with Lord of the Rings, first part 2001, and in the real world in 9/11 of the same year, not very coincidentally. The BBC had about ten years to practice; maybe they bought the software. Their technology must be about equal to anyone's.

Updates
The street standing in for Baker Street is similar to the original Baker Street. Updates which parallel the original include improved communications: laptops, Watson's blog, mobile phones and text messages are more or less direct updates. Mrs Hudson presumably provides wifi. There's no direct equivalent to typewriter key defects. Sherlock now has no car, but uses taxis; a pretty exact parallel to Sherlock whistling up a cab. Laptops are an obvious update from notebooks. His observations appear like a tag cloud; they already look slightly outdated, because search engines tend to dislike them; but never mind.
The deal table stained with chemicals is now a pathology lab, in what looks like part of London University, reasonably enough.
Something which is in Conan Doyle, and retained without comment, is suppression of the idea of large numbers of people co-operating in evil. Moriarty's spider web is quite small. The Bond villain type is usually shown alone in his palace or spaceship or whatever. Conan Doyle had no idea that large conspiracies can happen; Freemasons' regalia is about his limit. He may have learned this after 1914, however. Anyway, the BBC shares this blind spot, though in their case it is deliberate.

Extensions not in Conan Doyle
The female assassin material is not in Conan Doyle; Irene Adler is an adventuress, no doubt including a sexual component. I wonder if the James Bond tiny old woman meme is part of the pretence that the Queen is other than unintelligent? Anyway, this is not unexpected. Fortunately it was decided, as in the original, not to have a homosexual component.
For my taste the psychology is a bit weak: Sherlock as a psychopath or sociopath, or on the same lines as Asperger, doesn't cut much ice. Probably this is inserted because it's natural for the BBC to dislike any outstanding ability. What is not in Conan Doyle is absurd memory feats, the 'memory palace' which seems to come from Derren Brown, who provided some input.
Longer TV programmes need larger casts and larger numbers of scenes. This is a bit of a problem, as Conan Doyle's short stories don't have enough characters to expand. The easiest solution is to enlarge the bit parts. And to combine elements from a number of stories, but then the people keep meeting all the time. Hence painfully unlikely coincidences, such as Moriarty working in the path lab, Holmes engaged to the baddy's PA, Watson's wife being in some 'intelligence' group, Sherlock turning up to foil a beheading... Another aspect that struck me as amusing is that speaking parts cost more than silent parts, or used to; so much of the time there are implausibly silent extras.
The BBC is part of the Jewish anti-white movement; it's no surprise whites are shown in denigratory ways, while blacks and half-castes are brightened up. Many of the normal whites are shown as criminals, drugtakers, blackmailers and so on, even Mrs Hudson. This is quite an important aspect, worth noting. Watch for dislike of Christmas, hatred of Easter, dislike of Christians. Watch for white supremacists with what's probably intended as a Christian cross symbol; and watch for nothing on Jewish supremacists. Watch for mixed-race areas of London.

[5] The Strange Case of the Missing Elements
Sherlock might have been updated politically, shown with uncanny political and economic acuity. Obviously the BBC wouldn't like this, and their writers very likely couldn't manage it anyway. A politically and economically super-acute Sherlock, alive to the smallest details of press and TV reports, might (for example) look at Cohen of the BBC and infer a host of tags: cover up immigrant crime; no publicity for facts of black education; a new series of whites as whores; double Jewish lies on WW2; refuse any serious coverage of 9/11; hide returns made by increasing public debt—an Embarras des richesses for the great detective, and for the Jewish quasi-establishment.
It's quite funny to see the references to Eastern Europe and Afghanistan. And laughable stuff with the Prime Minister spoken of in overawed tones, as though anyone took Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron seriously and not just as absurd puppets. And there's of course never any mention of paper and plastic money and the vast related Jewish frauds.
As we've seen, Conan Doyle is too tame for a warlike world. So now Mycroft is shown as important in 'intelligence' circles. It's likely British governments are more concerned with covering up child abuse, or selling off British assets, or telling lies to promote wars, or setting up centres for immigrants in Africa, or dumbing-down education with lies about mass murders. It's an attractive idea that Sherlock might expose some Rothschild deal, or expose a false flag operation with incomparable skill, or demolish some media mogul, but of course this won't happen with the BBC.
Explosives and guns as far as I recall aren't in Conan Doyle. In the BBC version we have, very likely copied from other film/TV, whole body suits of explosives, and cavalier weapon stuff with multiple people holding guns at each other—pistols, not machine pistols, I think. Exciting but unpredictable. Holmes is more resilient than Conan Doyle could have allowed: whacked with an iron bar, shot at close range. Luckily, as is customary, the baddies can't shoot straight or master electronic security.
An updated Sherlock from the technical knowledge viewpoint might have included his monographs on computer fraud, on tracking down Internet users, and on detecting fraudulent identity captures. And maybe chemicals in food, and the properties of cocktails of drugs. And no doubt other possibilities; there are many, such as a monograph on the use of fear, and on nukes and the Cold War.

I'm afraid at this point I'm losing my impetus. My notes include the drugtakers, in a derelict high value house. A Scandinavian media mogul—Jews hate Swedes. The actors' union, Equity, able to prevent honest presentations of immigration and Jews. The ludicrous plot with a fake Vermeer, as though they haven't learned. The Martyrdom of Man, a history of mankind considered as a unit, which annoyed Mr. Gladstone by omitted the Flood and other Bible stories. The handy titles this genre permits: The Case of This, The Adventure of That, 'the shocking affair of the Dutch steamship Friesland'.

Watching (much later) the actors, writers, producers, and musicians unconsciously advertising the BBC's burnable money, and warming their hands before the fire of your money and their borrowings, I was struck by the wide-eyed accounts on their DVDs of transforming Sherlock Holmes's attributes into the changed environment of the modern world.
If you're able to notice, the Jewish filter remains, forcibly inserting doubt—are Jews ever able to innovate, under any circumstances? Sherlock and Watson are shown utterly uncritical of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are shown discussing the 'national interest', just as Conan Doyle in his later years when Victoria's nominal reign had mysteriously metamorphosed, could never have commented on Germans being interned during the Great War, while German Jews weren't.
More accurate updated might included up-to-date race murders, of the Jewish 'Jack-the-Ripper' type, with Lestrade feigning ignorance and forced away. Landladies might be replaced by Jewish-owned housing groups, or perhaps a puppet black 'owner'. Freemasons as far as I can remember weren't in Conan Doyle, but perhaps Common Purpose 'graduates' could substitute for them.
Maybe they could try a series on the real Ian Fleming's James Bond—seedy post-1945 Jewish triumphalism, and Bond's unstable domestic family life.

Top of Page

COMEDIES

Comedians may be individuals; I'd guess precursors before electric broadcasting included country-house performers, music-hall turns, and public speakers (including vicars). 'Situation' comedies are I suppose a polite way to refer to groups of performers, acting is some 'situation'. Watching a 2019 post-Christmas survey of their opinions of Top 50 TV sitcoms, I was reflecting how individual performers were cut out: Benny Hill for example, Dylan Moran, but also Monty Python's Flying Circus. The 1970s was treated as the starting-point, apart from Steptoe and Son, I suppose because of the introduction of colour.

The great unspoken engine of corruption of course is the Jewish element. None of these TV things discuss requirements or specifications or sales, or look at the writers (usually two of them; usually with mock-British names, spelt in odd ways as a Jewish signal). No 1 in their list was Only Fools and Horses, supposedly 'much loved'. Mildly interesting to see lower classes, deprived of their birthright by Jews and their fake money, moved into places with names like Mandela House. Hilarious stuff, and of course, so far as I ever noticed, with money-making schemes not of the Jewish type.

2020 insertion: I noticed 'Comedy Juice', I think it was called, which I take to be a barely-hidden reference to Jews, and someone obviously being pushed called 'Atack'. Watch for jokes about Germans, snipers in Afghanistan, unemployed white males, ruined white females for example raped by Pakistanis, the great triumph of 9/11, the 'Labour Party' and its concealed Jews. But maybe newer stuff: the successful incineration of Notre-Dame, triumphant frauds in US elections, massively-growing populations of primitive Africans (ideal for Jewish schemes), and of course the 'COVID' fraud with its trail of scum. Or perhaps something from the Silverman school—her anus and shit, maybe. These are all guesses; who knows.

World Wars make another comedy subject: the 'Great War' featured in Blackadder treated in a slightly lachrymose way. The Jewish behind-the-scenes activities were (of course) unmentioned by the Jewish writers and actors. Some black chap (probably described as a comedian; part of the Jewish replacement scheme) made sympathetic noises. Similarly, Dad's Army with jokes about Hitler had nothing about the build-up to the Second World War. In both cases there was no suggestion the wars might have been avoided; naturally enough, since they were both Jewish policies. Hitler moustaches make sporadic appearances; in US sitcoms there are slightly different media references, for example the Jewish view of the 'Trapp family'.

An unmentioned aspect of sitcoms is the need for props, hardware, devices of all kinds. If you look, you'll see them everywhere. Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em' is a perfect example. The Last of the Summer Wine is another, though I don't know if this fitted into their Top 50. So did Men Behaving Badly. And so does Mrs. Brown's Boys. I expect designers award points for (e.g.) low-cost devices.

There's of course a class issue. At one point, several sitcoms had the educated black(s) in with uneducated white(s) as art of the Jewish policy suggested by Coudenhove-Kalergi. There's of course a Jewish-American media version of all this, perhaps starting with Look Who's Coming to Dinner and All in the Family. I don't know if Till Death Us Do Part was included in the Top 50.
I've seen it stated that TV comedy invariably shows working class whites as contemptible and worthless, following the Jewish hereditary outlook. As an hypothesis, it certianl holds a lot of water.
And of course Christianity is, allegedly, a target of Jews, thogh much of this attitude avoids mentioning that the Church sheltered Jewish money-making. The Vicar of Dibley was one example—Jewish actor unaware that the new vicar was female, which of course must have been known. And Father Ted, which I'd assumed was American, more or less unwatchable, had a gesticulating Hitler scene. Nothing on American war crimes or Stalin or anything like that. Well, I suppose it's comedy, intentionally or not.

Anyway, my memory fades. The Good Life? The Hyacinth Bucket things? I'm guessing, thanks to Internet, that the fifty years since 1945 and unchallenged TV is being eroded. Let's hope for better stuff.

RW 29 Dec 2019

Top of Page

SOCIAL ENGINEERING TV & ‘NEWS’. 1 Feb 2018
Occasional Notes on TV in Britain [ Back to top of page ]

Here's social engineering film.

February 14 2020

Specimen of Jewish 'Social Engineering': Derren Brown 'Sacrifice' and British TV Sacrifice (Netflix 2018). Netflix is of course a Jewish-controlled Internet media outlet, presumably translated into numerous languages mainly by voiceovers. Sacrifice is a standard Jewish 'boilerplate', which at present is anti-white. (In the past we had anti-German, anti-Slav, anti-Vietnamese, and so on—their psyops can usually be dated accurately). This 'special feature' explicitly has a cast, leads listed as Megan Affonso & Bob Cable, and screenplay (claimed to be Stephen Long—no other info—with Derren Brown). Without inside knowledge it's impossible to know if Brown is basically honest, or just revealing his previously-muffled Jewish agenda, but I'd guess the latter. I note he appeared on TED, July 2019, but it's impossible to guess if this is careerism or support for propaganda. Anyway, here is part of a critical comment on Sacrifice by WotW, Way of the World, at present on Bitchute. (removed from Youtube after a copyright claim by AuxiliaryMode).
Note: compare the Jewish material with supposed Christianity; in fact there was a large component of violence in the forcing of Christianity into the Mediterranean. And note the complete immersion: in Sacrifice ALL the people are actors, and behave in the same way—like the actors in the 'Asch Conformity Experiment'. (These things are always given Jewish names).

Note on 'Asch Conformity Experiment' (1 Oct 2022): [source: just a youtube; investigators are recommended to look at information less controlled by Jews:] This might more accurately be called 'Asch Conformity Experiments', as there were variations on the basic idea of one genuine subject amid all other confederates, typically 5, acting under instructions. Variations included one of the confederates acting the role of sympathetic collaborator: this sort of thing: [Card with line length matching no. 1: replies 2,2,1,2,1 where the collaborator is the first respondent saying 1.] The effects of secrecy were tested when the subject was told to write down his/her answer.

General conclusions were that accurate perceptions were encouraged by lack of unanimity in the group under examination, and accurate perceptions were encouraged by secrecy.

Probably Jews are encouraged to be unanimous in e.g. discussions on nuclear weapons and power, the so-called 'holocaust', promotion of homosexxuality and 'anti-racism', and (c 2019-2021) the 'pandemic' of COVID and other inventions.

DERREN BROWN'S ANTI-WHITE AGENDA
[Mojave desert setting; bar completely filled with actors, including Mexican vandals damaging bikers' bikes, then coming in for a drink!]

.... and, wouldn't you know, the biker has only one bullet. Watching from the car in horror, Phil is then played his trigger sound through the car radio and jumps into action.
He puts himself in front of the gun, shielding the Mexican bike vandal from harm. He will not be moved and promptly gets shot. With a blank. A fake blood pouch explodes inside his new jacket and poor Phil lies on the ground covered in blood trying to comprehend he's about to die. [Note: probably a radio-controlled explosion makes more sense; a blank might cause harm, or miss].
But fear not. Derren walks onto the set for the big reveal.
Phil's not been shot. He's not going to die. And, best of all, he's officially no longer a racist.
He is now a true hero of our times, and can hold his head up high.
He has seen the light. He has understood that he represents the old order that must be replaced because of kindness and compassion, or something.
He now accepts that he should die to protect any brown stranger who wants to illegally enter his country.
And the cherry on top is the appearance of his pregnant wife to congratulate her husband on being prepared to leave his young family fatherless and in poverty. This is the ultimate virtue signal.
All of which has been achieved through subconscious psychological manipulation, How proud she must be of him. She certainly looks pleased.
Ask yourself what you would do and what you would expect your wife or husband to do if you were placed in this position.
And what of the triumphant Derren? What reaction does he receive for all the heartache and trauma he has just caused?
Well, no one has a bad word to say about him.
Neither Phil nor his wife saw fit to assault Derren for the nightmare he is supposed to have put them through.

Everyone just seems to automatically accept his moral superiority and his right to treat people as mere pawns in his career.
Oh how they laugh together just minutes after
Tell me, how did we come to live in a world where Derren's behaviour is seen as anything less than psychopathic?
What a farce this show is at every level.
The question of whether or not it's fake is largely irrelevant. The real target is you, the white person sitting at home. ... It's not meant to cause anything other than our total demoralisation and we must resist ... nationalism is our society's immune response

By chance I watched a TV episode made between 2001 and 2008, with 'Nathanael Parker' and 'Sharon Small'. (Who knows if the names are genuine?) This involved illegal immigrants, of course treated as on-criminals, their free money and rented housing and health care, from the British, via Jewish paper money, going unmentioned. There was a sort of internal mini-climax, I suppose synchronised with advertising breaks, with two fast sea-going launches, the first an illegal on his way to Frankfurt, where he had 'contacts', with a young daughter. Followed by the intrepid duo. Then oops, the daughter goes overboard—no seat belts? Anyway the hero immediately dives in after removing his jacket. Risking death from the screw of the other boat, but, hey, who cares. Obviously the script used Jewish guidelines. Without his action, says the actor, "It would be MURDER!" though I don't recall activity by any of them on murders in war or by Jews. The parallel with Derren Brown struck me. Maybe the actors in future will be thrown out and their houses repossessed. Or perhaps doctors with fake diplomas will kill them. It's what they deserve, after all.
There's nothing new about this; since Jews took over paper money in 1913, all their propaganda effort has gone into persuading goyim to get killed and kill others. If you haven't noticed, watch for it!

More Derren Brown, from 21 Oct 2011 to 11 Nov 2011) are standalone 50-or-so minute shows, collectively titled The Experiments:--
[1] 'The Assassin' - can someone be hypnotised etc to be made into an assassin? (The example he quotes is Sirhan Sirhan. The related issue - would it in fact be easier just to use an assassin? - is not examined). This includes preliminary material notably on inducing 'partial amnesia' https://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-experiments/4od#3242945
[2] 'The Gameshow' shows Derren Brown running a pilot gameshow intended to test whether anonymous crowds behave in a way individuals wouldn't https://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-experiments/4od#3245576
[3] 'The Guilt Trip' - Can someone (admittedly a rather weak character) be induced to confess to a murder which he (and indeed anyone else) didn't commit? https://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-experiments/4od#3252139
[4] 'The Secret of Luck' in which a rumour is planted (in this case, a 'lucky dog statue') onto the good but painfully simple folk of a small Yorkshire town. https://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-experiments/4od#3256877

These are only available until mid-December - if you're interested, download them if you can.

There's a problem with all these programmes, which is they are televised and it's clear a small army of video techies has been used. It's not made clear whether failed projects have been pruned out, or never occurred. And although Brown assures the audience the material is genuine, it's hard not to doubt much of it: for example in #3, a rather drunk man is told by his TV set not to wake, then carried outside by a dozen people and deposited on a blanket, on grass, out of doors. It's hard to believe being carted out of bed and downstairs, taken to the cold outside, put down on hard ground, and indeed walking back on gravel in bare feet, is credible. And the shots in #1 of people being hypnotised on command, although part of the stock-in-trade, aren't very credible. What is credible is the large number of actors, and videographers, and sound recordists, and confederates with earpieces needed. This in #4, a rather gullible butcher (life savings Â£1,000) had to be followed by at least six people to try to get him to notice events staged specifically for him.

Derren Brown is a believer in the Milgram experiment (it occurs in one of his earlier programmes) - or says he is - and it seems fair to regard his TV material as uncontrolled scientific experiments. In #3 above, for example, he's careful to employ a lie detector operator to validate that his selected assassin type really believes he didn't remember something - in this case a restaurant incident in which most of the fellow eaters were in on the act.

Quite interesting. In his next series, can we please have a group of people telling lies about Germans to make money, please; TV news people censoring out stories of murder, sex crime etc on race grounds; and maybe also men in white coats pretending to have arranged space travel to the moon. And perhaps part 4 could be a group of men funding bombing of innocent peasants so they could make money from selling bombs and weapons.

Thanks, Derren. I'm looking forward to it!

Something Marigold Hotel and other fragments

#########################################################################

'Public Service' Advertising

• TV Teaching ads are a depressing aspect of the 'creative' 'industry' of advertising. Naturally the facts about race are kept very secret; scores on the admittedly imperfect tests of IQs are lower in Jew-forced races, and there are not even sample papers produced online, even though they could be anonymous. No prizes for guessing why this is so. We have occasional adverts (see Youtube for examples) usually with music in the background and concentration on single people, who may of course be acting. Someone must be worried, or pretending to be worried, about 'STEM' subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, probably) and this is combined with an absurd emphasis on 'coloured' women, despite their complete failure to make any impression on these subjects. History is probably just as bad; looking at 'laserlearning.tv' we find a video on Senator McCarthy of painful bias. There is of course the usual Jewish insistence on drawing attention to 'racism', except for Jews, of course. Public ads include a voiceover saying 'Could you explain this?' to, presumably, a fake holocaust survivor. We have people with titles of the 'Professor of Media Interpretation' type, making a faint attempt to deconstruct films etc. It's very very sad, in its way a huge offence against children. One of these ads obtained fame by implying £65000 was a salary for the hardworking teacher, which appears to have been ridiculed. There are aspects of teaching which ought to be mentioned, though the easy money taken from you now and in future will not be in the empty vacuity of television and 'social media'. I can recall Gove, the malformed 'Jew', giving your money to some superstitious Jew outfit, tens of millions of it; Blair and his 'faith school' garbage; some white pupil with his skull smashed in a pack attack; drugs (imported by Moslems, I think); the 'need' for 30,000 teachers a year, apparently to replace some who couldn't face alien kids forced into Europe by Jews, maybe fifty different languages in which none are literate. Despite mal-education, white countries have achieved things in the past, while education systems for more than a millennium concerned themselves with religious fantasies. Let's hope some deep-rooted mental courage remains.
• Navy, Army Military activities in Europe are mostly run by Jews, in secret. (But I don't know how aware the 'top military' are; maybe they still worship Churchill, lust for raped German women, and have no idea about Jewish paper-money loans). Presumably propaganda ('ads') are instructed to follow some Jewish aims. I remember a few years ago Navy TV ads in Britain concentrated on a young male who had no interest in school, and was always an isolate, and of course white with a regional accent. This was at a time when Naval vessels were explicitly used to ferry nonwhites into Europe! It seems a bit odd, because military types are noted by 'human resources' types as having to be told what to do, all the time. They changed to ads showing white regionally-accented males, able to mend bikes, who therefore would be able to repair large weapons. And more ads for 'marines'. Nothing on bombing civilians, of course. Imagine the joy of the Jewish ad agencies, paid fortunes to commission this junk. And let's have some thought for Internet itself; without it, probably nobody could be sure that Jews target white countries for invasion, and give them paper money at the expense of the hosts. Without Internet information would be controlled entirely by Jews and their temporary allies, pretty much at wartime levels of censorship.
• Health is I think dominated by drug ads (including side-effect pseudo-medications for people eating too little salt). Within a few years, I've noted (1) Some mass killing doctors and nurses; (2) Some unqualified people, usually from the Third World, incompetent to work; (3) Supposed doctors, not properly qualified, and criticised by whites, accused by Jews of being 'racist'—extraordinary evidence of Jewish malice and hatred; (4) Support groups of the NHS being forced to assert that their work will be unaffected by race, gender etc, even if (say) there's an issue with young people, women, or diseases, parasites, etc. Another infinitely sad issue is Jewish fact denial: for example their pretence that race doesn't exist, which is likely to lead to enormous problems. They even deny that diabetes caused by genetic inability to make insulin is different from 'diabetes' caused by badly-thought out diet.
• 'Tells' In the mind-reading sense are worth watching for, if you're reduced to watching this junk. An amusing typr is showing deliveries made by whites, to groups of blacks, or mixed race 'families', enjoying their parasitic lifestyle—while they last. Another is the betting ads, aimed at the simplest types, one has to assume.
• Missing ads: There is or was an amusing BBC video on being trained as a BBC 'expert'—you've never seen a more abject and hushed group of trainees for the supposedly prestigious positions. There are, of course, no TV job ads for (say) members of the Civil Service, or anonymous TV newswriters. Probably they are reserved for purchasers of the Jew-controlled Guardian newspapers. Another omissions is for police jobs: probably members of the public would be displeased at the non-whites only clauses, or the lack of interest in policing Moslem rape gangs. What about ads for detectives, expected to only concern themselves with whites
• In-house ads: may as well be added here. It's terribly sad to see promotion of various types of trash. I've just watched (sort of) a supposedly factual TV thing on New Orleans and its heroic types. There's a slight problem, that during a breach in the bayous (or something) there were rape threats, neglects of duty, and all the rest of it. Jews love lies and deception. There was another ad for a supposed true life crimes thing, including fakes beloved of US Jews (Manson, Sharon Tate et al)—but not real-life Jewish crimes, frauds, and the rest of it. I wonder if there will come a time when this sort of thing is illegal.

Time Team is an apparently interesting TV thing, which has run for years, with the format of spending a holiday/ bank holiday/ vacation on an archaeological dig, often in a well-known place, with trenches, and incident tent, and no doubt sandwiches and tea. Introduced by a Jew (I heard somewhere), Tony Robinson, who used to appear in Blackadder, a bogus historical comedy, and once presented a ridiculous TV thing on Freemasons—their main site in London opened the doors, but of course revealed nothing. I'm told Robinson is the only voice allowed to talk to the camera, and to the various archaeologists, who seem chosen to look odd rather than competent. What worries me is that, no doubt, there is a case for censoring rare, exciting, plunderable etc discoveries. But also Jews played a disconcerting part in British history, and have no hesitation in lying and covering-up any information on any related subject. And vice versa: a ridiculous woman, I think described as a pathologist, claimed to have found a Jewish tile in a Polish forest, as a sort of informal dig. The Open University 'history' shows are full of Jew-biased fake history.
Another TV archaeologist, or supposed archaeologist, in Ben Robinson, who seems to have the cheery unintellectual contentless personality which appeals to TV producers. I watched a few of his efforts, one on Hadrian's Wall, intended to suggest that it was not a barrier at all, but surrounded by large numbers of 'ethnically diverse' types, all eating food presumably imported from Africa or the eastern Mediterranean.>!-- 25 mar 2023 -->

August 25 2018

Dragon's Den is a rather odd TV program, with a set of so-called 'dragons' listening to a presentation, typically a small group of people with a scheme. Many of these are ridiculous, some are hard to assess. What's fascinating is the implicit Jewish format: most people think of 'interest' as an arithmetic thing. It's a mistake similar to the general misunderstanding of 'usury' and just a matter of interest calculations. But in fact the reality is that Jewish policy is to aim for control, or a part of control. The (for my taste) unpleasant host has the task of getting people to give away a percentage of their embryonic outfit, not a fixed or variable interest rate. It's an analogous process to setting up shares in companies; obviously many tasks need many people to carry them out, so companies make perfect sense. The Jewish trick is to use their junk money to obtain a permanent slice. Watch the way the supposed big names have no information given about them. I noticed recently they approved of 'bitcoins', evidently a near-fraud; despite knowing nothing about the system or how it worked.

June 12 2018

'General Knowledge' It's extraordinary to docket the vast amount of general misinformation which Jews have been allowed to contaminate the group mind, like dumps of unfertilising toxic sludge. An example, remarkably unobvious to many, is the rubbish of the 'Bible' since translation into English four centuries back. Passing over a few centuries, in which the sludge is not so much Jewish as material censored, overseen, and procured by Jews, we now have sad material something like 'What is the name of the school Bart Simpson attended', 'Which member of Little Mix showed her ass', anagrams of football managers, trade names of Jewish companies, BBC newsreaders, slang names for manufactured enemies, and what have you. But it will pass away soon enough.

News Now I've invented a receptacle, perhaps I'll add examples of this vast system of deception. I'm prompted by a 'news' item that Jewish graves (unspecified where etc) were desecrated despite the protection of the 'Chosen People'. I remember a Christian church in Manchester having gravestones crushed to make car parks for Muslims— but I recall no 'news' on the Jewish media.

Note on 'General Knowledge' and books

My collection of books has some in the genre of 'General Knowledge' which seems to exist now only in the 'pub quiz' style. I'm referring to books published in England; such books in the USA, or Germany, or Japan differ in important ways. My queried dates are based on internal events and dates in the books.

(1904?) GENERAL KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS, WITH HINTS FOR ANSWERS By James Treble. Published by E J ARNOLD & SON LTD., LEEDS.
Book of about 225 pages, showing evidences of Jewish origin; Leeds for example was a highly Jewish town, then and now. Reference books are recommended. Some examination papers are listed; '... all have been set in a noted Grammar School at the Term Examinations at the end of the year. ...' This seems to be before the date that official public exams were introduced.

(1938?) HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW? A BOOK OF FASCINATING QUESTIONS AND ANSWER ON EVERY SUBJECT Edited by HAROLD WHEELER, HON. D. LITT., F. R. HIST.S. ODHAMS PRESS, LONG ACRE, LONDON W.C.2
This book is one of a series of self-help books; hardback bindings varied, giving uniform sets different appearances. Interestingly with pub quiz style material: What year was only 354 days long? - How many bank holidays are there in Scotland? - What is dry-farming? - What city of flowers stands in a desert?. Nine categories include Largest and smallest things, The wonderful world we live in, and The World of Sport. The questions are all indexed.
This is something of a half-way house between cautious Jews and full control: What European port belongs to two countries, Why is the white race dominant, When was the BBC founded, Why is asbestos called "the magic mineral", What English Poets died young, and What king earned his living as a schoolmaster. But Bolshevism and Communism are not listed. Nor are there questions on Churchill, Hitler, or Mussolini. But the origin of the term "fascist" is described.

(1946?) ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE FOR ALL 13 chapters with index; about 512 pages, no editor acknowledged. Published by Odhams Press; war is not included as a topic. Politics, and Economics, have a chapter each, each giving primacy to 'democracy' and 'socialism' and banking and the then-new 'United Nations'. Similar contents to a book published by Gollancz, a viciously Jewish publisher.

Feb 1 2018 Advertising A recent oddity is TV ads for California, pretending that Californians live a free, outdoors, sea-and-sand lifestyle. For some reason they don't point out that many California towns are bankrupt and impossibly in debt, that the state itself is in severe financial danger, that there are encampments of illegals, mainly from south of their border, and the proportions of non-whites are dangerously high. The fact is that advertising agencies are run by Jews, who have the level of honesty established by a long supremacist irresponsible tradition. For information on, for example, Los Angeles deciding to hide 1½ million illegals, I recommend NewObserverOnline for factual information.

There were ads clearly aimed at men who feel ineducable, and correctly feel their politicians have let them down, but want to do something physical. The one I remember was aimed at the British Navy, which at the time was providing free shipping to illegals, promoted of course by Jews. Join the Navy, and Fvck Up Your Country might have been the slogan. Since there has been action against people shippers, perhaps the campaign has been halted, for the moment.
Martin Webster protested to George Galloway, presumably descended from a name-changing Jew, that every TV advert shows racially mixed couples, especially in bedrooms. Now I see there are real or supposed concerns over obesity in schoolkids. It's impossible to tell how serious this is—some races get much fatter than others if they eat stuff their ancestors never had, and the 'Jews' controlling statistics do what they can to hide the numbers and the science. So here I have a valuable suggestion: make the 'actors' in the adverts very obese, with ugly blackish types and desperate whitish types well upholstered. And preferably subtitle adverts by Jewish advertisers with, perhaps, a 'star of David'.
TV and mag adverts showing (usually) white women with Jew-funded blacks have become remarkably common. All the world's big ad agencies are Jew owned. With their fake money, and the shareholder principle, this proved easy, just at military ads always support Jew violence. There are videos on this; I doubt they will survive on Jewtube though.

House prices/ house sales low-budget TV are fillers which seem to be designed to encourage elderly white couples—or more likely actors, judging by all the evidence—to move to isolated areas where they have few if any roots. It's amusing to see people supposedly happy to shell out half a million for a small place with rather mediocre interiors. Some of the presenters manage to be polite to the ditherers, despite their endless havering. My guess is this is a sales operation for converted places which won't sell. Perhaps the idea is to speed up race replacement in cities, a long-term Jewish plan.

22 Apr 2018 Resuscitated Red Dwarf has the original (but much older) cast. The originals had science fiction to play with, which supplied most of the content. This time they're down to obvious social engineering. The white male hologram is an obvious projection of its own—looking forward to whites as only existing in the past. There's a repeated joke about 'Cat' being handsome, which I suppose is another prop for immigration into white countries, but not Israel. ('Cat' is supposed to have evolved from a ship's cats—Jews know nothing about science). The Liverpudlian half-caste was originally meant to be amusingly relaxed—a lager lout, but of course non-white, so it's OK. It doesn't work for a plump double-chinned actor. The episode I saw (I'm assuming it's a series) interestingly showed a Hitler actor, but also a Vlad the Impaler actor, showing the Jewish desire to import Muslims to harm Europe. Not just tell lies about Germans (and Russians). Muslims have a record of invasions and thefts, including one of the biggest such mass slaughter in human history. The actor had to prostitute himself by talking about a few hundred mistakes. Quite funny to watch infantile propaganda, tailored to the level of Jewish junk.

Mediterranean Simon Reeve (2018-1029) I watched this, more or less by mistake (Jewish fraud 'coronavirus' being promoted by Jews everywhere). I presume 'Reeve' is just another Jew liar: I'd guess his fake name carefully selected to sound English. That's what they do. The piece I saw—(started with Cyprus; nothing on Jews in Turkey, of course)—was on the eastern Med, and of course inevitably Jews. It was amusing to see Israel described as 'wealthy' or whatever, with no mention of the vast flows of money from the unfortunate and dim Americans. But of course—Reeve mentions 'the Holcoaust' in sotto voce style. And learn that Israel more of less invented water purification techniques. Of course they did—a little bloke in a hard hat said so. All very sad; Reeve was correct in reading out his piece on the Med and its truly amazing qualities, by far the largest inland sea anywhere (my words, not his). The Palestinians in their little strip—of course a menace and threat.

'Antiques' on TV started (I think) with Antiques Roadshow of the BBC. Which has settled into ritual and repetition. One of the sadder TV productions; the not-very-crowded audience seem to have no idea about their own history, and be coached to pretend (say) £200 is a lot of money. The episodes have constructed local interest—phoney history of a painfully censored type—a setting of a castle slighted by Cromwell to introduce Jews, or a country house subject to a Jew swindle. The 'experts' are always shown making on-the-spot judgements, without any checks. We have Fiona Bruce, a sort of media prostitute taking time off from reading out (((BBC))) TV statements on (for example) highly-skilled Muslims, and not reading out statements on (for example) war damage in the middle east. People with (say) WW2 medals or photo souvenirs of people who died soon after; something connected with Florence Nightingale, with not the slightest grasp of the Crimean War; documents or letters or drawings without insight into their implications; country house stuff with no feeling for their activities; And of course the unintelligent emphasis on money. It's funny to see the whites mocked: a photo of three young men by a Lancaster bomber, but no photo of their deaths. How proud you should be to have the photo. (Value: nothing). The feeling of deracination is exactly counterpointed by the isolated specimen approach: it's an equivalent of antiquarians compared with historians, and metal-detectorists versus archaeologists. Or it should be,
Antiques Road Trip presumably is derivative. It is staged and more-or-less scripted. The basis is: adverts for antique shops, then adverts for auctioneers, with some ads for villages or towns, and maybe for the old cars they drive, if these aren't just staged. And promotional material for the area of the episode: I noticed a promo for the phoney Jane Austen's house. The shop owners or operators are careful not to look at the camera crews. They accept large discounts off the 'ticket price', apparently happily. Typically discounts are about 50%. Enough to make a profit on many of the resales. The auctioneers have a variety of personal styles—gabbly; semi-secret for people they know; smiling; bid-from-me requests; oldish; youngish. The percentage charged by the auction house is never stated; the cost of motoring is ignored. There is always a competitive element, on the principle that, football may be a waste of time, but a match is exciting.

Blonking is the name for the practice of including black of coloured actors/ actresses/ extras in TV stuff. It's been noticed recently (from say 2015) in ads; I think David Duke noted that advertising agencies had been bought up by Jews, with of course their Jewish paper money. Presumably this is part of the entire Jewish process of population replacement. Refinements include car ads with only women drivers, or no visible drivers; white males shown as hopeless; black males shown giving advice. Jews of course are never shown. Richard Burton in Look Back in Anger [Indian market stall] (1959), Till Death Us Do Part, and James Bond films [Thanks, Simon Sheppard] illustrate early stages.

Recorded Laughter and Applause provides an indication of official seriousness. I saw a painfully embarrassing 'Queen's Birthday' thing, including Tom Jones with a band of ?south Asian drummers (why would Liz be interested? A horse on stage might have been better). And Kylie Minogue—I have a faint memory of her, in the days when 'Kylie' needed a pronunciation lesson, singing or miming about being lucky in love, before a younger, but equally moronic, queen. However the point here is there was the sound of vague and unspecific applause. The queen is given junk, as of course she deserves. But TV news doesn't yet have added whistles and screams.
But 'news' propaganda, of Have I Got News For You type (apologies if it's now gone), does have canned applause, no doubt of necessity. It appears to have no audience, no clocks (people might notice gaps), Hislop the ageing undersized shit, and Paul Merton as the simple fellow.
Have I got News For You is still broadcast in 2021; and still showing Hislop and Paul Merton as 'talent'. (Merton, or whatever his real name is, has some other TV thing, showing him supposedly driving around Britain, amazed to find there are places not yet full of aliens paid by Jews to be there).
This seems to have endless Jews with single-colour backgrounds, presumably to be replaced by greenscreen stuff. One seems to be a Cohen, Victoria Cohen, yet another Jew nonentity. And many others; I simply can't be bothered even to name them. I think Briaiaian Something of the fake Oirish name was one.

Perversions - putting the J in LBGTQ (i.e. Lesbian, 'bisexual' not in the hermaphrodite sense, 'Gay' in the homosexual sense, 'Transexual' as used to suggest that clothes can change the wearer's sex, Q for Queer or 'questioning'. The push for these oddities (and the pretence the result is a 'community') is Jewish, an extension of the Jewish 'feminist' fake movement. Remember to put the 'J' into LBG etc and remember Jews and pederasty.

Germans are a long-standing object of hate by Jews, and of course Jewish control of the media keeps this limping on. ('Why does so much British comedy still rely on memories of a conflict that ended 70 years ago?' - 'Britons still can't help mentioning the war' - &c). It'll be a long time before we see repeating jokes about Soros looking in a mirror and calling himself handsome, or dramatised Jewish Jack the Ripper thrillers).
Here are some 'comedy' references, roughly in order:-
1975 Basil Fawlty. —"Will you stop talking about the war? You started it. ... you invaded Poland." is John Cleese's dip into realpolitik
1977 Freddie Starr Hitler moustache
1982-92 Allo Allo. Pervy Nazis — Richard Gibson as Herr Otto Flick and Kim Hartman as Helga Geerhart.
1988 Alan Rickman in Die Hard; Jeremy Irons in Die Hard With a Vengeance.
1990s Harry Enfield character Jürgen the German
2007-2014 Outnumbered (BBC) - 'Gottfried the exchange student' 2009 Richard Herring, apparently a comedian; I found a piece on the Edinburgh Fringe—the place that banned Alison Chabloz
2015 The Man in the High Castle on the fantasy of German world conquest.
2015? 'Radio 4s News Quiz' Hugo Rifkind on sex molesters in Germany
2016 film, Dad's Army—not a reference to Churchill, MPs, old bankers, and pensioned-off generals.
The (((BBC))) is now about a century old. Certainly time for Jewish instincts to surface: 'time to reflect on how utterly disgusting we were (and perhaps still are) as a nation and an empire'. '... sane, multilingual astute observers of the folly of modern Britain.'

Gardening on TV might seem remote from societal engineering. But, watching Monty Don in Gardener's World (with golden retrievers, Nellie and Nigel) I feel we're presented with a figure perfectly contented with his humble task, similar from year to year, as he pricks out little plants, prunes stems, mixes composts... a white simple worker. Someone who can be relied on to output simple messages: the climate is changing, says the simpleton. Plastic pots are a menace—but not, say, car tyres. It's curious to watch the implicit appearancism: plants must look nice, at least when grown, according to prevailing aesthetics. One gathers that, in the Middle Ages, food was grown in every available space, but the TV world doesn't mention (for example) the Permaculture idea. A garden is one of the few things in your power: it's yours, you spray it, kill stuff, plant outlandish things, put in monoculture grass, move plants around. But only within socially-approved constraints. I have it from Monty Don (at a flower show) that Gardener's World gets something like 3 million viewers—much more than any other BBC2 programme, something which cheered me. He said the accompanying team is about 24 strong, half of them at an office. And that their Chelsea Flower Show TV output needs 123 people!
May 2019: I've just watched some BBC1 and BBC2 output on Chelsea: I think every commentator talked about 'Climate Change', including 'Baroness Floella Benjamin', a 'black' woman, I believe an ex-children's TV person. With huge trees, put in place by huge machines. The sooner Jews are removed the better.
Another socially manipulated garden type is the 'makeover', in which a plant expert, cement, rock, and timber expert, 'feature' expert co-operate on a garden for someone deserving according to Jewish principles, such as a 'disabled black lesbian'. Jostling together in the 'space' allows an electric pump water feature, a wooden gazebo, piles of geological material, turf, a few large trees and many smaller plants, perhaps a 'plant of the week', and a path with an outdoor flat area. I've never seen a TV garden with a nettle patch and buddleias, to encourage Vanessid butterflies. More likely is the thoughtless tribute: an approved soldier or gurkha—I recall a glowingly insincere Titchmarsh saying he'd "certainly learnt a lot" from a Gurkha. Probably Titchmarsh thinks he's a Jew.
And we have the annual flower show: heavy trucks, bulldozers, concrete, men in hard hats and hi-viz jackets, timbers, tiling, electrically-pumped water, and what have you do the 'hard landscaping'. Spadework follows, and plants flown around, chilled, kept damp etc make up the final vision. Almost immediately to be removed. It's a sort of Potemkin Village displayed before the dim and transient eyes of royalty—what a very lovely plant; we must be going to our horses—past wonderful glorious plants (which don't like the climate and cannot last). By 2021 or 2022 a new note has crept in: the BBC promotes death, disasters, changes—but gardening is good for mental health. I'd guess this is planned to get more money from the gullible.
Charlie and the Garden Factory (Charlie Dimmock and two Rich brothers) is a strange amalgam. Why for example are cows lips felt to describe a flower, as were oxlips? Charlie's persona as a simple country wench rather saddeningly has no grip on tradition; she uses Latin names for flowers, in the way irritating to George Orwell. I'd love at least some awareness of tradition—meadows, flower-balls, hideaways for shy mammals, and less perlite, concrete, and hard-to-maintain water 'features'.
And we have the annual flower show: heavy trucks, bulldozers, concrete, and what have you do the 'hard landscaping'. Spadework follows, and plants flown around, chilled, kept damp etc make up the final vision. Almost immediately to be removed.

Countryfile is mainly concerned with money, as would be expected from the Jew-controlled BBC. I watched a rather annoying programme, with a pullovered tosser and back-up crew wondering about crime in the country (sinister music), including drug gangs targeting children (with close-ups of knives, powder etc). In Jewish tradition there is no discussion of why there should be more crime of a disgusting sort, and I'm guessing child abduction is unmentioned intentionally. The propensity of immigrants for crime is not discussed. What is discussed is the 'overspend' by councils, all of course supposed to be short of cash—the part played by funding rent and housing for jew-introduced immigrants is of course kept quiet. Jews of course love to lend money, providing they can charge interest and get it back. A figure of a few billion over a few years was mentioned. What it means is that Jews add to crime, then get paid for introducing it.

[ Back to top of page ]

Review of BBC media Robin Aitken: Can We Trust the BBC?

A little boy tries to criticise the big boys..., July 15, 2010

Aitken appears to be Scottish and to have worked about 25 years for the BBC. The BBC had a training scheme; it also had something like a monopoly on equipment, which was far more expensive then than now. The result was that anyone with unpopular views could be shut out of the industry for life; the civil service and academia are similar. Aitken therefore was part of this 'elite'. Parts of Aitken's book are about him, parts about his views on the BBC, parts about others' views of the BBC, and parts about topics he feels the BBC treated less than fairly. An intro added in 2008 for the paperback edition is more of the same.

Chapters 1 and 10 (The Best Broadcaster in the World? and Conclusion) repeat the claims about trust which are often made: '.. the BBC is trusted at home and abroad. No other nation has anything much like it..' (p. 8). Another claim is that it investigates: 'No power in the land, be it Church or monarch, parliament or the police, is exempt from its relentless, probing gaze.' (p. 8). Yet another claim is the golden age idea inaugurated by Reith, dated 1939-1960 by Aitken, that it was wonderful: 'the corporation acquitted itself heroically during the war, and afterwards enjoyed near universal esteem' (p. 11).

Let's look at these points...

*** BBC trusted at home and abroad. Aitken gives no supporting evidence. I remember in about 1970 overhearing BBC people in the Russell Hotel despairing at the lies told about the Vietnam War by the BBC. Aitken quotes (p 195) 'a distinguished former public servant' (unnamed—I'd guess Sir Andrew Green) who 'wanted to know why the BBC steadfastly refused to publicize his findings'—that the BBC deliberately lied about the extent of immigration into Britain. These are just two examples; both ignore the Jewish element. I leave it to the reader to decide what measure of truth there is in Aitken.

*** Investigates relentlessly. In fact, to take the Second World War, the BBC followed the Holocaust industry in puppy-like mode, playing it up in the 1960s. The post-war events in Germany, revealed by James Bacque and others, have never been aired by the BBC. The BBC never covered the Vietnam War—I can recall the Russell tribunal being blanked out. The Kennedy assassination of course was never examined in detail. 'The War Game' about one nuclear bomb was aired decades after it was made. Biafra, Islam, any number of topics—including 14 years at the last count of EU corruption—have never been examined. Aitken's claim is nonsense. His own book reflects the BBC's slack incompetence—his four factual chapters are skinny in the extreme—Kelly's death is his main concern about Iraq, for example.

*** Golden Age idea, followed by modern dumbing-down: I have in effect looked at this already. it simply isn't true. The BBC is trash now, and always has been.

*** BBC's in-house mentality as described by Aitken: Chapter 9 has extracts from six interviewees, anonymous, but all with portentous BBC job titles—'senior duty editor', 'senior BBC political correspondent', and the like. And pages 39-40 have 16 'core beliefs' jotted down in 1997 by a BBC hack. Between these, and other comments in the book, it's obvious Aitken has the usual confusion of thought over so-called 'left' and so-called 'right'. E.g. 'core belief 9' is 'anti-private education' which can only mean for others! 'Core belief 6' is 'pro-union and anti-big business'—impossible to square with the support for PFI schemes and selling industries. 'Core belief 3' is 'pro-women's and gay rights' which is inconsistent with support for Muslims.

*** BBC employee are well-educated. The latter paragraph shows the claim of Aitken and many others that BBC employees are 'well-educated' is unsound. It's worth adding that technical ignorance of BBC people is astounding: issues such as lead in petrol, nuclear power, AIDS, medicine, climate, world Trade Centre 7, are dealt with by actors whose understanding is at a child's level.

Aitken is like a rather stupid child of a huge wealthy family which happens to own the Augean Stables. Daringly, he peeps at a few bits of mud, pipes up, and wonders if his relatives will admire his comments. His book is trash.

Top of Page

'Augmented Reality' in the studio. With matching green screens

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of David Attenborough Green Planet
BBC TV 2022

The BBC really is an odd outfit. Accompanying their online blurb for Attenborough is a piece on Russia's most infamous and cruel ruler. Guess who? I haven't checked the tiny print for credits, rights, etc; probably Attenborough gets the parasite's share.

For awakening people, see my review of Attenborough's Life on Air. ('On Air' referred to wireless broadcasting in British English).

Interesting to speculate on the scriptwriting. Attenborough is of course a lifetime propagandist for Jews, with as much interest in science as (for example) Stalin in genetics. So it is rather silly to expect anything profound. The first episode professes to deal with 'the rainforest'. This is appropriate to him, in fact, since the etymological meaning of 'forest' is land allocated for the pleasure of a ruler. "We" have devastated, or repurposed, huge areas for growing tree crops. "We" in Jewish usage means whites, not Jews, when something is Defined to be unpleasant'. And it means Jews, not whites, when discussing such things as the Second World War, a tremendous victory for Jews, of which Attenborough is just one specimen.

As the studio shot indicates, much of the filming is made indoors—far more controllable. The shots of the giant Rafflesia look studio shots to me; no sign of rain, insects, animals as wild nature provides.

Two bit-part players, filmed outdoors from the air, are balsa trees (fast growing with cells presumably as air-filled as possible), and the Poison Arrow tree (oozes poisonous sap, smooth trunk most of the way up). Wikipedia says in effect it's mostly harmless apart from the sap, and has a wide distribution range, an is about as dense as balsa—if you like to know. A fascinating sidelight on the first episode is the way parasites are shown as likely to be doomed to fail. I wonder if this is a note introduced by Jewish writers? Very likely, I'd say. And up-to-date—this episode didn't refer to climate change at all, though perhaps I dozed off.
The examples given were the poison arrow tree, providing nests for some type of starling. Tis seems to have led to the deaths of these trees, though the mechanism, if any, was obscure to me. The other example was leaf-cutter ants, snipping off portable bits of leaf to take back to an underground fungus. This must be a double tribute, to modern hypersensitive detectors of trace gases, and to computer-controlled digital cameras. Some mechanism seemed to ensure that this relation was doomed to weaken and fail. And finally we have rafflesia tapping lianas which put more energy into climbing up than defending themselves.

What irritated me, in addition to support for lifetime liars, was the avoidance of science. I felt this stuff was like Victorian picture books animated by modern techniques. Why should there be male and female plants needing pollination? What about micro forms of life? Why should photosynthesis with chlorophyll be 'key'—surely other molecules could have trapped sunlight? What about DNA and the ways in which it presumably evolved itself?

Anyway. Never mind. Soon enough DA will join the vast number of vanished specimens, once driven by obscure instincts to react to external events which other instincts selected...

Rae West. Uploaded 14 Jan 2022

Top of Page

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of David Attenborough Life on Air First published by the BBC in 2002

David Attenborough is recorded as having been born on 8th May, 1926, about twenty years before the nominal end of the Second World War. Many, or at least some, people now are awake to the huge incursion of Jews into the Anglo-Saxon world, though of course this is not new. In this review I'll try to see how the Attenboroughs fitted in with the post-1945 rise of television and its control by Jews.
Frederick Levi Attenborough (4 April 1887-20 March 1973), a 'scholar and academic administrator' and Mary Attenborough (nÃ©e Clegg), a founding member of the Marriage Guidance Council, had three sons. These were Richard (b 29 Aug 1923), David (b 8 May 1926), and John Attenborough (b 1928). Plus two 'German-Jewish girls' Irene Bejach, Helga Bejach, probably part of the influx of Jews into Britain. I remember David Irving commented that this arrangement was temporary, and they should be moved as soon as possible.
Attenborough Senior was a sort of career obscure academic, finally becoming principal of University College, Leicester from 1932 to 1951. I'd guess the surname was adopted as a half-way stage in eliminating 'Levi'. This College later became Leicester University. It was of course yet another mediocre redbrick. Attenborough includes am anecdote to the effect that he once was in a train that stopped at Attenborough, a Leicestershire village. A loud announcement 'Attenborough!' made him think he was being personally addressed. This suggests his official surname had little meaning for him.

Life on Air omits almost everything of his early life, though he has an anecdote about receiving Wells' An Outline of History as part works by post in Leicester. This cannot be true, as Wells' Outline was 1920-ish. Perhaps he confused it with Wells' part-works on biology, which came out as The Outline of Life, and is a much more likely mine for the plagiarist.

When David was 18, in 1941, he was called up for active service, and after training was sent to fight. He was severely injured, and soon died. —Ha ha, just joking. Though I did once make a phone call to some TV celebration, or something, to ask if he'd done any original work on biology. His proxy said, no, I was in the war.
Here's Wikipedia (mostly):– "He was educated at Clare College, Cambridge (M.A., 1947–this is an honorary degree given after graduation), and began work at an educational publishing house in 1949. In 1952 he completed a training program at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and became a television producer for the BBC." Life on Air records that the BBC paid him four times as much as his publisher. There are some interesting comments on the BBC, but nothing remotely serious. (For example, Ewan MacColl, who was married to Joan Littlewood—"His Wiki page is one long red flag. To start with, his real name was James Henry Miller" says Miles Mathis).

Wiki again: "In 1965 Attenborough became controller of the BBC’s new second television channel, BBC2. In this capacity he helped launch the dramatic production The Forsyte Saga and such landmark cultural-educational series as Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man and Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation." He also had something to do with BBC2's Great War series on the First World War; it doesn't take much imagination to guess how it was treated, and how Jewish money was not mentioned, and Jews in Russia even less mentioned. He also had something to do with the tedious Galbraith. His career as Controller of BBC2 was apparently 1965-1969; and he was Director, or a Director, of Programming: Wiki says "In radio or television, a program director or director of programming is the person who develops or selects some or all of the content that will be broadcast." This period covered the interval of US bombing in Vietnam, for the poison dwarf Kissinger. All this of course was censored by the BBC. In short, Attenborough is just another piece of shit.

Perhaps it's worth noting (1961 dust jacket of a book) that Anglia TV seems to have started wild life programmes, not, as more or less explicitly claimed by BBC, Attenborough. Something to do with the free money handed to the BBC. May as well add that Roger Grounds' The Private Life of Plants (1980) unindexed in Life on Air looks like a plagiarism.

Chapter 17, The Threat of the Desk has potential interest, including Harold Wilson, Churchill, several BBC types, Boards of Management and what have you, but of course trying to guess the realities—Jewish US fake money, multiple secrets, images to be projected, hidden support for wars, inaccurate budget reports, perhaps even complaints from the ranks—is impossible.

Attenborough has a large number of book credits, but it's impossible to know what he did. By 1984, my copy of The Living Planet was copyright David Attenborough Productions Ltd. A Book Club paperback edition is lavishly illustrated all in colour (and physically heavy, I presume because of the art paper); maybe he looked at the photos.
His books have a passive approach, I suppose natural to Jewish organisations and propagandists: early TV was live, lighting got brighter, cameras were now electronic, satellites 'arrive', 16 mm film is 'replaced', colour comes, new lenses get designed.
This book, but not his others as far as I know, have very little on the practicalities of getting to difficult places, or of course being barred. Pretty much nothing on wars, deaths, extermination, war zones. Or deforestation, desertification, animal deaths in south Africa, rhino horns. Or of course human races. It has been Jewish policy to pretend human races don't exist. A scribbled note of mine says Attenborough made an attempt at anthropology, omitting Jewish types like Boas.
This is more his style:– ‘'The Mpingo Tree That Makes Music. The Mpingo tree in Tanzania has a jet-black heartwood so heavy that it sinks like a stone in water. .. David Attenborough narrates' A Green Umbrella Production for BBCtv’
Here's an amusing comment by Nicholas Jolly in The Gentleman's Guide to Travel (2006): ‘The current popularity of solo travel may well have its origins in the exploits of various television personalities who set out on voyages around the globe. The viewer gains the impression from the screen that the presented is travelling alone when wading through the mangrove swamps of the Gulf of Fonseca or ingesting hallucinogens with the Babongo people of Gabon. What he fails to realise is that 95 per cent of such footage is filmed on a set built on a disused parking lot in Shepperton, and that on the rare occasions when presenters actually do leave British soil, they are accompanied by a vast entourage that includes cameramen, director, grip, sparks, gaffer, interpreters, bodyguards, personal valet, makeup artist, a luxury Winnebago and mobile catering unit.&rquo;

Sat 28 December, 96: BBC2 whole evening on David Attenborough films, with four cameramen, all late middle aged males with little presentation skill, who presumably did most of the work. (One rather sad sequence had the otter chap doing his own VO half-heartedly). On the function of Attenborough in presenting science, see Attenborough file.

Disguised Jew infiltration in the BBC has a few Jews in the UK, including Attenboroughs and Dimblebys and Salz of the BBC, Rothschild, all newspapers such as the Guardian.

A recent note of mine is that he was 90 in 2016. He of course follows the BBC line on 'climate change'. And high resolution digital cameras have arrived.

If I remember I'll add a few comments on Richard Attenborough.

Rae West. Uploaded 2 Dec 2019

This piece is dated 10 Aug 2022, for a fairly good reason: Amid the rubbish scraps (in the same style as about 100-years earlier, Tit-Bits in unholy union with the Boer Wars) on msnbc, a brief piece referred to a scandal in German TV, first a makeover for half a million, soon swapped for a car scandal. But a story talked of the budget of many billions from Germany. Obviously part of the Jewish victory usually dated 1945ish.
The story soon vanished, leaving perhaps only a hint of questions, such as whether it's possible to begin to estimate these huge frauds.

The previous evening (I watched) a - what is he? - Huw Edwards: actor? agent? rent boy? poser? announced the BBC news. He read the NHS dentistry system is on the point of collapse (or something; no new clients being taken on). Some actress, extra, or something said her teeth are falling out. How much in fact do teeth cost? Should viewers be expected to pay—after all, Jews endlessly push immigration, so are their darlings losing their teeth? I can't be the only person thinking this rubbish isn't news. I don't think Edwards was one of the phonies pushing 'COVID' for a few years. There must be elaborate codes, resembling Victorian etiquette rules: I'd guess none of the uneducated but 'middle class' women cluttering the BBC would deal with any technical topics. And I'd guess the supposed top dogs never deal with serious face-to-face topics; obviously.

10 Aug 2022

QUIZ 3 part TV thing - one of a series of other part things. Some more than three (I think).

Must be advertising difficulties, in view of the media-promoted coronavirus fraud, which perhaps in turn will be 'factionalised' in years to come, with prompters and continuity people and a headphoned miscellany of cheerleader types and sheepherders. I suppose the dull contrivances supposedly from Downing Street showing actors who don't mind TV fraud are in fact surrounded by a small mass of people with boards and gestures and headsets, stepping between cables and avoiding lights.

Interesting re-run of the real story, if it was real, of Major Ingrams, presented here as nice but dim, the actor being I think the bloke who was in Pride and Prejudice a rather long time ago. Probably a Jewish poke at the 'British' Army. The actual recording was never shown, it said here; the whole event was propelled by the legal case, it implied. And by the Major saying "I refute this", an accurately-observed solecism, no doubt.

Interesting to see the introjection of 9-11, presented as people gawking at TV screens of smouldering damage to asbestos-laden towers, security arranged by shady new Jew owners. Obviously TV people would have some idea how it's done, and known some of the faces, but for the purposes here there's a switch away to everyman sheep style. Wouldn't do to mention other media triumphs of Jews, such as starting wars.

Note the inevitable anti-white theme, part of the world-view of so-called Jews. A longer series showed a white surgeon (well, could be a Jewish actor) pathologically treating women the way Jews do given half a chance. In fact underqualified foreign medicos cause endless damage to white women. For that matter, the Kray twins (violence, ending with property ownership), David Dimbleby (fat father propagandising, Mill Hill synagogue, discussions of harming whites and others), Dr Shipman (medical murders—a perennial Jewish them), Raab of the (((Labour))) Party (something to do with 'kindertransport' and a passport being marked with an order to leave quickly; removed from David Irving's site).
A cornucopia spilling themes. Science fraud, such as the coronavirus hoax, fraud, or cover-story, could be good. Of course, under a ZOG regime, none of these will happen.

As far as I recall, the money-harvesting side was shown with a few actual people reading out questions, which could not have been adequate; in fact telephoners were faced with Tarrant's voice, recorded, presumably digitally, reading his multiple questions, the A B C or D responses identified I suppose digitally.

The aspect of question-setting was entirely skipped (losing the opportunity for jokes involving the easy ones). I can remember someone saying 'Bob Hope' travelled with a team of 20 joke writers in the 1950s. I remember a bunch of people (in 'Mensa'?) being paid for radio jokes, if they were accepted. No scenes of secret meetings and notes of questions; no scenes of the way the questions were selected. All the shady types were external, which may or may not be accurate: a convention of quizzers with their own fake contact names and numbers looked good on the screen.

As a result (I think) of Miles Mathis's relentless investigation of online genealogies, Judith Keppel was found 20 years later to have an ancestry in some royal house connected to her top question. Pdf file here on this site. I wonder if there was funny business connected with her 'patron saint of Spain' question, not perhaps a Jewish interest. Maybe these biographical sources will be removed at some point, so there'll be no points of identification, and the world will be full of people identifiable only by DNA. Imagine the scope for fraud—claimants of all kinds, corrupt judges, coaching in mannerisms and voices.

I couldn't be bothered to try to check on the media masterminds shown as controlling the thing, though I was struck by one presumably Jewish actor made up with what looked like a light blackface. Was this a little joke about the non-whites promoted by the Jews of the BBC? Perhaps from Er ist weider da.

A lot was made of the mock-up 'fastest finger first' device. But nothing was made of the possible acting techniques which might be used in the cough-coaxing cycling through the questions.

The actor playing Tarrant had a very realistic mimicry of his throat-clearing nervous mannerism - there must be a word for it - perhaps digitally sampled; I'd guess there's not much lip-reading problem.

The boardroom types seemed anxious over their million pound prize, and it's hard to guess whether this reflects reality; Endemol (?) were reported to have made billions, unless this was an innumeracy artefact. And of course the publicity would keep the punters phoning in.

The security aspects, doormen, name checks, corridors, separation of streams of people, wasn't hinted at; probably there were more than enough extras.

Tonight there's part 3, the legal stuff, another aspect of the world maltreated by the media. At the time Quiz is set, not only was 9/11 being staged, and 'reality TV' showing carefully-edited real people with real lack of knowledge, but the McLibel case was dragging on, an was itself made into TV with real extracts from transcripts.

Fascinating, or depressing, glimpse into the untidy world of deception introduced perhaps by Marconi. These Italians, eh.

... Saturday night quizzes January 2022

Just a few jottings, in unenthusiastic mode, feeling the effects of the Jewish victory of the World Wars.

If I'm reading things correctly, TV is feeling the pressure of declining viewers, as their one-time monopoly fades away, just as cinema audiences slowly but inevitably slid away after their high point in the 1930s and 1940s. Leaving cavernous unwanted buildings. The Jewish printed money extravaganza makes assessment unclear and vague, because there's so much cross-subsidy. But much of the current Jewish push of lies remains intact: adverts for mixed race TV with strong hints of mixed-race sex, and the Jewish promotion of queers and trannies is here, and hints of bisexuals in the impossible technical sense, lurk. Adverts presumably for pay seem weirdly cheap, with unidentifiable actor, if they count as actors: I suppose Equity cards are handed out to anyone toeing the Jewish lines.

I watched The Wall with some interest; after the falling balls (in the tradition of historical probability, designed to appeal to the folk mind), near the end, was a bit involving a contract. One person from a team was kept in isolation, at least in theory. I don't have detailed knowledge of quiz or game shows, but isolation is obviously intended to simulate part of people's lives, not just to cut out whispers and hints.
I'd guess this is to help instil the idea that contracts are fixed and immutable. People might wonder whether they have to obey things like COVID frauds, politicians not doing what they said they'd do, teachers secretly allowing odd rubbish. TV watchers (familiar with J M Keynes on probability; not that many) will recall his theme of decisions made with incomplete information. If they'd worked things out based on duff information, Keynes says the decision was correct. As fits with Jew attitudes, he avoided the issue of intentionally concealed evidence.
This show uses standardised techniques: recorded laughter, and an audience with a conductor (or cheerleader?) making them cheer and clap on clue. Oh, well. The BBC prizes all seem to be for 'charity', which in practice must mean something controlled by Jews; they love paperwork and companies and getting fees and stashing away money without distributing it, generally pretending to be charitable! 'Independent' TV prefers to have carefully-controlled cash prizes; they seem to have processes to direct this to blacks, who usually display their racial bias against education.

Another one was Pointless, with Alexander Armstrong as presenter, or 'talent', or whatever. With Osman (presumably another Jew descendant from the Ottoman Empire) giving out official truth. This time we had an agonisingly silly woman in the Church of England, with prepared lines on prayer and consecration and the Jewish rubbish which has so permeated Europe and rewarded some of its adherents. She was on cue on Schindler's List, the famous fake and 'Academy Award winner'. Jews love these fake awards—as in 'award winning'—and of course slant entirely to their own propaganda. Nothing on Stalin. Nothing on dead white soldiers. Spielberg's mountain of jokes was 1993; later than I'd thought—but perhaps earlier; it's hard to remember, with this suspended animation stuff.
Pointless seems to have difficulty collecting 'celebrities' who want to pretend a few thousand is what they work for. Fascinating to see insertion of psyops; this one had a colonel on the moon, and a trip to Mars. Guaranteed by Osman. It's amusing to see him praise people at home who may have got the most obscure items, such as actors in old films who nobody of the 100 who were allegedly asked remembered in 100 seconds. "Very well done if you got that at home."

its about 8.30 now. I managed to face the wheel thing with someone called Michael McIntyre, the name probably taken by a Jew to sound like a native Brit. Celtic fringe names allow cover for first-generation parental odd pronunciations. Interesting studio appearances of easy chairs rotating about a central seated figure. They seemed arranged with a large radius, to conform to the nonsense of 'social distancing'. Expertises included Jaws (an old film) and other such things.

I even took in Ant and Dec, one-time new lads 'on the block' with Geordie dialect bits and pieces. Two white girls in one team, and two black girls described as being 'from Romford' or somewhere in another. It's amusing to see the lack of everyday cleverness of blacks; with the introductory questions (to 'build lives') they clearly had no clue. And the more or less fake later questions. Average class size in secondary schools during lockdown period? Exactly 22. Sure. I don't think they even had an audience. Adverts for junk food and consumer electrics and cars (what will happen with electricity? Are they designed to stop long distance travel?) made a rather weary parade.
A rather odd ad, with the compulsory mixed races, said lots of money would be made available for 'carers'. They failed to mention that many were expected to be sacked, for not wanting to be jabbed with an experimental product which had killed many. I can't imagine why they kept quiet. Same reason they preferred not to mention Jew-promoted immigrant incompetent doctors?

The Chaser 2024

To my surprise, I found I only had one entry on this in science-revisionism!
What made an impression on me was an episode of the Jewish 'general knowledge' quiz programme on TV, The Chaser hosted by Bradley Walsh, who shows the signs of thinking he's a Jew, masquerading as a Cockney, with a vague recognisable simulacrum of amiability. A quizzee was introduced as Tobin, who said she had a degree in meteorology. I don't believe she was capable of serious work, but clearly when there are Jew-promoted frauds, incompetent 'experts' can be wheeled out, in Heather Couper style.
I watched a few days ago (January 2024; time flies) a charity version of Celebrities take on the Chasers, or something like that. Everything in it was Jew propaganda! The charities wanted money for Jewish issues; the host was Jewish; the financing and all the rest must be 'Independent' Jewish funding; the questions are Jewish; the 'chasers' are selected on Jewish grounds—with the usual difficulties of finding blacks and women, and here we have a fat woman as representing two Jew aims. They must have drawn the line at homosexuals, though I may have missed things.
We have a challenger, woolly-headed Jew, supposedly a stand-up comedian. His questions included a Jewish Hebrew speaking actress, and his charity did 'good work for refugees'. Possibly part of the current manoeuvring with Jew-funded Hamas, which looks like exporting a lot of Palestinians. We had a white woman footballer, of course another Jew thing, like the whole of football. She seemed to know little, just right for Jews dealing with whites. She may have been a Jew; truly amazing how successful the censorship is. Curious to see a bunch of pub quiz 'experts' working as a group of 4 or 5; they know little, but of course there's no way to know how much was arranged beforehand. We also had Alexander Armstrong, of a quiz show called Pointless, looking older and greyer. I'd guess yet another actor who ever really made it. And so on. They all applauded and laughed like the puppets they are.

RW

Top of Page

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of Strictly Come Dancing: Competitive Dressage for Human Horses. Under the Jewish Thumb
Immense Irrelevance of Formal Dancing. With Digital Technology 19 November 2016 23:22

It's not only BBC Newsnight which peddles Jewish propaganda. Virtually all BBC prime-time broadcasts are conducted by employees, contestants and audiences who are predominantly Jewish. For example, take the most popular show on BBC; Strictly Come Dancing, the two presenters, the four judges, the contestants and the audience are predominantly Jews. Not surprising really given that the BBC have a Jewish Board of Governors; who were appointed by the Jewish Establishment.

Thus an online comment I noticed. The BBC Newsnight is a reference to its post-election edition: the editor, two out of three of the main presenters, and all seven of the main interviewees in Washington and London were Jewish. From a review by Francis Carr Begbie. I may as well give the names and quasi-qualifications: The editor [Ian Katz], two [sic] out of three of the main presenters [Emily Maitlis | Mark Urban | David Grossman], and all seven of the main interviewees in Washington and London [pro-Israel fanatic former US Congressman Eric Cantor | Simon Schama | Melanie Phillips | Evan Davies | Neoconservative think tanker Danielle Pletka 'senior vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute' | Mary Kaldor, 'professor of global governance at the London School of Economics' | 'Pulitzer prize-winning historian of communism' Anne Applebaum] were Jewish.
The above is recent, of course, but reminded me of another link with Jews, the Soviet Union. Many years ago, a Daily Mail hack of all things pointed out that some exposition of the Soviet Union displayed film of folk dances from parts of the Soviet Union where the locals had survived Jewish genocide. The point he was making is that dancing and politics are poles apart. Ideal mass entertainment, therefore, if dressed appropriately.

I'd assumed the two women prompt-readers were presented, tongue in cheek, as a dark-haired Jew, and a dumb blonde 'shiksa'. Maybe I was wrong.
The name of this competitive show was perhaps chosen to avoid, or include, copyright complexities dating back to Come Dancing, black and white, so long ago was it. Now, it's videoed sometimes in Blackpool, more often in a purpose-built London studio, designed with digital electronics in mind. Poor Blackpool Tower, whose springy parquet dance floor has been joined by halal food, pay-only entertainment areas, and faded hotels. Thanks to Internet, scenes from the new TV studio broadcasts - the word needs updating - can be examined, and it's clear the spotlights are enhanced and the backgrounds, floor designs, and close-up effects (e.g. gold 'stars') digitally processed. It's also clear that a lot of effort goes into the staged dancing, at least judging by the cameras which are seen in the wider views. And the staged location apparently up stairs where the scores are announced to be in.

Another copyright, or union, issue must be the use of an orchestra, and singers, to present pastiches of songs well-known in their recorded versions. Some of these are quite painful; most musical instruments can't manage modern computerised waveforms and processing, and the voices may not work - I noticed Leslie Joseph having a go at We're a Couple of Swells. Sigh. 'Live' in one sense only of 'live music'.

The information permafrost of the BBC, prevents leakage of techniques to the warmer outer world: when did you ever read or see a BBC newswriting hack explain what he or she had to do? Are 'migrants' competent to do the highly technical stuff? Is there a more modern version of green screens, such as small dots, or standard luminance, deployed? Some viewers might be interested. Are there really any outsiders in the audience, or are they safer trained extras?

A browse online tells us that a Jewish charity raised £2.75 million, for 'vulnerable children and their families, children with special educational needs and people with learning disabilities'. Jewish inbreeding produces more than a fair share of genetic oddities, but luckily the Bank 'of England' can print enough. We're told 'Judge Rinder' (a barrister?) joined ... Greg Rutherford and [TV programme] judge Darcey Bussell. I don't know if Bussell thinks she's a Jew - probably, as she seems to go to North london synagogues - though a memory comes to me of another prima ballerina, Simone Clarke, who would not be invited to judge.
On the subject of charities, BBC Children in Need is still begging for money. There are many white British children whose parents, or parent, are homeless, as a result of Jewish anti-white racial supremacy. The rich Jewish tradition of course includes child sex; no doubt the sh*ts who arrange the programming approve.
More on charities: all 'Jews' in Britain are required to agree with their chief freak that nonwhite invasion of Europe should continue. See for example Jews Want 'Migrant Crisis'

It's curious how little technical detail Bussell gives, probably because ballroom and formal dancing has little connection with ballet. The other judges emit value judgements, but, at least in the samples I saw, with no reason, as dog shows assign points to characteristics of dog breeds, in what appear arbitrary ways. It's not deemed necessary for dancers to have their ears surgically reshaped, but elaborate clothing and smiles are obligatory. I was somewhat transfixed by the oafish Ed Balls, or whatever his real name was, trying to dance Gangnam Style, its Korean video being the most watched voluntary moving image of all time, excluding ads. He seems to have a free pass, perhaps to pretend that Jewish politicians can at least do something.

Another curiosity is the distribution of types of the 'professional dancers' and their temporary partners. With Jewish visual adverts, absurd mixtures are used, including half-caste and assorted mixed children who obviously don't belong in their fantasy family. Something similar applies in Strictly Come Dancing. I think I detected a Ukrainian woman in there, and was reminded of our glorious Queen, who must occasionally entertain various Rothschilds to cucumber sandwiches, and may be perhaps be uncomfortably pricked by thoughts of Russian royalty, related to her, murdered, raped, and otherwise entertained by Jews in their traditional cellars. They might to better to stick to cavorting and/or escort activities, or whatever 'professional dancers' get up to..

The message at the end - "Keep on dancing!!" - is rather absurdly contradicted by the images of straining, sweating, panting performers. But that's shoah business.

In an episode I watched we had 'Remembrance Sunday' (November 13, 2016). I'm unsure whether Sunday is chosen to pretend the Church of England (now under the Jew, Welby) has any significance, or perhaps because it's a day off from ruining Britain and running fake charities. However we were treated to some lachrymose lies and performances by Len Goodman in his East End voice and cloth cap, and Rinder, and no doubt many others. By now it's clear Churchill was a Jewish puppet of a repulsive type, and Britain's assets were used to kill Germans, support Stalin and kill Russians, and transfer Britain's empire to the Jews running the USA. It will be some time before these things are 'remembered' by the 'British' Broadcasting Corporation. Such is the gratitude of so-called 'Jews' for people who supposedly saved them. (December 2017: I noticed Gary Oldman, an actor, who was reported as offended Jews, in a hack role as Churchill—I've only seen an ad extract, I suppose quite funny. At roughly the same time we have a film about Dunkirk, promoted on TV by simple people who may have been at the 'Blitz'. I have no way to estimate ordinary people's reaction to the continual onslaught of garbage.

Top of Page

Tenko

BBC and ABC of Australia. 1981-1985 is the information online. Of some interest as propaganda for the victory of Jews 35 or 40 years after the nominal end of WW2. (I'm posting this because 2022 appears to be the start of a reshowing on what is one of the lesser known BBC broadcasting fragments).

One of the residues of WW2 is the feeling that multiple rapes were carried out by Japanese troops. This was promoted by the Jewish publisher Victor Gollancz in Britain, and the entire Jewish media in the USA. The 'rape of Nanking' was a propaganda item, somewhat reminiscent of other Jewish propaganda, though dwarfed by Jews on the fake 'Holocaust'. The supposed victims being Chinese being one limiting factor. It's now known widely, I think mostly because of the influence of Internet, that rapes of central European women by Jew-controlled 'soldiers' were the genuine article. Australians did the same thing in Vietnam, which may have had something to do with the late timing.

Japan seems to have been inducted into the world of Jewish fantasy by the Russo-Japanese war, funded of course by the Rothschilds in the early 1900s. They may have hated Tsarist Russia, but maybe this was a cover story, since Russian aristocrats had long been infiltrated by jews, in the same manner as Britain, France, and Germany. It's hard to believe now, but Japan was on the same side as the UK in the 'Great War'. As a test of the integrity of historians, see if they can work out what aspects of Jewish activity caused all this. It's a similar more-than-triangular example of realpolitik and real finance as the US 'civil war'.
Bear in mind that Jewish paper money supported, not just the USA since the Federal Reserve of 1913, but among others the UK, France, Germany, Italy, the USSR, and Japan.
And bear in mind the Jewish collaboration which paid China to take on the Jewish burden of 'Communism'. With vast numbers of deaths. Confucianism was a victim of fanaticism.

Japan, now, is most famous for the claimed atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, now known to have been a fraud, and incidentally a touchstone for journalistic honesty: ever since reading Pilger's rubbish on atomic bombs, I've known he's just more scum. The atomic events are still censored in Japan (after the war there was very complete censorship, by American 'intelligence' operatives). My own site gets very few hits from Japan, far fewer than would be expected; I make some attempt to correct this, naturally not successful. See nukelies.org for a lot of material on this.

An aspect of Jews in Japan (funding their war with Russia in 1900-ish) is the new Japanese elites wanted the bombing to continue—see the career of Curtis LeMay. Probably part of the process of Jew control, including central bank and legal structure. And of course propaganda.
Here's a 2012 piece on Herman Kahn and Japan 'as a superpower' and switching to an ally.

Another Japanese speciality was supposed to have been torture. I can remember survivors of WW2 being pitied for their appalling treatment in Japanese camps. The film Bridge on the River Kwai was an attempt at artistic treatment. This of course mirrors the propaganda treatment of Germany, when for example Jewish film directors would arrange the disposition of German corpses. On Japanese corpses, boiling heads to remove flesh was a US activity, which was to some extent publicised by US Jewish media. I suspect this was done to give Jews future ammunition in their anti-white activities.

Many people by now have met the idea that Rosenfeld, or whatever he called himself, President of the Land of the Free, had rigged up the supposed attack on Pearl Harbor. I think the story is still censored as far as possible by Jews, keeping the documents secret.

Some readers might like The Strange Alliance Between Germany and Japan by (as far as I know) a Frenchman, Hexzane527. The alliance of Germany with Japan (read: German Jews with Japanese Jews) was needed as a pretext for the Jews of America to to declare war on Germany. Much of their previous propaganda had said Americans were isolationists.

And some readers might like Hexzane527 on the British Empire in the Far East.

A piece by me is Atrocity Control and Wars.

During WW2, Japan's housing was largely wood; They may have been short of clay, or perhaps fuel to make bricks, or some other reason. So bear in mind that the Japanese soldiery in Tenko may have just received a curt but flowery note that their family had just been burnt to death. As you watch the shitty actresses, in their shitty production, it's something to ponder.

©RW 28th December 2021

Top of Page

The Honest Supermarket (BBC2)

Sunday 24 Nov 2019
Extraordinary how the unaccountable state-funded trash of the media is so stupid. This was presented by Hannah Fry with a collection of half-caste women, part of the BBC Jewish broadcasting policy. At present the BBC is saying nothing useful about Boris Osman and Corbyn, probably really Korbynski or something. Anyway, this was a low-budget thing—low by BBC standards. It included a sort of corner shop called 'The Honest Supermarket', with everyday food items relabelled with honest labels, so far as the simple BBC types could manage.
'We' spend £190 billion on food shopping (i.e. not restaurants, and not alcohol, presumably. Incidentally, someone might point out that alcoholic drinks don't have calories marked on them.) Of this spend, we're told by a dim perky woman that 77p of every pound goes to supermarkets, giving them huge impact. Of course supermarkets have to buy and transport stuff; for all we're told 76.9p might go straight out. "Or do their profits come first?" says dimbo, recipient of part of the billions going to the BBC.
It occurs to me that supermarket invoices could easily enough include calories for foods and drinks (especially strong alcohol); all that's needed is a figure for each item. For that matter with more effort they could print out vitamins and minerals too, perhaps helping to warn over iodine or magnesium deficiency, or hypervitaminosis, excess iron, fluoride etc.

Bottled water is part 1. It segues into plastic packaging.
I think 3 billion litres of plastic bottled water are sold in the UK annually (I presume the cost per litre still is greater than petrol). We're told 'natural mineral water' and 'spring water' must come from a named source. We were also told (by a male) that that bottled water has more microbes per unit volume than tap water, which of course had been chlorinated. As always, nothing was clear.
On microplastics, there was nothing very helpful. Unlike the Jewish attitude to fakes like 'climate change' and the Holohoax and Jewish wars, the chief Jews clearly haven't decided. My own guess is that dust and grit and sand are part of the natural world, but small particles of plastic are mostly inert but potentially inflammable, and can melt and change shape. Dangerous? Nothing in the programme about that.

The next segment was on the word 'natural'. No legal definition. An anonymous package is shown with blueberries and cranberries. The latter are a mass US product; blueberries cost more. So we see a scene on blueberry-infused cranberries.

Fish take up the next segment (long), with a male who spent his life assessing fish, using the 'Torry Scoring system' to assign 1 to 10 points to 'fresh' fish. Naturally this is often frozen, with ice, though I suppose other materials have been tried. The programme might have said something helpful on worms, but of course that would be helpful. An amusing aspect of shows like this is the unrealistic and unreal reactions of the simple woman participants, nose-wrinkling and so on, as though they have no understanding of the kingdoms of nature. The members of the public—I'd guess actors or mixed-race lovers of the Jews' crews—are if anything even funnier, as they clearly have no idea of the realities of food supply. I suppose their lives have been spent receiving free gifts from anti-white Jews, so perhaps it's to be expected.

Pesticides follow, with tractors towing booms with multiple nozzles, filmed to emphasise spray and spindrift. And usual, this was not very satisfactory. I doubt whether the eye candy could pronounce the pesticides, let alone have any idea of what they do, or are supposed to do. Or the quantities within the water. Three people were wheeled out: a woman from the Pesticide Action Network'; funding unstated, qualifications unstated. And a Professor of Toxicology. And a chap discussing the sensitivity of detection—down to parts per billion. 'Cocktails', i.e. symbiotic effects of chemicals got a discussion. The latter chap stated "I'm not a scientist". Naturally his funding wasn't given, either. (Here's my old piece on organophosphates).
Nothing on colourings.

Next (about midway) is a piece on a long-term BBC fraud—it's mutated from new ice age to massive melting of ice to global warming to climate change to 'carbon footprint'. We have a very average-to-dim family of shoppers. Oddly, their visitor was a Berners-Lee, presumably elated to the supposed founder on Internet; I bet he wishes his dad or whoever had managed to get a percentage. He discussed 'high carbon foods', aiming for big ships and hot climates, and convinced animals are inefficient, though they can eat grass or (fish) live in oceans. Foods take up proteins, minerals, fats, sugars, water all extracted from the world. The selected dim family were shocked by the supposed fact that their weekly 'carbon footprint' amounted to that of a car journey of 520 miles. Probably he's aware that Jews own, in the legal sense, vast assets and wouldn't like to comment.
Another comment was that 'around a quarter of food is thrown away'. It's unclear whether they mean weight, or calories, or cost, but it's worth noting that it's possible that supermarkets can easily assess the total colorific content of their food, and estimate how many people it would fill. But the Jewish invasion has been so large, and deliberately uncounted, so the supposed figure probably reflects a large gap in population figures, where of course borrowing from the central bank gives Jews terrific profits in providing housing.

Then we have pizzas, another sad piece of feeble amusement. "25 ingredients??? That's absolutely INCREDIBLE!! It has NOTHING good in it!!" which is like saying cheese on toast in worthless.

They're still banging their drum on sugar, fat and salt. It may be the case that Frank McManus and I successfully attacked the lies about salt; I hope so. Here's our audio in stereo carefully attacking lies about salt in food. It does need elementary chemistry..
On fat, there was a piece on palm oil: 85% comes from Indonesia and Malaya, but as always actual sizes aren't given; the BBC assumes their audiences are innumerate. It appears the nuts (if that's the right word) have double supplies of oils, and oils of usefully different properties. And the trees grow close together. Probably the land is owned by Jews, paid for by paper, but that wouldn't be mentioned. But I would have liked some indication of the areas involved; and fertilisers etc.

There's a RSPO meaning palm oil certified sustainable. That reminds me: nothing was mentioned of the vast scam of Jewish certification schemes, familiar in the USA but not yet here.

The final section, on sugar. I presume because women aren't often any good on science that the actors were all actresses—they're easier to control. And (lol) accompanied by immigrants, often half-caste as the scientific achievements of blacks are negligible. Anyway the terrific irrelevance of female woggos dancing about (meaning "energy" to the simple).
We had a list of sugars including things like 'date sugar'. "The sharp rise in sugar can increase the risk of heart attacks and type II diabetes" we were told. It was odd to see glucose edited out, since this is what's really the active stuff. Maybe the Jews running the BBC own Lucozade, or something like that. The fact is that sugar has had a hugely corrosive effect of teeth since about the 16th century, boosted later by advances in purification of sucrose, transport, everything. I once met a woman with a PhD in chemistry who worked out some way to sweeten Ribena, as it then was, though I know no details, except that she was annoyed at having her work used. I've never ever seen an account of how sugar is converted partially into 'acid'. Information along those lines might have been useful, but of course did not appear, and I'd guess wasn't known to the woman wheeled in from some London college.

In its turn this segued into 'misleading marketing'. A lot of people think brown sugar must be healthier. "It looks healthier! It's brown - I thought there was a difference!" From a selling point of view, this is successful—and if people don't know anything, it's a tribute to the lack of education from (for example) the BBC and Jewish-controlled publishing. The 'Centre for the Study of the Senses' seems to be a university unit that studies the 'huge sensory ambience of supermarkets'. Well, whatever. I expect they do their best. I can't be bothered to look them up.

©RW 26th Nov 2019

Top of Page

University Challenge (Christmas 2018 BBC2)

'Prominent Alumni'

Fascinating, at least to people tuned into and aware of so-called Jews, in the UK after about a century of mass penetration. There is an unquestionable difference in psyche (or perhaps a 'Jewish' word; Id, or Yid?) and native whites. We have two sets of four 'distinguished alumni', one from Peterhouse in Cambridge (Mazer, Horton, Howard—Jew from Wales, once a candidate for Prime Minister), Axworthy; the other from St Catherine's College of Oxford (Boyt—novelist and a director at the Hampstead Theatre, Billington—drama critic for The Guardian, Knowles—controller of BBC Parliament channel, Webber—Emmy, Bafta and Oscar-winning visual effects specialist who had something to do with Gravity, a special-effects fake space film.

Most are, or believe themselves to be, or are connected with Jews. I have no way to estimate the veracity of the presentation here; the applause with its abrupt starts and ends sounded canned, the occasional shot of an audience looked a generic clip. Jeremy Paxman manages to read his cards, but is unconvincing as a polymath (or even monomath). It's obvious, at least to me, that the people on display were imbued with Jewish beliefs: they'd be happy discussing wars against foreigners, Jewish abilities to get passports, ritual holidays, Jewish anti-white processes, Jewish publishing and propaganda, success of the Holohoax fraud, Jewish sex with infants, Jewish money through prostitution, Jewish frauds, Jewish control of archives, Jewish imposition of fake religions around the world, Jews in the USSR, genocide of Germans, the wonderfulness of being 'Chosen', Jews in Spain and Portugal, parts of the world suited to Jews, Jews funding weapons, Rabbinical pronouncements, EU money frauds, shares and returns, donation to Jewish causes, Jewish lawyers damaging families, recently corrupted politicians, Jewish race politics. They had little idea about general knowledge—except awards given by Jews to Jews, and heavily-promoted Jew propaganda through the Jew-controlled media for Jew-controlled wars, famines, cruelty and greed, and such items as the Brest-Litovsk Treaty between Jews and the Jewish-run East India Company.

Christmas University Challenge (2019 BBC2)

I watched several episodes; one between 'Birmingham City University' (i.e. not Birmingham University) and Wadham College, Oxford. Paxman, older and whiter-haired, or perhaps wigged, made it clear the arrangement was voluntary. I recently listened to Nick Griffin and Andrew Carrington Hitchcock on the BBC; for some reason Griffin was worried by Paxton, another long-term Jewish liar, who—such is the power of reputation management and iteration—has been presented as acerbically knowledgeable. All 8 in the two teams were Jews (or maybe has connections with Jewish media) in broadcasting, editing, news, journalism, acting, offshoots of the media. The least impressive was a 'voice actor' in the Archers, a radio story of Britons as simpletons, which I hadn't realised is still broadcast. One of the was the/an editor of the Economist, I think with a degree in English. An extraordinary parade of nothingness. Jonathan Freedland, of the Guardian, a long-term liar, being I think the most public; generally they hide. Possibly worth watching;

If Neanderthal Man is ever proven to have existed, and be recreated, they might form teams and display themselves. Why not watch some episodes of the 'distinguished alumni'?

RW 27 Dec 2018

Top of Page

Review of DOWNTON ABBEY: Jewish propagandist garbage Numerous hack actors and scribblers: Downton Abbey

If you're a simpleton, you may like this superficial simple-minded sentimentality 7 October 2013

Downton Abbey: TV, DVD -- One of many of reviews by 'Rerevisionist' banned by Amazon (Dec 2015).

June 2020: Time for detail, I think. Here are some supporting notes.

The Church of England replaced Catholicism in the 16th century, no doubt for economic reasons. The Bank of England was established in London, after war negotiations between Oliver Cromwell and Menasseh ben Israel. This was the 17th century; by the 18th, poverty was widespread. But not for the Anglo-Jewish victors. Many large country houses dated from this time of cheap labour, though the stories are not widely known or publicised in tourist leaflets and lightweight magazines.
This was before modern transport, apart from horse power, for which stables were necessary. There was little food preservation, including of meat. Kitchen gardens, milking, cooking, cleaning, and heating, were labour intensive. Country houses were in effect small towns, very busy, an aspect not shown in modern film—extras cost money. Rich Jews had something like a monopoly of lending: this is usually ascribed to the Roman Catholic church's religious dislike of usury, but, personally, I don't believe that. Instead I think Roman Catholics were symbiotically linked with Jews, keeping tithes and so on for themselves, in exchange for protecting Jews and their monopolies. This is discreetly suggested by church lands over vast areas, compulsory Sunday attendances in Church but not for Jews, and Jews in cities in the then-equivalent of mansion blocks. All these changes from the much-trumpeted 'Glorious Revolution' were rather jagged and convulsive; most aristocratic houses must have had their own stories to tell, though of course the mediocrity of historians and antiquarians and modern media people keeps them very profoundly hidden, or suppressed or lost.
There are some unconsciously amusing passages in Downton Abbey when they talk of the whole point of tradition among aristocrats, when in fact many of the old families were largely Jewish.
An important illustration was the fleecing of the British aristocracy after Napoleon was defeated: here's an extract from a privately-printed novel by Belloc on the subject. Perhaps worth noting the authorship issue over Jane Austen, which has left such a trail amongst romantic women, young and old. Warren Hastings of the East India Co seems likely to be the father of the real authoress of 'Jane Austen' novels.
Worth noting India and China: many people know of the Opium Wars and Jews, but the story of India where poppies were grown for export is less well-known. The story of the East India Company is even less well-known, though many of these country houses were involved in it.

But the period of ‘Downton Abbey’ is before the 'Great War' and up to the 1926 General Strike. The thalassocratic British Empire grew; even if it was really a Jew empire, it was a remarkable series of events. Railways arrived; the 'industrial revolution'—name it seems supplied by Toynbee—used coal and led to thermodynamics theory; and motor cars chugged into action. British education had uncomfortable domination by obsolete languages and theories. The Church of England entered its period of slow decline, which of course it deserved, showing less-than-zero intellectual skill, and unwilling to be honest about Jews and the Bible because they risked losing their money. Britain seemed comfortable; few people understood the significance of Jewish activities, unsurprisingly as it was hidden carefully. There were forewarnings: one was Randolph Churchill's syphilitic self-ruination, necessitating the sale of hunks of his ancestral lands. Ultimately this led to Winston Churchill becoming a joint wrecker of the world, with Stalin and F D Roosevelt. Another rather large straw in the wind was South Africa, where Jews ended in control of minerals. And another was the Russo-Japanese War, funded by Jews, and very likely taken over secretly by Jews, who had special hatred for Russia.

A few years before the interval containing the fiction of Downton Abbey, poor Jews had been flooding into east London and east and west New York, and other places: Texas and Manchester and Berlin, for example. This included the time of 'Jack the Ripper'. At the time, passports did not exist: travel was expensive, and Jews did not yet secretly fund mass invasions of non-Jews. There was Jewish activity around the Mediterranean, and it has slowly become clear that Jews took over Turkey, Arabia, Persia/Iran, in secret. Bulgarians and Armenian Christians were massacred before the 'Great War'; Downton's educated top layer would certainly have read about it in the Parliamentary debates in the Times, but there would be no discussion of the Jewish part in these things, so most of them would be none the wiser. Many people are not aware that the Jewish Talmud approves of informing the goyim what they are doing, though of course in obscure ways: the idea is, they can't later object to what happened. The 1910-1911 Encyclopædia Britannica was an up-to-date reference of the time, though Jewish material was completely one-sided.

Here's Hilaire Belloc in his book The Jews: The Great War brought thousands upon thousands of educated men (who took up public duties as temporary officials) up against the staggering secret they had never suspected—the complete control exercised over things absolutely necessary to the nation's survival by half a dozen Jews, who were completely indifferent as to whether we or the enemy should emerge alive from the struggle. (see e.g. https://big-lies.org/jews/jews-hilaire-belloc.html ).
An important aspect of the 'Great War' was propaganda; Ponsonby's Falsehood in War-Time (published in 1928, by George Allen & Unwin, themselves Jewish and so no doubt careful what they allowed) gives examples of propaganda, which would certainly have been read and discussed by servants and aristocrats. I haven't wanted to endure the TV series, but it's unlikely anything like this would appear, partly because the massive atrocities by Jews would never feature in Britain's junk media.
A more realistic view of the 'Great War' is presented by Robert Graves in Goodbye to All That, including references to prostitutes, machine gun ammunition being wasted to boil water, war profiteers and so on. Bela Kun and Hitler may have been included; I don't remember. The hack writers don't refer to Jewish war-making; they just attribute such things to the British.

I haven't seen the latter half of the episodes, which includes movies; I'll content myself with giving links to the sort of topics about which Jews would tell lies. I hope the numerous gullible fans will get an idea of how effective systematic deception can be. An interesting example from France is L'Affaire Dreyfus. The French were victims of a series of Jewish scandals, and the Dreyfus Affair was a remarkable example of a very up-to-date multi-media scheme intended to appear to reveal truths about Jewish innocence, to suggest the would-be investors in canal schemes hadn't been swindled, but ultimately to cause many French people to slink away from honesty. To his dying day, Bertrand Russell used Dreyfus as an example of the shocking behaviour of the Church of England, in place of more accurate interpretations of events. The recent bitcoin FTX scheme may be followed by a similar disinformation programme, if it's thought necessary.
The founding of the Labour Party in Britain (about 1900) turned out to be a successful move by Jews. So did the infiltration of trade unions; a Jew in a key position could benefit Jews, but not be noticed, except as a disagreeable type. The 'Labour' Party's policies have always been Jewish. My piece on Jewish propaganda in the UK deals partly with 1900 until about 1948. Jews wanted war, fought by others, probably to cause as many deaths as they could, and vacate housing for 'refugee' Jews and make money from weapon loans. A lot of preparation was needed on top of propaganda: anti-German in Britain, anti-British in Germany, and so on. High income taxes and high inheritance tax ("death duties"—note the word 'duty') and removal of precious metal coins plus paper money from the Fed in the USA, and embryonic insurance frauds—the Titanic and 9/11 being examples; plus votes for in effect illegal immigrants (as now) are discussed by the once-popular historian C N Parkinson, of Parkinson's Law. Another intentionally misrepresented topic is the fight for women's votes, by the suffragettes, the violent form of suffragists. This is a review of a book by a Jew, Simon Webb, who forgot to mention the evidence that some secret types carried out violent attacks; and they wanted war. (The same violence was carried out in Russia and many other European countries by Jews posing as, for example, anarchists). My piece Teaching About Jews has a bit about Belfort Bax, who wrote on the law and women.

Another topic of the time was Ireland, where Jewish money lubricated anti-British violence. (Netanyahu's brother, presumably the one shot in Africa, was named for an (((IRA))) activist - info from Mr Buttle).
On Ireland, it's worth making a few points. Jews had a long-term interest in Ireland, which unfortunately became part of the anti-whites in Europe campaign. Consider, for example, Shatter, the Jew who no doubt with associates forced coloured immigration into Ireland/Eire relatively recently. At the time supposedly shown in Downton Abbey the so-called IRA—perhaps JRA would be more accurate—tried to introduce splits in Britain before the non-Irish de Valera was introduced. One has to wonder how much the 'British' Army understood of all this.

Parallel events happened in the USA: Woodrow Wilson's blackmail by Jews. The Federal Reserve in 1913. The 'Anti-Defamation League' fraud in 1913. Sieff funding the Jewish coup in Russia. Baruch running the entire USA after Woodrow Wilson was blackmailed by Jews into betrayed the USA.

It's mildly interesting to see Jewish clichés clothed by hack writers. For example, during the 'Great War' music-hall songs by Jews were written to match the current propaganda force. Later, Jews were very keen that there should be no investigation and no looking into hard-faced men who looked as though they did very well out of the war. 'Squeezing Germany till the pips squeak' was a slogan of the time. The idea of the 'Roaring Twenties', with 'flappers' and Noel Coward's 'Dance Little Lady, Dance' were distractions from the War and the disastrous loans taken up by politicians.
I noticed a few pitiful references to education: Daisy being told to read up on 'the War of the Spanish Succession' and the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' in England, with the takeover by Jews. It's pitiful because of its accuracy: the First World War ignored, Jewish successes underlined.

[Wow, what a long piece—I'd forgotten! I noticed (12 Feb 2021) that Hugh Bonneville is quoted as saying that if people weren't injected, there'd be no more episodes! Well, that's good news. I expect agents have been busy planting stories: I see the old poof and 'AIDS activist' Reg Dwight is advocating jabs, and so is Micklethwaite.]

The scriptwriter, now I look, is or is supposed to be Julian Fellowes. The obvious guess is: probably another Jew. All the plotting is Jew related: the relief at mass killings in the Great War; the insistence that everything is getting better; the entire failure to appreciate aristocratic networks; the accurately-observed suppression of evidence (nothing on the 1913 Fed; nothing on Jews flooding in planned style to western Europe; nothing on suffragettes as working for war; nothing on planned death duties; nothing on wartime removal of gold; nothing on the monarchy hiding its German and Jewish roots); the standardised set pieces on homosexuals, newspapers, education upon the 'Glorious Revolution' and war pretexts. And of course Jews in Bavaria and the rise of Hitler, official version. Just this very day I've read a Miles Mathis piece giving evidence that Rommel was a Jew.

It is infinitely wearying to continue; there are endless examples. A near-death experience.

I picked up a chucked-out paperback, The Vintage Book of War Stories. About 40 extracts edited by two scribblers. I wondered vaguely if there were stories of loans to both sides of war debts for two hundred years; or accounts of guts being spilled and woemn bayonetted; or the fantastical nonsense of jewish Talmudic spite and hatred; or such events as deaths hastened by lack of food ascribed to Spanish flu; or some novelettish treatment of the desirability of causing deaths of others. Maybe there were.

RW - 3 June 2020/ 7 Aug 2021/ 11 Dec 2022

My Original Review!
Really extraordinary garbage. The war with Germany was a disaster. It's amusing in its way to see how stupid the actors, scriptwriters and all the rest are; they have no idea about the world. The presentation of families—whose (for example) sons from Eton had died imagining they knew what they were fighting for, or of course the more numerous simple lads who volunteered, but later of course had to be forced to 'fight' by conscription as the realities became clearer. Or the payers of death duties on their dead sons; the total lack of any news—on, say, Lloyd George, or sea warfare, or how the war was paid for (the year after Jews formed the Federal Reserve, for people needing a hint), or the heavy mortgages these palely-portrayed fading aristocrats, portrayed by failed actors, were under, or who was promoting the killings, or how the USA was persuaded to send their sons to be killed, and why...

.. Or how the war profiteers made their money out of death. Or how the newspapers of the times lied. ...

Judging by the general appearance, the thing was put together with people interested in clothes, and little else, certainly not ideas. There's very little on theatre sensations, the new cinema or 'kinema', developments in the telephone, housing styles, new laws, Alpine climbing, Ascot, tennis fashions, the new Lyons Corner Houses, Bradshaws Railway Guide, etc etc etc etc etc. Fortunately it doesn't matter; in years to come people will dust off DVDs of the recently-deceased and puzzle over the poor taste of now.

The British acting 'profession' has a union, Equity. The US version was founded in 1913, and as would be expected seems dominated by 'Jews'. I just saw their website, actorsequity.org, which has a list of 'Do Not Work' warnings. As a topical British note, I see Jeremy Corbyn, the Jewish 'Labour' politician, was once head of 'Equity' in the UK. One of their rules is that nothing 'racial' shall be performed. (Check the exact wording—if you can find it. Their rules are hidden, now. One of their campaigns is pro-BBC, under a Jew called Cohen and with 'creativity' controlled by a Baghdad Jew called Yentob). Every single actor you see had to join. The facts about country houses—taxed into oblivion to pay Jews who loaned paper money to pay whites to kill each other— will not appear if Equity has anything to do with it. You can almost feel Corbyn's circumsized erection as he goes into battle to support Jewish mass murders in Russia and do his uneducated best to support the 'Holocaust' fraud and child rape.

I recently noticed a series in 'Independent' television about American heiresses entering British high society. I presume this is a reference to Jews moving into the British aristocracy, as it was slowly impoverished, for example by Rothschild after Waterloo. The stellar example of course being Churchill. More garbage.

I've occasionally chatted with hack writers in authors' associations: it's amusing that their light material, usually on class, applies to themselves: all are subservient, more so than any normal 19th or early 20th century person. Don't be a sentimental cabbage and watch this garbage. Everyone connected with this production is worthless. **** the whole lot of them.

Top of Page

Jews, Quizzes, History, Blood, Dracula, British TV

About New Year's Day 2020. A three-part video entitled Dracula was broadcast on the BBC and Netflix; I may call it the 'Netflix version' to clarify the Jewish links. (I haven't bothered with the PR/ publicity/ ordinary reviews/ general BS attitudes, so far as these have been made public).

BEFORE and AFTER. Notes for British TV viewers; it happens here, too.
Watched some of Jeremy Paxman, who appears to be another undeclared 'Jew'. By chance I found a paperback, Through the Volcanoes, on South America, first published in 1985 by Michael Joseph, a Jewish publisher. (Britain, or Jews in Britain, have some interest in Belize). This book appears to have been ghosted, by 'Robert Harris', who apparently has written dozens of Jew propaganda books, such as Fatherland. I think I'm right is saying that ghosted books are a common device to hide Jewish origins, just as Jewish ownership of advertising agencies is only a recent discovery of the revisionist communities).

Ghostly 'Robert Harris' according to the Society of Authors

Anyway, Paxman surfaced on Christmas University Challenge a Jew-free quiz programme which always avoids Jewish issues. Paxman has a fairly authoritative manner, if he's not challenged. The once-famed Nick Griffin of the BNP said Paxman said "bollocks" to the concept that BBC routinely lies about crime figures! Bollocks indeed. Griffin had investigated the BBC. Let me insert a note on a recent video by Jan Lamprecht, pointing to black and other billionaires in Africa as recorded by Forbes, omitting all private ownership. There are quite a few, never of course mentioned in 'general knowledge' quizzes.
University Challenge has teams of four people who once attended their named universities, including Leeds University—a Jewish stronghold. It's astonishing how weak they are. Probably it's a CV thing—virtually all were media types, announcers, readers of scripts, editors, presenters and other junk.
A note on TV ads: many people have noticed the high proportion of blacks, half-castes, and other non-English strangers posing in TV adverts. In years to come, analytical courses on education, if there are any, will no doubt draw attention to these. Perhaps commenting on ads for the Air Force, with emphasis on uneducated loners who will magically feel part of a group. 'News', TV, film, photography and adverts are well-tailored to the Jewish propensity to lie. Any old rubbish will do; any lie. And of course well adapted, from their multinational vantage points, to persuading 'goyim' to kill each other in wars, and harm each other in peace. I've just noticed ads from Subway; cattle killed Jew/Muslim style, throats cut. 'Comedy' shows are low-budget junk with the applause track playing a larger part than the hacks. I even think Have I Got News for You is still on! greyer than ever and supplying an income to Hislop.
I watched a bit of Bradley Walsh, of The Chase, who conducts quizzes and again seems to be a Jew invader into London, judging for example from the way Labbatt said "Oi vey", and Ann Hegerty seemed on familiar terms with a 'kippah', and the apparently red-haired northerner has fantasies about the 'promised land'. With absurd questions on brand names, footballers, almost-forgotten manufactured brand names, 'award winning' useless awards, Jewish views on for example, The Sound of Music, the garbage of Spielberg, people shoved into the 'news' like Greta Thunberg and alien 'politicians', directors of junk. Sad stuff. Don't expect questions on deaths caused by Jews in wars, white farms in South Africa, deaths in the Ukraine, science frauds, money frauds, crypto-Jews and aristocrats! Points passim included "Churchill was half-American!" (Jewish omitted) and questions on 'the Jewish religion' implying it's a religion, not a solidly vicious tribal crime network. Walsh said Buzz Aldrin, the fairly well-known fake, 'laid out' someone with a pnch—not of course true; made a friendly comment on Zuckerberg, as though he'd followed the machinations of Facebook.
Something less heavy, in one sense, is the implication that obesity correlates with general health. The series seems to be 'sponsored' by some online Bingo outfit—Jews decided to push gambling onto the world, and this must be a part of that policy. Sigh.
Three 'chasers' appeared together in (I think) two programmes on ITV, still probably regarded as vulgar and dumb compared with the BBC. Shaun Wallace, the 'dark destroyer', always described as a barrister, very black, said he'd have liked to be more like Nelson Mandela. Just the right view for an 'independent' Jewish TV company. His IQ test gave him 96; his empathy test 99%, I think. I wonder how many people take this sort of thing seriously? Ann Hegerty said as a child she never knew what other children liked; scoring 1 on something like empathy; she said she's 'autistic'. She said her dad had an IQ of "151", the fake precision and unawareness of more than one scale being a bit worrying. The fatty Labbett was pleased his 'IQ' measurement was 151, he said 150 is 'genius level', so he's a genius. Yeh, of course you are. I doubt he knows what 'genius' means. One of the odd things was seeing young girl, naturally with a non-English name, perhaps Indian; not important, who'd memorised supposed facts about the human brain. Such as the surface area of the cortex spread out measures (I think) 1200 square centimetres. More spurious figures; and more staff on neurons etc. Obviously the girl hadn't a clue about serious science. I suppose it's aimed at women funded to mock up science as a female pursuit. Some of the amusement here is provided by Americans, anxious to get funding for their crap. An earlier program showed an American male, probably a Jew, doing his chosen race thing, pretending an animal could talk. And there's more. Do people assembling these junk TV things really believe animals are conversing? Not that it matters, really. There's a series of films and TV things like this dating back. All sad rubbish.
Bradley Walsh appeared in Doctor Who which is still turned out since about the mid-1960s, or something. It's comic to watch, as stale as Jools Holland on New Year's Eve. Recent episodes include the Jewish/BBC insistence on blacks and women, and also versions of Jewish psyops of the blacks in the USA of the 'civil rights', NAACP, etc, including incidentally refusal to mention white victims of black violence. There's some fascination in decoding Jewish interests; for example, "What is the standard rate of income tax?"

And who's this? I've forgotten, but we have Coren (i.e. Cohen), propagandist against Amin of Uganda, who turns out not to be quite as Coren promoted in the now-defunct Punch. His daughter, Victoria, carries on the tradition of name-changing and promoting anti-British claims: some woman is "the crusading journalist who exposed the Windrush scandal—not of course the Jewish shipowner. Fascinating to see British 'public schools' given discreet advertising, since Jewish paper money and other scams can pay for them. Look at Boris Johnson'!
Oh, a 2017 note says Martin Bashir (an alleged journalist) has real name Abraham Warsawsky. Andrew Marr, guess what, had a book The Making of Modern Britain 'from Queen Victoria to V.E. Day' published in 2009. It really does end in 1945, which I suppose marked the victory of Jews over Europe. So why not end there? Its index has exactly two single entries about Jews. Viewers are about to be subjected to a TV History of England by a rather ugly beak-faced Jew, usually called Tony Robinson, obviously unfit for any serious topic. Ahah—the news. A vast electronic studio. News of fires in Australia. Unprecedented? Normal? Deliberate? Sinister? Here's (I think it was) Huw Edwards, I'd guess another descendant of name-changers doing his best to act. Australian fires—no experts, just banal interviewees saying nothing. With Edwards doing his acting best. Just imagine the atrocities and lies he's helped cover up. Bit of 'human interest' from professional liars. I watched for climate change frauds. Well, a bit. A news piece on a mass raper or two, who turn out to be non-white, but only on investigation.
I was amused to see Jeremy Clarkson—another Jew? He may be paid a lot—quizzing a foreigner called something like Multicurry, evidently with the intellect of a lemur, and described as a TV announcer. Someone said he'd been in Iraq; Clarkson said nothing about the fraud of 9/11, nothing to do with Afghanistan. Naturally Clarkson said nothing. I find (((BBC))) news distressing, with people like Fiona Bruce reading anonymous pieces, like some old whore presumably does to please some impotent potentate. Reminded me of a piece including Judith Keppel by 'Chachi Bayou': You know how she [Judith Keppel] got on the show? She was the granddaughter of the Earl of Albemarle. But they have to keep the population hooked on the idea that with enough smarts or enough luck, anyone can strike it rich. Want proof Keppel's win was a sham? Through the noble lineage of her aforementioned grandfather, her ancestry can be traced back to Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II of England, who were the subjects of her one million-pound question on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? The relevant question being Which King was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine?.

Anyway, that's the surrounding unpleasant ambience. The script is credited to Gatiss—see my overlong review of the failed film Denial, no doubt to be used in future as 'factual'. Dracula is co-authored or helped out by Steven Moffatt, who (it says online) is a writer or something of Dr Who and Sherlock Holmes. Dr Who is laughable rubbish written to conform to Jewish guidelines on blacks, queers etc, and omission of Jews. It includes the quiz chap, and a female Dr Who. One episode was based around the Jew-staged Rosa Parks incident. Imagine having to work for shits like those! I'd expect the casting couch to run with blood. After all, if you're chosen by god, fvcking shiksas is your right.

Let's try a bit of 'deconstruction' of the entire Dracula phenomenon.

On Abraham Stoker, 'Bram Stoker', I'll assume Jewish ancestry. Stoker is said to have been born in Clontarf, which turns out to be within modern Dublin, and in 1900-ish presumably near Dublin. Dublin has a Jewish Museum, no doubt with exhibits as truthful as holocaust fraud museums. Stoker admired Irving, of the Dublin theatre and perhaps music-halls. And he wanted to be published, following perhaps the model of H G Wells and Conan Doyle and others, for that matter Dickens—magazine first, then book publication. I'm guessing that Stoker looked around for material. He wrote a number of thrillers, none with anything like the sales of Dracula.
On looking glasses/mirrors, it occurs to me that Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890) could have influenced Stoker, who actually knew Wilde.
Poe's story on the unquiet grave might have left a mark, too.
The characters include Jonathan Harker, Wilhemina (known as 'Mina'), and a vampire hunter, van Helsing, in the Netflix version a nun. Note the internationalism, no doubt connected with the Jewish thalassocracy. Stephen King in his introduction says Dracula is an epistolatory novel, though it includes diaries in addition to letters. It's possible this indirect use of others' language allowed Stoker to seem more British, just as Joseph Conrad used sailors' yarns to build up his stories.
Locations that flitted around included Romania, Wallachia, Transylvania, resembling (say) Bavaria, and area rather than a precisely-defined holding. In retrospect, the nationalist movement in Europe, notably Germany and Italy, were liked by Jews, as amalgamate larger areas, but not too large to allow opposition to Jews.
Hungary has a special role in Jewish studies, being the scene of a Jewish take-over around 1918, attributed to Bela Kun. It's a measure of Jewish media control that supposed 'leftism' in fact is a violent takeover by Jews aiming to control all resources in a territory. And yet Marxism is presented as liberating force. It's horrifying to find the same principle now in Africa, with miscellaneous thugs tolerated in the background, who no doubt would be thrown out if they thought that perhaps they should help some of their ever-enlarging numbers of the very poor. Hungarian 'Jews' include Soros.
In fact, the revivified and undampened Dracula makes incredulous remarks on ‘rights’. It now seems likely that the whole ‘democracy’ program, including Tom Paine, and Bentham, both with long, long hairsplitting writing styles, were Jewish-funded.

Dracula is curiously lied about, in the Jewish style. Vlad the Impaler, according to my version, had sharpened stakes posted in the ground, on which Muslims anuses were penetrated, to penetrated to emerge at the neck. An unsubtle hint. It's possible the stake-through-the-heart comes from this. Garlic and silver bullets are erased from this 4&frac;12 show. It's noticeable how Muslims and Europe are undiscussed, under the ZOG regime. For example, Brewer's Phrase and Fable has hardly any entries on the Siege of Vienna, White Slavery, Mediterranean piracy, and black slavery. It seems Jews turn out to be responsible for writing the Quran, as Mohammed is regarded as illiterate. It's possible the Arabic alphabet was a Jewish right-to-left invention. The general ideas are similar to the Talmud, in their attitude to host communities, though they are more static than Jews, just like Christians, until calls to violence come from Jews.
The Netflix version has nothing on any of this. However, Dracula's life seems to vary from 300 to 500 years, suggesting that Bram Stoker had some honest ideas. Incidentally, only Jews could call an invasion, 'the Muslim diaspora'!
"To feed off the civilised you have to learn to live amongst them" said the nun van Helsing in conversation with Dracula. If I've deciphered my scribble correctly. An interesting comment on Christianity as a parasitic structure, like Judaism.

The characters include Jonathan Harker, Wilhemina (known as 'Mina'), and a vampire hunter, van Helsing, in the Netflix version a nun. Note the internationalism, no doubt connected with the Jewish thalassocracy. I haven't re-read the book; the sea voyage to north-eastern England from what seems a Russian Baltic port may not have been thought out properly. Perhaps Budapest and Bucharest were muddled? Certainly the book can be regarded as a view from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, its multi-currency failed melting point pointing the way to Germans and north-west Europe.

Stephen King in his introduction says Dracula is an epistolatory novel, though it includes diaries in addition to letters. It's possible this indirect use of others' language allowed Stoker to seem more British, just as Joseph Conrad used sailors' yarns to build p his stories.
Locations that flitted around included Romania, Wallachia, Transylvania, resembling (say) Bavaria, an area rather than a precisely-defined holding. In retrospect, the nationalist movement in Europe, notably Germany and Italy, were liked by Jews, to amalgamate larger areas, but not too large to allow opposition to Jews.
Another name is Westenra, in the Netflix version as half- or quarter- negro, with lots of emphasis on beauty. (In the world of ZOG, everyone has to be told what beauty is; see the ads by George Clooney). No mention of the use of skin whiteners in vast areas of the world. Or the project by Jews of inseminating black women. I wondered if an element of voudoux might be introduced. With chicken giblets flying around? But this might be uncomfortably close to the Jewish chicken-twirling ritual garbage.
Or why not another Jewish thing, animal sex? Maybe the ship's cat... That might have got the commenters commenting.

Just a note on vampires. Vampire bats are only found (as yet) in the Americas, mainly south America. According to Wiki they were described in 810 and 1826, but my best guess is that Stoker read about it in 1901. (Something by Oldfield Thomas). They drink, or eat, blood from cattle and horses, though as far as I know these were European imports. Another best guess is that they evolved to prey on sloths, upside-down and all but inert. They are small bats with small jaws, with 'razor sharp teeth', a long tongue, and feed from tiny incisions. These are in the original novel, but not Netflix. They fly with their mouths open, squeaking, and using their nasal leaf structures for sound processing, something which might prove an acting challenge. Mr Bang had teeth inserts with several sharp 'canines'; I wonder if Alien suggested these?

I'd guess this anachronism appealed to Stoker as part of the Jewish blood sacrifice rituals. On blood, one of alchemy's quests was stated to be searching for eternal life. Now, when even chat quizzes have heard of the periodic table, chemistry is respectable, but it strikes me this may be a cover-story; perhaps the aim was to combine Jewish blood killings with blood consumption. Maybe this accounts for the historically-inherited horror of alchemy in 'goyim'.

On wolves in the original east European stories, 'werewolves' just spread shit around, possibly a genuine observation from scavenging wolves. At any rate, Netflix avoided this,

On science it's curious how feeble Jewish fictional science is. Much easier to copy! I'd hoped with a whole-hearted update to get something on DNA, for example. Or on coffin flies, or the 'Lord of the Flies', Beelzebub.

On horror, Netflix gives oddly pale and etoliated horror, possibly Jewish, self-centred versions—with victims in bits still squirming, for example. But what is real horror? Much of it is Jewish! Consider a chemical warfare plane, spraying a village in Vietnam; as the cloud sinks, mass miscarriages take place. Or perhaps US gum chewers lining up women to rape. Or Eisenhower ordering Germans to be isolated to die in fields, with long prolonged deaths. Or bodies as torches of flame in melted asphalt. Or Russian girls raped and buried in cellars. All of course hidden by Jews. Netflix shows for example close-ups of hands, with oddly long fingers, and fingernails coming off.

The designers didn't seem to worry much about interiors, which seemed more like old sets of the Crystal Maze, or the Hellfire Caves, or staircases resembling Hogwarts. I noticed a 7-candle Jewish thing at one point. There must have been green screen style backgrounds.

The second part has a Demeter embarkation scene, shore only, with bearded English-speaking Russian-accented actors—based on 19th century photos of e.g. Dostoievsky. Inevitably with Jew, absurd black actors appear—a sort of Sambo in a bowler hat as with Jewish advertising agencies. The 'ship' has large static interiors, though a spare person tugs on a lantern to give a faint impression of sea swell. And a small crew, I suppose to save money.
The passengers find themselves, after a few disappearances, in an Agatha Christie plot in which characters in an isolated hotel find they were all invited by a mysterious chap—Blauer, in this case.
The main actor, Claes Bang, is described as Danish, though with the Jewish press this often means Somali or something. I'd take a hefty bet he's a Jew (or says so in secret etc) since presumably he was paid more than the others, and money is kept in the loop. Other versions had 1992: Gary Oldman, 1997: Louis Jourdan). He looked to me a sort of lower-class aristocrat, but this may have been a Jewish in-joke. A 'voivode' is a title claimed by gipsies.

I found the use of language rather painful: "Is there a problem?" "You don't know that!" "Reality is overrated" "You have no idea"—anachronistic broadcast media slang. And the trick with a latex mask, and Talmudic Jew-style 'law'—'I have to be invited in' when obviously they thought it was someone else. Anyway; more of it. The ending—"it takes me three centuries back"—a giant sun image, filling the screen—suggested a new page in vampiric studies. But a crucifix admiration scene was not forthcoming! No surprise there. The book has a passage which impressed Stephen King to the effect that Dracula's skin was burned by contact with a crucifix. Perhaps Welby, the Jew-ish-connected pleader for institutional lies about Jews, will help to bring about this alleged conflict—if the rival theory that Christianity covertly assisted the Jew money remains concealed.

Note on blood, genetic disease, and Jews

added 28 Jan 2020. From reddit florpydorpal

Backstory: I love Browning's poems, and years ago, I wanted to understand one called Porphyria's Lover. I looked into it, and found the disease in the poem, porphyria, or the Royal Disease, has a huge incidence among Ashkenazi Jews, as do a huge number of other genetic disorders. The historic cure for porphyria was drinking blood. From there, I found this disease called Tay-Sachs which only affects them, and there is no cure, but thought nothing of it.

Years after finding that, I read a novel that had a character with Tay-Sachs, who was taken from her family to be with people who cured her with blood, and it was written in a way that I have come to associate with hidden meaning - not to mention the link between porphyria, blood drinking, and Tay-Sachs - so I looked in earnest in to Tay-Sachs, and it turns out that there is a cure, only to be found in Israel, and the kids who are diagnosed with the disease are taken from their families to Israel to get treatment. It's hard as hell to find what that treatment is, but.... It's blood. It has been cured with a transfusion of pure umbilical blood, a full replacement of all blood within the child, though historically, it was done through, again, bibens sanguinum (which is the Hebrew translation of the word "Damascus", because it was where Cain slayed Abel), or literally, drinking blood, done every so often. This has been a theme since Canaanites came into existence.

Ok so, yeah, I'm a crazy person, right? I have to be making this up, and no one else in history might have stumbled upon this imagined trail of bread crumbs. Turns out that the time in which Jews migrated to Europe, there also happened to arise the mythos of vampirism. You can escape a vampire if you drop a coin on the ground. Bram Stoker's Dracula was a Jew. Elizabeth Bathory was a Jew. Israel spends 1% of it's GDP on blood. Motzah balls, traditional ones served at passover, call for the blood of gentile children, and it is a well-kept secret that this practice continues in some circles today. Hemophilia (love of blood) is a typically Ashkenazi disease (Factor XI deficiency).

Speaking of, look at Marina Abramovic, the Spirit Cooking lady. She's fucking 70. She is quite obviously a Jew, but her wikipedia page has been scrubbed of any mention of her heritage, though it still lists it in search engines

From there, I found out about "blood libel" and that Ashkenazi Jews have been responsible for the Jews expulsion from 350+ nations over the past few hundred years. 100+ of those were for blood rituals involving the murder of gentile male Christian children under the age of 7 (NSFL)................................. Here's a very suppressed book, written by a Rabbi, chronicling the history of Jewish blood ritual.

We see this same well-documented pattern of blood ritual continue in modern times under the name "piazzagate", but did you know about the "Satanic Panic" of the late 80s which exposed crimes which are functionally identical to both Pizzagate and the history of Jewish blood ritual? https://youtu.be/2p2Pp2ywHuU?t=837YouTube The reason why they say nothing ever came of the Satanic Panic was that there were never any "proven cases", but I have linked for you in the text above exhaustive and methodologically rigorous histories of proven cases throughout time. The only reason they aren't spoken of more readily is that every proven case has involved Jews.

People in my day to day know me as something of a research buff, whatever the name for that is, and you might know of some of my other work, like the link between Edward Bernays, Henry Miller, and the sexualization of the word "boob" being fostered in order to save the then new TV industry from the term "boob tube", yet, for all the same rigor I applied to this bit of Jewish historical trivia, for some reason, I am attacked when I share it.

==========

Ah, yes, the Khazarians. 23andme linked the Ashkenazi to the Khazars by DNA, rendering Israel's claim to their nation moot as they are comprised of about 74% Ashkenazi. They then hired a team of geneticists to lie and say whoopsies DNA is wrong lol

They were the Babylonian blood ritualists who then converted to Judaism at the behest of a Russian king, which he only forced upon them after they had developed a reputation for the things we now call "anti-semitic", like usurious loan practices, killing merchants on the road and assuming their identity, and the ever-present blood ritual.. They are the ones who wrote the Talmud - the book that says taking a ladder from a "Goyim" while he is in a hole isn't murder - and perverted the religion into what it is mostly known for today.

I had an excellent resource on this but I can't seem to find it.. If I do, I'll update this and PM you the book.

http://www.fantompowa.info/13th%20Tribe.pdf

The man's name was Arthur Koestler, the book is called The 13th Tribe. There is also another book written by Kevin Alan Brook, but you'll have to buy a copy if you'd like to read it. https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Khazaria-Kevin-Alan-Brook/dp/074254981X Rutgers University Professor Peter Golden, referred to by Brook as "one of the principal authorities on the Khazars", so you don't even have to wonder if it's all anti-semitic lol

Here is a report given by a very successful Jewish defector named Benjamin Freedman on the same topic, though much less academic in presentation, and much closer to what you would probably call "anti-semitic". http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/library/freedman.html

Top of Page

Great Canal Journeys The UK version has ageing thespian Timothy West (his son is an actor, too) and his spouse Prunella Scales (her name surely must come from an Oscar Wilde enthusiast; or perhaps someone who knew what 'leather and prunella' meant). Canals are oddities in many ways: intensive expenditure on them must guarantee some commercial (or strategic) link. They do not suggest the bracing activities of facing the open seas. I personally found these series, occasionally in the background, increasingly irritating. An episode on the Mekong, with a nod to the Himalayas and entry to Cambodia (or other name) omitted the US wars, West looking mournful and I suppose pretending to have some knowledge of history, with poor Prunella not in a condition to provide sprightly commentary. A trip to Milan by canal was more impressive, though not much. So was a venture in South America. I suppose producers of these things know what topics to avoid. And what personality types—actors accustomed to stage and film nonsense being considered ideal. And they may need to mimic enthusiasm for engineering achievements which they don't understand.

Top of Page

Review by Rerevisionist of Robot Wars Was BBC TV c. 2000
This fascinated me (up to a point), I think because of the suggestive parallels with the evolution of life.

The title is a bit misleading: the contestants aren't 'robots' in the science fiction sense: they don't look like people. They're more like radio-controlled cars, usually metal, usually on wheels, and equipped with devices to damage rival 'robots'. They move in an arena, quoted as about 48 by 32 feet, which for safety reasons has lowish-level barriers all round, and barriers further back to protect the spectators in their tiers of seats. The barriers are described as perspex (British word for 'plexiglass' or 'lucite') but for all I know may be something tougher. Typical robots are about four feet by three, by one to two feet high, weighing 100 kg (about 1/12 the weight of a car), powered by electric motors delivering maybe 4 horse power (a car might be 160 hp). The teams of people who build these things must have some view of the power:weight ratios.

All this of course doesn't happen by chance: there are rules, which I haven't seen, which impose maximum weights, and restrictions on design. The rules emerge occasionally, when the designers are asked about their creations, or when the three judges (including Professor Noel Sharkey) make occasional comments. The rules must themselves have evolved. I gather, for example, that petrol/gasoline engines were permitted, robots which 'walk' are allowed to weigh twice as much as wheeled robots. And that robots can be in two, but not more, pieces. Weapons are restricted: machine guns and dynamite sticks and spears and flames aren't allowed, but flippers, pincers, rotary grinders, flails, axes, and punches are.

The original idea was (it seems) from America; my guess is that the BBC's public funding allowed a more lavish arena and studio set-up. The British version included four CPZs (Corner Patrol Zones, pronounced CeePeeZed in Britain) with 'House Robots', and a 'Refbot', equipped to count down from 10 to 0. The arena has a four by four foot 'pit of oblivion' into which robots can be pushed, pulled, or misdriven. Most of these additional elements must have been included to keep the action active; any robot motionless in a corner could, by the rules, be attacked by the house robots. I may as well list these, for people who haven't seen (or have lost sight of) these year-2000ish TV things, produced by one of the BBC's departments. Sir Killalot (jousting suggestion), Shunt (cowcatcher style), Matilda (two-horned rhino with rear weapon), Sergeant Bash (flamethrower), Mr Psycho (huge hammer), Growler (jawed dog), Cassius Chrome (furious face and alternating punches)—between them (usually two per combat) in effect kept things moving.

Craig Charles was good as the barker and announcer and commiserator and celebrant. Looking online, I find to my utter shock that the commentary was by Jonathan Pearce, a football commentator who sounds exactly like Craig Charles, and who sat in a sort of crow's nest cabin watching the 'battles'. Incidentally, how difficult is it for cameramen/women to capture the feeling of events occurring in a scattered way: hence my rather dull photo of 'Razer'. The chaos and scattered itemisation of a battle is tough to trap.

Without pushing the parallel too far—in fact, it's a good exercise to list the ways in which these events are not Darwinian—there are unmistakable similarities with fights in real life. Youtube has many videos of tiger vs wildebeeste, crocodile vs elephant, mongoose vs cobra, preying mantis vs wasp, fire ants vs spider, ... . There seem obvious biological analogies: I noticed a robot shark, designed very elegantly, which however was brushed aside by a fast metal wedge. Some robots ended on their backs, like beetles unable to turn over. (Hence the introduction of 'Srimecs', self-righting mechanisms). Some were designed to mimic symmetrical crabs or lobsters, or perhaps boa constrictors—gripping and immobilising their prey. However there seems no chance of soldier ant-type multiple robots. And no chance of a parasite specifically designed to home in on another robot's central control. And no chance of camouflage—though I wonder whether bold zebra stripes or some other optical illusion might not grab a decisive split second. I wonder if an electric eel design might be permitted, and might work? Or a mantis shrimp-based wrecking ball?

Mechanical devices are as likely to provide models: bulldozers, and tools like angle grinders and concrete breaking equipment, illustrate possibilities. As one TV series replaces the one before, and designers get to work, new types arise, a bit like new phyla introduced into the biosphere. The angle grinder soon mutated into a rotating wheel with a few teeth a few inches long: arranged upright it can heave other robots out of the arena; but it may dig into the floor. A horizontal arrangement may work; but robots designed to scoop may defeat them. Flippers vs pincers seem to have decided in favour of flippers: the photo is 'Razer', able to penetrate most robots, but only if it had the chance. At the present time, low profile rectangular wheeled invertible robots with a lifter seem dominant. There seems to be (as might be expected) a failure in transitiveness: if A can defeat B, and B defeat C, nevertheless C may defeat A. I'm sure these would not be allowed, but I wonder whether liquid air might stop a robot, or a spray of fast-setting concrete or hydrofluoric acid or oil, or metal tacks to puncture wheels...?

Anyway; mid-2016 has a revived series announced.

On evolution, let's look at the ways in which Robot Wars fails the analogy. For my taste:

Reproduction. In life, the objects have to reproduce themselves. In Robot Wars, all the effort of design and manufacture is offloaded onto more-or-less human outsiders. The whole process of finding nutrition and growing is cut out.
Energetics and Materials. Not only making the robot, but its energy sources and structure are offloaded. In life, there are innumerable decisions—efficient materials, which may be rare, or common materials? Different energy sources? Energy needed to convert one substance into another?
Probability. Some events are unlikely, but may be deadly. Should possible conflicts be arranged in order of likelihood; and if so, what likelihoods can be predicted?

Food for thought, anyway!

Top of Page

Review of ‘Robert Harris’ Fatherland (Book followed by Jewish-American-British TV film)

Jewish-Anglo-American TV/film Propaganda Hybrid 29 Dec 2015

Someone uploaded a very low resolution video of this item. 'Home Box Office'; HBO was Time Warner - this is before AOL amalgamated into their union. On Youtube it seems oddly old, despite being copyright dated 1994. It seems 1970s or even the 1960s, as though from the era of Richard Burton acting in the 'Cold War'.

I think this is partly because of the thinness of ideas; each scene is stretched out. But also there's a suggestion that Germany was backward. In fact, when Germany lost, their patents and inventions were stolen by the USA, just as their physical factories were stolen by the USSR.

This was filmed in Prague - lots of Jiris and Janas in the credits. Post-production by the cheap Brit tea-drinkers in Twickenham and Shepperton.

Probably Robert Harris (born in Nottingham, 1957, according to online information) had little idea of anything factual. He must have written 'Fatherland' in his mid-30s, after 'working' as a BBC reporter, until (aged 30) being made 'political editor for the Observer', a British 'quality press' title. Fatherland in book form is claimed to have sold a million copies, but there is no information that I could find on the promotional push it must have been given: BBC TV interviews? Copies in the windows of Waterstones? Airport sales?—though the author is listed as Fatherland, Co. Ltd. in the TV film's credits.

Harris seems to have turned out many thrillers, but also was a ghost or co-writer, for example with The Columbia Guide to African American History Since 1939, and a book on Political Corruption. He has written, or perhaps a more accurate word might be quoted, or speculated, on 'germ attacks', the USA being deemed 'highly vulnerable'. He wrote on the 'Hitler Diaries' con of 1983, and makes an appearance in David Irving's libel trial of the mute inglorious Lipstadt. He's described as a 'friend' of Tony Blair. A cover blurb of the Alan Clarke Diaries (famous for saying East Timor is a long way away) quotes Robert Harris's description as 'The most compelling account of modern politics I have read'.

The TV film has Rutger Hauer as a blond black-uniformed policeman/ detective. Yes, it's a detective story! And Miranda Richardson as his estranged wife (they have a screen son). For some reason, I thought she was a or the daughter of Ralph Richardson. Apparently not. She was in Black Adder, and I remember her having intercourse tastefully with a black actor, presumably part of the Jewish race-mixing agenda. And the film had .. um.. well, others, less memorable.

The film starts with an odd fake cinema black-and-white newsreel; which even by itself shows Harris's total incomprehension of the issues. It starts with the 'failure of the Allied invasion', as though that wording would have been used. It shows Germany winning the war—meaning in Europe, as 'Germania'—but still at war with the USSR under an aged Stalin. The whole point of Hitler was to defeat Bolshevism! Harris has no idea Jews funded the USSR. There's a scene of Eisenhower pretending Eisenhower had ethical reasons for defeating Germany, rather than simple Jewish racism. Harris doesn't know Britain declared war. There's nothing on Poland. The British Empire is tactfully suppressed by Harris—no point reminded Brits, eh! I was amused to see the Trinity fake atomic bomb flash; this was before the days the BBC could fake an atom bomb with computer graphics. Lindbergh was mentioned; as Joseph (born 1888) Kennedy the elder as US President.

Harris got a few thrills with a Sex Crime Unit. This of course is a Jewish preoccupation, attributed by Jewzis to Nazis. For the folks back home. This somewhat eclipses what is presumably meant to be the main plot: six million .. gassed .. bullets too expensive.. etc. And there's a subplot of small son, 'brainwashed' (yes!) by the Nazi thugs, with Rutger Hauer planning to bolt for the free USA.

"Harris ... still remains a very common Jewish name in the UK, Europe and the U.S." - surname website.

Anyway, Harris is now about 60, so we can look forward to more sewage. Yippee.

Since typing that, I noticed a 2013 book An Officer and a Spy, which is based on the Dreyfus Affair, obviously another Jew fantasy topic. I recommend an overview of Dreyfus on Miles W Mathis' site, J'Accuse, Part Deux: the Dreyfus Affair on Trial by 'Josh', discussing the likelihood that the whole 'affair' was an anti-French establishment Jewish operation.

Top of Page

Peter Ustinov in Fiji, Hawaii, ANZ, India, South Africa

Peter Ustinov 4-part TV 1998 Planet Ustinov (4:3 aspect ratio; c. 200 mins)

Review by 'Rerevisionist' 25 June 2015

Reborn Coudenhove-Kalergi With Tangled Family Roots Tries His Best.

Peter Ustinov (1921-2004) seems an enigmatic figure, though probably this is a result of censorship surrounding Jews and their activities. He was (it's stated) born in London, and said he was "British, but without a drop of British blood". (Quotations here are taken from the DVD). His parents presumably came to Britain in or before 1921 either in flight from, or in support for, the Jewish coup in Russia. Judging by remarks in this DVD, he hated English public schools, possibly taking refuge in writing and acting. His Second World War was taken up by theatrical and film propaganda activities. His autobiography Dear Me records the incredulity of an army personnel type, when Ustinov informed him of his theatrical earnings; the soldierly simpleton refused to believe Ustinov. He was regarded from the 1950s on as a deep European intellectual type in The Midwich Cuckoos a London trip includes a visit to 'Ustinov's latest extravaganza'. He acted Nero, in Quo Vadis, his performance exactly in keeping with the probably propagandist presentation of Nero and his Rome. One of his plays was The Love of Four Colonels (1951), set in occupied Berlin's four sectors. He wrote Romanoff and Juliet, filmed in 1956. It's difficult to know to what extent German, Russian, and Jewish obligations and pressures affected his parents, notably his father: possibly he wanted peace with Germany, for example. At this distance in time, Ustinov's work seems just another 'Cold War' menu, but with unusual ingredients.

As far as I know, Ustinov was always careful to conceal his family background, which he did with skilful application of irrelevancies. Dear Me has a very long account of his parents' movements around Europe before they met.

Most of his supposed skill as a raconteur came from mimicry: English public school accents, grating American voices, a British working class man working at some Royal function, Russians reading lists of names, a clergyman saying "Dearly beloved", his own manicured voice ... and sounds: motor horns, animal sounds, gasps, microphonic simulations of orchestral music.

My charity-shop DVD (2009) was broadcast in Britain in 1998 by ITV, not BBC, equally Jewish controlled, in four parts. The blurb says the idea came from Mark Twain's Following the Equator, a travel account of Twain in English-speaking countries, published in 1897, and a well-thumbed modern paperback copy supplies part of the continuo of the four programmes. (Very probably the format was suggested by Michael Palin's BBC series, begun in 1989, based loosely on Jules Verne's Around the World in Eighty Days).

I couldn't find a summary of the contents anywhere online, or in the DVD packaging. The planning and scripting and credits are not even hinted at, in the DVD, though someone called Waldman appears in online information on the tied-in book. There are brief titles, which are (not in full):-

[1] ISLES OF PARADISE. These isles appear to be Fiji and Kiribati, preceded by scenes of Ustinov's house (which seemed to have large dumps of books on the carpet) in his Swiss vineyard. There are many scenes of travel—airports, planes, helicopters; and steam trains—all of course white inventions. And many scenes of discomfort—[matting to sleep on] "doesn't make it quite up to the standards one is used to." Like the many Jewish advocates of elimination of whites, Ustinov prefers not to live in the reality. Each programme is divided into five parts: this one starts with 'A Common Language' (i.e. English), and includes another on a Scotsman, and another on the Rev Bacon, eaten in 1867. The programmes tend to have a saucy bit near the end, no doubt for the less culturally-minded viewer.

Ustinov's language is imprecise, but has the function, now familiar, of casting doubts on past policies: "bits of coloured cloth called flags .." and ".. throwback to a colonial past ..' illustrate this.

We are introduced, in a taxi, to a former rugby player who led a military coup, with ten armed men, in the Parliament building. "He is now Prime Minister himself." What a surprise!

[2] BEAUTIFUL DEATH. 4th of July: Hawaii celebrates it independence. Four close-formation jets do aerobatics. But jets may bring death. So are Hawaiians happy?—Are they even Hawaiians? 'A Percentage Game' shows inhabitants musing over their family trees, hoping for a "crucial 50% threshold" of Hawaiian 'blood' to get an issue of Hawaiian Home Land on a 99-year lease. 'Backwards in Time' is about a leper colony, and human bones found in building sites, in (I think) Honolulu. Now we have 'Heaven and Hell': Australia, and Sydney Harbour, and Sydney University with an English public school ethos. PAULINE HANSON of the "controversial One Nation Party" is interviewed, on the aboriginal industry from 26 - 28 minutes; Ustinov is careful to stress security problems, fanaticism.
There's little hint of Jewish influence on immigration into Australia. 1997 marked the entry of Blair into British politics, absurdly as leader of the 'Labour Party'. Bringing with him in secret plans for unprecedented levels of immigration. No doubt the strategy was synchronised with other parts of the world, in the same way that 'same sex marriage' was synchronously perved into place.
We see a 'half-caste'—difficulties here with vocabulary—visiting the grave of his mother: half-castes were sent to institutions. Ustinov makes no comment on how half-castes were generated. Then New Zealand; Waitangi Treaty, hot mud springs, tattoos, and dildoes—the latter featuring abundantly in web commentaries.

[3] A RIDDLE AT EVERY TURN looks at India. Himalayas, caste, the Ganges, Darjeeling, the Gymkhana Club, Tibetans from the Tibet omitted from Chinese maps, Jeremy Irons' son teaching English, turbans, computerised classified ads for 'partners', sex education, death traditions. A prince possibly with more subjects than a European country. But Ustinov avoids the teeming slums such as Dharavi in Bombay/Mumbai, just as the Islamic slumlands of what were at first west and east Pakistan were unvisited, despite their being somewhat English speaking; maybe to avoid worrying the viewers with facts about Islam.

[4] SUCH A WONDERFUL THING. South Africa. Including 'Robben island', 'de Beers' (20 mins or so in a diamond mine), 'The "Murder Capital"', and, as the supreme climax, 'Mandela'—presented as a hero, not a terrorist—at about 44 minutes. Ustinov (three years younger than MANDELA) talks of "the dignity and purpose of their [blacks] renaissance" on the QE2, at some sort of fund raising event. All this of course is part of the Jewish narrative of deception.

How much of this is Ustinov, 'UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador', and how much is part of the agenda, I simply don't know. Why didn't Ustinov do a series on Russia, after 'communism' fell? Why was there no hint of Jewish mass murder in the so-called 'Socialist Republics'? How much did Ustinov know about the two world wars? Did he have deeper insight than his superficiality suggests? The answer may be held within TV company records, or his own archival material. If some new biography is in preparation, of, or including, Ustinov, check to see if such details are examined. If not, such a book will no doubt be worthless.

Top of Page

Neil Oliver

Review by rerevisionist of Neil Oliver Scottish-voiced presenter 13-February-2022

Musing over BBC things. Coast, apparently made with the O.U., is presented by a long-haired Scot (the BBC like regional accents—avoids the class issue, and/or hides the Jew issue). Or at least someone with a Scottish accent, born I think 1967, who is likely to think he's a Jew. Neil Oliver, variously described as an actor, an archaeologist, and a journalist, exuded his attitude to the Second World War. The really important thing is Arctic convoys supplying Stalin, including with large amounts of British-made stuff. Whatever he is, he's not a historian. It was amusing to see his fawning attitude to Churchill, similar to the fanatical Jews in Russia who adored Stalin. He mentioned Norway and the Scottish islands; in fact this may be where I got the idea that the separation of part of Scandinavia into Norway and Sweden was a long-term plan.
Another BBC thing included Alice Roberts, charged with providing human interest, to a bunch of elderly engineers of supreme simplicity, working with rockets based on the V2. She clearly had no idea about nuclear weapons, rocket engines, supposed satellites. But she did know weapons can kill. She pronounced the name 'Ludovic' as 'Ludovich'; I'd guess she's from a Czech background; just a guess though.

Scotland has more or less secret links with Jews.

N.O. surfaced in a lecture arranged by the New Cultural Forum. This was the 2021 Smith Lecture, The Attack on Our History and Culture. Far be it from me to mock this cultural treat, but the style reminded me of the junk TED talks on Youtube. It can be watched online, or I think listened to, or read in transcript.
At some point, N.O. said more than 35,000 monuments to the war dead were paid 'by subscription'. My natural scepticism was aroused; after the slaughter, how many people had any cash? But of course Jewish arms makers and lenders had cash, lots of dead goyim, and lots to be thankful for. 'Faithful to thee we fell, and rest content' is a typical bit of sentiment, every word carefully chosen to mislead. By the Second World War, the Jewish victory was assured; according to A J P Taylor, monuments became downsized: a new heater for the local library, for example.

A movie Monuments Men (of course I haven't seen it) must be a Jewish version of thefts from Europe. And destruction of statues has become an anti-white policy; Jews just love theft and destruction.

The 'Smith Lecture' has N.O. in traditional Jew fake style, bemoaning the supposed failure to learn from history. He omits poverty following the Jewish 'Bank of England', Jewish slaveships, the opium wars and destruction of China, the support for Jews in Russia, the world wars, the unvoted importation by Jews of replacement populations. (And I think he read out something on 'delusional madness', apparently on the 'COVID' fraud. My notes say nothing much—but it's easy to guess what he's been told to say.
The 'New Culture Forum' lists speakers for their 'flagship' event (they don't yet seem to claim it is 'award-winning'). These are: 2017 Douglas Murray on his book The Strange Death of Europe based on The Strange Death of Liberal England. 2018, by Nigel Farage, saying, of course, nothing. 2019 David Starkey, the homosexual pseudo-historian. None say anything about Jews, or their counterparts, including Freemasons. This is what the Jewish victory in the Second World War means.

But we have an interesting twist: N.O. is careful to say nothing about Jews or their agents, yet he mentions Yeshua ('Jesus') and sects in Judaea 2000 years ago. Yes! There is a noticeable though modest move towards Christianity, invented of course by Jews. Quite a few people have a sort of folk memory of the days when the C of E owned a lot of land, and its adherents were paid for life to do little except broadcast once a week to their flock of sheep. And of course say nothing about Jews. The tiresome fact that the stuff was vicious nonsense was submerged under a sterling solution. Nick Griffin, ex-British National Party, is promoting a new variant, the Knights Templar.

[From June 2023] ... Neil Oliver, variously described as an actor, an archaeologist, and a journalist, I was struck by his WW2 attitude—whatever he is, he's not a historian. It was amusing to see his fawning attitude to Churchill, similar to fanatics in Russia adoring Stalin. In June 2023 he was on TV, deploring Nicola Sturgeon who must be another Jewish liar wrecking Scotland with the so-called 'Scottish National Party': NO said she's wrecked Scotland and ruined their education, but of course said nothing about media control by Jews. He's had quite a few books published; I've never read, or seen, them, but of course they'll be more retreads.

[ Back to top of page ]

Poldark

Review by rerevisionist of Poldark Romantic novel style TV based supposedly in Cornwall 22-July-2017

It's a tremendously saddening experience to watch a series of half-truths masquerading as history. From what I can tell, the main attraction is watching Aidan Whatsit, an actor, taking his shirt off, not something that works for me. The entirety of facts on Jews reintroduced by Cromwell by a devastating war, which has never been dramatised, even with the far improved techniques of image-making, is erased. Ditto with the so-called French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, and the ruining of many English families by the Rothschilds, and the subsequent buying-up and replacement of aristocracies. None of this appears in Poldark. The 18th-century, following Napoleon, was a time of white impoverishment, by such means as enclosures of public lands, and increased spending on churches, and emphasis on unimportant teaching plus the use of British troops in Jewish actions. Poldark frankly is rubbish, designed presumably to mislead people about their past. It has stock figures, such as the sex-seeking fat Church of England clergyman; Jewish-controlled media always has this type. There don't seem too many blacks, which I suppose is something; on the other hand, there is nothing about the slaughter in Haiti, which of course was widely spoken-of at the time. The Jewish ownership of slave ships is—of course—not mentioned. I hope in time historians will wake up; at present, history is treated much as science was at Oxford University in the time of Poldark, when a science department was a magic lantern projector with a handful of glass slides.

[ Back to top of page ]

Peaky Blinders

GUEST REVIEW © LAURA of defendevropa.com

I haven't watched any of this series, now somewhat old, but the author (below) seems to know what she's talking about. I found a reference to an actor playing a Solomon or Solomons, the 'action' being in Birmingham. I thought possibly part of the plot involved Jewish crime visited on their 'host community'.
Mr review of Oswald Mosley's autobiography is here. I don't take him very seriously, in fact. Assuming Laura is right, the motif must be the Cable Street fantasy of Jews.

Peaky Blinders and the Vilification of Sir Oswald Mosley by Laura September 2, 2019

I’ve ‘ummed’ and ‘ahhed’ for the last couple of weeks about whether I should talk about this. Will I alienate my followers? Will I get in trouble, or commit a “hate crime”? Will my words be written next to my picture in next year’s Hope Not Hate report? But then I decided, what kind of person would I be if stayed silent and allowed my inspiration, a man who risked everything for England, to be vilified for the sake of a BBC television show?

Of course, to the viewer, it’s just a television show; an hours’ worth of violent and sexy entertainment on a Sunday evening before the rat race begins again the following morning. But to those behind the scenes, it’s an opportunity to influence. It’s an opportunity to condition their young audience with the notion that Mosley equals bad. He’s a man who, according to our media, should be confined to our history books with a big, black cross over his name. Our protagonist, the ruthless Thomas Shelby, called Mosley “the devil”; while the show’s writer, Steven Knight, explained he’s one of the most “malignant” characters to have ever featured in the series. His crime? He abhorred the talking shop at Westminster and wanted real, decisive action for the people of England. He was passionately anti-war. He was respectful of all peoples and cultures and, while recognising our differences and therefore that separation is vital, he wanted us to live in peace and friendship, side by side. And perhaps his most dangerous crime? He spoke out against the fat cats and the money power who undermined our workers’ way of life, chance of success and freedom of expression, by prioritising the size of their own bank balances over that which is honourable and good.

Peak 2019 is young Englishmen siding with a gang of fictional, violent gangsters, over the greatest Englishman of the last century, because the only things they know about the greatest Englishman of the last century, have been taught to them by our rootless, foreign-controlled media, who hate the English. What better way to vilify a man than to fictionalise his life story, and then pit him as the ‘bad guy’ against a popular gang of violent and unrelentless murderers and thugs?

Mosley’s condemnation is just one act of a long line of ventures by the mainstream media to publicly shame nationalism, and to warn off those who dare to follow that path themselves. Dare to speak out against our demographic replacement? Dare to mention the crimes of the central banks? Dare to highlight that the freedom of the anti-white media is a burden, not a gift? Then you will be placed on a platform, where you will be publicly ostracised, lied about, ridiculed and shamed.

We’ve seen it happen over and over again. As nationalists, we’re called “white supremacists” for simply wanting a home for our own people. It doesn’t matter that the notions of nationalism and supremacy contradict each other — one is a group of people who just want to be left alone, while one is a group of people who want to rule over other races — just as it doesn’t matter that the rules are different for white people than they are for everybody else. It only matters that the media have decided that Europe will be multiracial, therefore our perfectly reasonable desires are condemnned and cast aside.

Mosley taught me that “Those who march with us will certainly face abuse, misunderstanding, bitter animosity, and possibly the ferocity of struggle and of danger. In return, we can only offer to them the deep belief that they are fighting that a great land may live.” He taught me that slurs and defamation are to be expected, but we should remain steadfast and honest, and we should counter any hate with honour and love. So, you see, I feel as though I owe it to Sir Mosley, to at least put together a few words to counter this media smear. I would hope that those of us who recognise the sacrifice that he made, and the sacrifice that many of us will have to make in this present day, will have the decency to share his real words, and his real views, at a time when he has the attention of so much of England’s youth.

[ Back to top of page ]

Ade in Britain

Two series totalling 50 episodes in 2011, and 2013, I think. The people now are about ten years older. Curiously similar to Portillo on railways, though this version seems to be a caravan—something like one or more Starr Waggons I'd guess—driving around to pre-arranged places with pre-arranged scripts. I presume Edmonton is yet another Jew, one of the 'chosen' doing his best to be affable, at least for a few minutes. As with Portillo, Edmonton carries out simple manual tasks, presumably to step into the shoes of goyim for a few minutes. One of these showed prize gooseberries being made into jam. For some reason, recipes of one course meals were prepared by Edmonton. Maybe the catering budget was cut...?

I find it difficult to express my loathing of this type of TV dreck—I think that's the correct Jewish word. English of British or whatever people being told about their own history by by members of the hostile elite. We saw 'worm charming' in Cheshire, naturally not an old tradition. And an account of the Scottish border. There are relics, perhaps, of traditional customs and at a deeper level trade, and laws, and wars. Many customs were erased through puritanism—or at least that's the story. Scottish Jewish practices are a little-known aspect of British history; so are Jewish pretenders to thrones. So are Jewish lies designed to start wars and keep them going and end them with maximal harm to non-Jews. Obviously we're not going to get anything like that.

RW 26 May 2021

[ Back to top of page ]

Susan Calman. After a long period of BBC training... She's allowed to read scripts travelling in Britain.

Yes. Reminds me of Portillo, the Marrano Jew with a small opening. I've seen a few episodes of her, perhaps driving round England; who knows if she (at 1.4 meters) can in fact do this. I puzzled over her until realising she reminds me of Nicola Sturgeon of the 'Scottish National Party'. Same small size, same small brain, same Jew roots. As I indicate, she seems to have appeared, or been heard only in the BBC, mostly radio, for more than ten years. Before that, online info
Her father seems to be or have been (I haven't checked) a medical academic, Sir Kenneth Calman, an oncologist. ... Her father was chancellor of the University of Glasgow and former chief medical officer for Scotland, then England and Wales. I wonder if he had any views on the fake COVID 'pandemic'; but as I said, I haven't checked.
She seems to be part of the Jewish LG&c 'community' which Jews love, of course, as one of their deformed babies. And had a ritual same-sex marriage; probably it was needed to help her career.
Fascinating to watch her 2021 and following stuff on Channel 5. Sad stuff reading scripts, which I'd guess were written for her; what would she know about the geology of limestone gorges in Cheddar, for example. Fascinating to see her reading out stuff on Jane Austen, exposed a fair time ago as an unwitting part of an inheritance struggle. (See Nicholas Ennos on this). Fascinating to see Wells Cathedral and the Bishop's Palace. These days, people are beginning to see how the Jewish money monopoly was supported by the Church, so loans could only be made by Jews.
It seems Calman spent years in corporate law. (Her 'partner', Lee, is supposed to be a corporate lawyer; I'd guess American, from the name and other evidence). Maybe she'll emerge as an intellectual critic of Jewish and/or financial law. But I doubt it.
-RW 12 Nov 2021

[ Back to top of page ]

Portillo 'on Railways' (and other things).
Notes on ten years or so of Jewish TV in Britain: history, technology, deception.
Mixed dates of note-taking. Rae West of big-lies.org

Reviews by rerevisionist of Michael Portillo on Railways, a typical title.
BBC2 TV (in Britain; BBC2 is the supposedly intellectual part of the BBC). 11 series so far. 2010-2020s.

A few names attributed are Executive producers: Charlie Bunce (series 1—2); John Comerford (series 3—6) and Producers: Fiona Caldwell (series 1—2); Jay Taylor (series 3); Michelle Heeley (series 4); Alison Kreps (series 5—6)

Michael Portillo is a Marrano Jew, once a politician of sorts in the Thatcherite 'Conservative' Party. He fronts series distributed by BBC TV programmes; as usual there are vast numbers of producers and support staff, and as usual the process is obscure. The BBC is practised in transferring licence payers' money to themselves. The series starts with Bradshaw, the Victorian railway guide known to everyone at the time, perhaps being promoted as a reprint, and if so presumably one single edition; I don't know. Portillo's presentation relies on bold single-colour jackets and non-matching trousers. Portillo must have been successful enough (or contractually skilled) to lead to follow-up series, in Europe, and the USA. There's more emphasis on towns, old technology, historical artefacts, and some modern things (nuclear submarines?) than in the rail enthusiast types of film/video. There are also curious examples of Portillo carrying out do-it-himself samples of mixing cakes, dancing about, mimicking adventures, doing woodwork, in which the idea probably is to put the goyim into their places, as carrying out their mundane repetitive tasks.

Amid the fairly accurate material is submerged history. I don't want (and can't be bothered) to give detailed examples, beyond "One of our greatest leaders—Winston Churchill". Where 'our' can be interpreted as Jews, rather than the natives. But watch for the erasure of wars and their funding, 'revolutions', deaths, immigration into other people's countries—but not Israel, divide and rule—remembering that it is, of course, difficult to spot what isn't there.
'History' presented as unchallengeably Jewish includes—of course!—the Second World War. But also the 'Great War'. I wasn't personally aware until I was about 20 that the 'Great War' might have been left to others; Britain could have been neutral. Fascinating to speculate on hundreds of thousands of Brits, some shot at dawn for 'lack of moral fibre', and whether they raged against the dying of their light as they made their supreme sacrifice.
Portillo is a sort of polystyrene padding, a Jewish fake 'Conservative', reading out his cards or whatever in a uniform style, whether pretending to be interested in some industrial product or historical location or person or story or weak pun. I don't think he's intelligent enough to even have an opinion; he just quotes what he's been told, and has a uniform to try to stand out a bit. Sometimes he graces low IQ news interviews, with nonentities like Andrew Neil and that fat black token female MP. I noted other travel TV things from Portillo, painfully embarrassing in their Jewish style. For example events in Europe, Russia, the USA, from which the Jewish criminalities have been erased. It's quite hard to convey how bad his rubbish is; part of the art of Jewish TV is converting brightness into an anaesthetic and comatic state, appropriately enough, like that induced by looking out of railway train windows where not much attracts the attention. Fronts like Portillo are useful to the status quo; like overpaid newsreaders, there's no intermediary validation of their material. Christ for intelligent use of what once promised to be a wonderful medium.

Just three issues, inserted later:
[1] Luddites. A tangential reference to this topic in one episode. I take it the point here was that several inventions, which between them automated much of cloth production, led to a battle; you can almost smell Portillo's relief in the victory of ownership by money purchase over some other outcome, spreading the benefits and costs over some other group: locals, nationals, or whatever.
[2] Homosexuality. Somewhere I noted a reference to Portillo in this context; I have no idea if it's true. But it prompted me to think of a possible entry for Jews into aristocracies. Just as Esther (is it?) is lauded as a model for Jewish women, presumably young males could be an entry-point for some suitably-inclined aristocrats. Probably there are Talmudic tales praising bumboys. But the point I'm groping for here is the Church's reaction. Just as the Church made interest forbidden, keeping up the Jewish monopoly, so did the Church outlaw homosexuality to give Jews a chance. Seems likely enough, anyway. With of course variations: the Church of England was or still is freighted with homosexuals.
[3] Nuclear weapons, power, and energy in e.g. helpfully-invisible submarines, all look like frauds. Portillo is of course worthless as a guide. But as another hired propagandist he'll do.

I just watched Portillo on Dawlish, a south coast port town from which William of Orange, plus mercenaries, installed Jews in Britain with the 'Bank of England'. We saw some simple woman doing her drivel about it. All great fun; all devoid of intelligence.

I've watched him in Jarrow, once the biggest shipbuilding place in Europe—at least, so we are told. If I recall correctly, a pink-pullovered chap in Jarrow Town Hall was doing his spiel; probably the right word. Fortunately, the Second World War saved Jarrow—the workers had to work! This is a common theme with Jewish commentators; after a depression, easily engineered by the controllers of money, the poor buggers become something like mercenaries: America's 'Great Depression' then war overtime, women before WW1 then war work; the same story has been repeated world-wide. The only people not expected to do their bit are Jew financiers.

It took me some time to understand the basis for his 'narrative structure'; his role is to interface with goyim summoning enough amiability to survive for a few minutes, while the goy carries out some task, which is handed to Portillo—making a pork pie, pulling on a lever, shaping the first phases of a pottery object—before leaving for the next railway station. Alternatively, a museum curator, or country-house keeper, or fellow Jewish politician or antiquarian gives an official view, as in Pitkin guides or A-level history. Churchill, William Wilberforce, Napoleon, slave-owners, the East India Company insofar as it shows up on Jewish radar, get their restricted standard minutes. (On slavery abolition, the piece by Leaf Gerrit at http://www.mileswmathis.com/wilber.pdf may open your eyes). Portillo in Spain was another sad thing: 'anarchist' bomb-throwing, of course by Jews, nothing on atrocities in the Spanish 'Civil War'; nothing on why Hitler avoided Gibraltar.

As with many Jews, what appears at first sight to be personal quirks or foibles grow to appear more sinister. I've just watched Portillo say Los Angeles in defined by its history, or some low meaning crap. Most 'Angelinos' are he said (some euphemism for mestizo Spanish). What he concealed was Jewish policy to pay, with Jewish control of the Fed dollars, for immigrant invasions into the USA. In just such a way smiling Kommissars would cover up Jewish murders in the USSR.

We see Portillo, craning his neck over a French girl in Paris. She tells him there were 'anarchists' in about 1905. Portillo smirks; he knows they were Jews wanting war. She tells him the French Revolution was important; Portillo smirks at the goy, knowing of course that the (((French Revolution))) was another Jewish thing.

Portillo features his Victorian Bradshaw's Guide to the railways; his bulky volume, mostly short descriptions with timetables, is from 1913, a fateful year. Portillo often repeats something like None of them—travellers, holiday makers—could know that their world would be swept away by the outbreak of the First World War.. which of course is not true; plotters among Jews and Freemasons were planning for a lucrative war. And of course they got it. 'Outbreak' of war is a handy evasion of the truth. Throughout these excursions, was are dismissed and waved away. If there were wars in which Jews died, I'd expect concentration on them; but of course they didn't happen. Here's a piece from France surveying likely Jewish 'Zionist' plans for both world wars for those trying to grasp the big picture.

I watched Portillo on Russian railways, mostly St Petersburg and the later capital Moscow. Expecting teams of Jews (the producer was Alison Kreps) to say anything honest about Russia is as likely as Jews being honest on William of Orange and England. He repeats, in a solid colour jacket no doubt colour-coded in some way, the mythology of 1905, the 'Great War' 'breaking out', the Tsar's abdication, and bits more (such as Lenin in a sealed train, with the permission of the Germans; or perhaps (((Germans)))!) but not much. When he was younger, he was actually in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet, and believed in the 'Cold War' and nuclear missiles aimed at Moscow, no doubt a subset of partitioned Jewish frauds worldwide. He included a once-BBC 'man' in Russia, Martin Sixsmith, no doubt a Jew, the subservient type, not the more usual aggressive liar type. As far as I know, Miles Williams Mathis is the first to re-examine this old and proletarian junk propaganda, like an archaeologist using new tools to clear way accumulations of Jew junk. Portillo of course is very insistent on the Jewish lies of the supposed extermination of Jews. Let's hope the leaking walls of the sort of Kremlin enclosures of lies, surrounding each of the frauds promoted by Jews, put up by hired nonentities, will give way soon.
An episode (this is out of sequence) filmed in Genoa—the other armpit, so to speak, of Italy, opposite to Venice—Had Italian war preparations; Cesare Battisti persuaded, we are told, 'Italy' to go to war against Austria-Hungary, changing the minds of most Italians. Portillo was entranced by this claim, in his poker-faked manner. That's really being influential! Very likely he was another Jew.

A few other Portillo episodes: on the east of Britain, going north-south, the Great Eastern Railway I think, we see Liverpool Street station, confusingly to the east of London, not thee west as might be expected from the position of Liverpool. A "room found by builders" was a large concealed Freemason's room, presumably for discussions on secret rail policies, though of course such things are written out of Portillo's script.
Brixham, where William of Orange landed in 1688 to invade England. This is never referred to s a 'conquest', and phrases such as 'bloodless revolution' are traditional lies. With Portillo, there is always a prearranged meeting with some supposed expert or 'local historian' to give a small part of the story, usually in a rather breathless style, and from memory.
And Manchester, which, it's easy to forget, was a negligible place a few centuries back. As usual, we have a stupid or misleading guide, in this case to the Chetham's Library, pronounced, and apparently also spelt, Cheatham, 'the oldest public library' in some area; perhaps Europe. Opened 1653. (It has a catalogue online, I read). Timbered interior, and chained books. With a side area in which Marx and Engels planned the fraud of 'Communism'. Engels worked here; and after some reluctance and hesitation, Engels was revealed to have been part of the ownership of one or more factories. The actual design and building was not discussed; the rich Jew aspect was discussed even less, if possible. The fascinatingly grim story of the interplay between European Jewish finance, European Jewish industrialism, and secretive 'freemasons', was kept entirely hidden, in the traditional Jewish manner. Portillo Cheshire-catted throughout.

An interlude showed Exeter; and some guardian of Penguin books. Her official story was that some publisher, after visiting Agatha Christie, visited the railway's book sales place to while away his hours. And got the idea of cheap paperbacks, 6 pence in place of a typical price 7 times as much. Portillo of course says this event (perhaps the origin of the Penguin imprint) was money-making. In fact it was a propaganda outlet; there's no difficulty sneaking money into Jewish schemes.
The Penguin symbol was drawn by a visitor to London zoo. I doubt if the exact wording exists anywhere; but the general idea was that a penguin looks slightly human and rather qquaint and silly. Probably a goy, in fact. The year was 1935.

Episode 7 (broadcast first Jan 2014) includes "Bletchley to Newport Pagnell". 'Portillo travels through Buckinghamshire, meeting one of the Second World War's most secret agents at Station X in Bletchley'. Bletchley Park is supposed to be near a rail line between Oxford and Cambridge; full of thinkers, and of course Jews. I'd guess there may have been a link with Jewish bankers. Almost 70 years after the Second World War supposedly ended, we see an old woman saying how secret everything was, up to I think 1975, where her habitual secrecy continued. She is likely to be dead by now. Portillo pulls his serious face, plus his deeply concerned face. Probably she'd helped Russians and Germans to kill each other.

Another sigh-inducing episode showed Portillo in Portugal. Interesting points include a scene of Coimbro's university library, in which Portillo showed no interest whatever in the vast collection of books, many, admittedly, one would imagine of no great value. I recall a similar scene with Tony Blair, Jew puppet, in 10 Downing Street. Portugal has a racial Jewish connection, not mentioned by Portillo; see for example Senator Thorkelson on Jews in 1940. Why Portugal is separated from Spain was not discussed either.

Yet another sickening episode is in Israel. Portillo says nothing of the Talmud, itself a rather sickening collection of 'Rabbinical' trash. Portillo says Bialek—a Ukrainian—whom Portillo was the 'Shakespeare of Israel'—yes, of course he was!—compulsory for all Israel schoolkids! Nothing of course on eastern European girls used by Jews as prostitutes. The sight of Israel—it has shores, so we see shots of waves—it also has railways, copied of course from whites. And concrete buildings, copied from Whites. And town layouts, copied from Whites. And infrastructure built by Germans. It's a relief to think that, if Jewish parasitism is eventually grubbed up, nothing significant will be left.

Portillo fronted another episode, on Transylvania, Vlad the Impaler, Romania and its oil and Black Sea coast. He 'forgot' to mention the reason for Vlad's policy of impalement, probably a rather clear suggestion that invading Moslems should go away. Jews have a policy of leaving other Jews' schemes alone. Islam was largely a Jewish invention, probably to use Arabs as thugs. It was and still is quite successful, in the power struggle sense, its main victory being vast killings of Buddhists in north-west India.

And an episode on Holland, or more precisely the Netherlands. Interesting stuff on vast flower auctions and multiple-dish East Indies food, and the flat delta country. And a bit on the Treaty of Utrecht and combining against the Spanish monarchy. But nothing on the Amsterdam synagogue, which collected money to invade England, kill Charles, and fund Cromwell and civil war. Unsurprisingly, the English Civil War is an important event which the (((BBC))) has never covered. I keep meaning to look up, or 'research', the true dates of founding of Oxbridge colleges and libraries; far from being immensely old, most post-date the installation of Jewish money. Perhaps in their turn they will be destroyed; and perhaps they deserve it. They post-date the 'Great Fire' and Plague and St Paul's.

And an episode on Berlin, including a few interviews with subdued local 'experts', crushed under the weight of several lifetimes of propaganda. Portillo has a somewhat distinct manner; perhaps the 'parasite stroll' or 'marrano mince', as he does his Bentwich tour followed by the camera crew.
Much of his "spiel" was on Weimar—"Germany was a democracy for the first time". Nothing on the reality of slumps, hyper-inflation; or child prostitution and the ruin of Germans—remember Germany hadn't even been invaded during the Great War. Nothing on Jews in the new 'USSR'.

[ Back to top of page ]

Architecture and Issues

The 'property porn' piece (next) looks at rather fantastic houses, usually self-builds or renovations in cheap areas.

Time to note other things, which perhaps started with Civilisation (Kenneth Clark, 1969ish TV). Architecture has highly technical components, not well adapted to large audiences, or for that matter small audiences of royalty or similar consumers.

I noted some newish programmes fronted by George Clark, from Sunderland originally, probably described as 'the talent' in stuff arranged for the purpose, who is qualified as an architect, I'd guess in modern techniques.

He loves the word "space"—impressive space, vast space, beautiful space—applying it more or less ad lib. He seems remarkably low on architectural appreciation; his National Trust jaunts never seem to go beyond the usual stuff of 'Regency' or 'Capability Brown' or 'Vanbrugh'. This seems a pity: the stories of Portland Stone, or sawpits for floorboards, or techniques for holding huge ceilings up, surely might be incorporated in the scripts. I like to hope Clark wouldn't wonder why they didn't use breeze blocks or quick-drying cement or bulldozed foundations.
But my main comment is the absence of human background: the way the 'Civil War' introduced Jewish debt into Britain, and the general impoverishment that followed, plus the beneficiaries who were probably over-funded, ought to be known. I watched a piece about sandy beaches near the Isle of Wight, with Churchill (half-Jew), Eisenhower (Jew from Sweden who hated Germans), General Montgomery (Homosexual when it was illegal; legally vulnerable?) and some other (I forget), peered through a concrete slit wondering about invading the French coast and bombing France almost as much as Germany. Of course, Jewish-controlled TV always has this sort of thing. Clark beamed at the thought of mass killings—probably he had no idea. He's a TV star, isn't he. Just another vacationist.

Other TV broadcasts, probably aimed at elderly men I'd guess, have similar things: 'Engineer Rob Bell' for example had some sort of look at supposedly defensive structures on the coast; did Hitler really intend to invade, given that he was supposedly fighting the whole world, while Jews worldwide fed him information? Not likely, but engineer Rob Bell has no intelligent questions. Some vacant woman of the whore broadcaster type chimed in to the effect that the whole nation was unified. Well, a good story, not bearing inspection.

I'd love to see Gregg Wallace in raptures watching a machine print a few trillion dollars. The ecstasy of pallet-loads being sent round the world. Or—better continuity—weaponry for dictators. Or so-called 'vaccines' for the fake 'Coronavirus'.

[ Back to top of page ]

'Property Porn' as a genre

I have in front of me a DVD of 'Grand Designs', a TV series fronted by Kevin McCloud [sic; not McCleod] on people building from new, or remodelling from old, into what are supposed to be large housing units for small households. These things, the group effort of hosts of people appearing momentarily as credits flash or roll for short times, make reviewing difficult. Few relatives are ever shown. None of them have servants. The DVD is dated 2001. I'm struggling to identify common threads. Property prices have gone up for decades, though few people have any grasp of the Jewish-printed money reason. Some DVDs in the same style deal with white couples wanting to move to country living; there's no standard pattern that I could see, except they hoped for something bigger. They had no idea of the way, in the past, fairly affluent people lived, or whether they were johnny-come-lately types. Some of course had race issues: the Jews who promote these TV things always like to include blacks as part of their couples; whether these are genuine., or actors, is not revealed. Another interest of mine is the absence of books, or a more modern Internet-based version: I haven't seen, literally, a single episode with anyone displaying an interest in learning—again of course a Jewish thing, appropriate to parasites, with their long tradition of obliteration of any goyische—if that's the word—ideas.
As I say, none of these people seem interested in ideas. None seemed to have a few spare hotel-style rooms: imagine having hotel-room shoebox-shaped spaces where visitors, distinguished and perhaps famous, could dump their baggage, have a coffee, and proceed to an evening of argument and amusement in the bar/ entertainment/ debate room. Not one seemed to want a library or a media auditorium, except maybe a cinema room. Nobody had a workshop. Nobody seemed to have storage space. Imagine the mental dullness. In fact, there seemed little space for familiar junk, despite the hugeness of the enclosed spaces. No special spaces for kids. McCloud never even noticed.
There are of course new materials and techniques. Float glass (a British invention!) allows huge areas of very clear double-glazable glass. But it's heavy, and often needs a crane and vacuum pads, and special mechanism to allow it to open. Wood panels, like updated plywood, with modern glues and modern saws, have to be assembled in factories, generally I think in or near cultivated timber, are an improved version of IKEA vacuum-filled woodchip surfaces. Even concrete in bulk is relatively new, needing mixing trucks to deliver, and big factories in limestone areas. Fantastic stuff. But McCloud elides over the problems. If the glass cracks, or a corner needs dusting, or something is hidden under concrete (such as heating pipes, or services) ... what does the owner do?
It's not clear even whether professionals are any good; it's possible the programme is cold-shouldered by most architects. Maybe it's for amusing TV, but there are plenty of errors. But at least it's the client's own decision.
In practice, we see people trying to manage their architects and projects for themselves—often with alarming mistakes and errors. There's not much on budgets or subsidies or planning; the whole show seems designed to emphasise the supposed cheapness of such things, skating implausibly. It makes so much more thrilling TV to have cliffhangers and problems. Doesn't it. Yeh.

[ Back to top of page ]

Rick Stein on Food

Review by rerevisionist 10 January 2018

I'm guessing this chap is a Jew, instructed to carry out the Jew agenda. It's amusing to note the restricted palate promoted under the pretext of diversity; just as in Europe mass-produced proteins and a few vegetables and once-local things (e.g. mozarella; and sourdough) are pretended to be wonderfully new and delightful. We see west coast fish (clams, red snapper, sea urchins, mussels, err sanddabs—sardines as in Cannery Row, ownership unmentioned, having long since disappeared), salt, pepper, tomatoes, olive oil ('extra virgin') chopped up and shoved together. Maybe with onions. Perhaps celery. Oh, and red wine. With Stein trying them and always saying Yum, that is delicious, this is my new favourite, tacos are wonderful. Restaurants and mobile vans ply their trades. He's always called "chef"; and he reconstructs the foods at home, or maybe in a borrowed studio. I'm reminded of the Monty python 'spam' 'sketch': fish and potatoes/ potatoes and shrimp/ shrimp tomatoes and fish/ fish parsley and tomato...
— — — I was amused to see some fruit growers praising immigrants—without them they couldn't pick their fruit! Surely anyone can see that! Some sad material about 'Hollywood' (much of it long gone) being praised; how exciting it must have been to see Jew propagandists and hack actors stuffing their faces. He claims to have visited in 1968 I think. The USA and the world inflicting and suffering under more-or-less permanent wars. Cheery mindlessness is of course inescapable in modern 'entertainment'. I suppose some people like it. I await his tour of Israel, showing the cheerful immigrants flooding in to sell their wonderful food. Oh, wait...

[ Back to top of page ]

Review 14 Jan 2016 of TV War and Peace BBC, Weinstein, et al

Multi-part TV thing. This must have been arranged as multi-part project: BBC's 'Creative Director' a Jew from Iraq, I think; and Weinstein, no doubt a Jew currently in the USA. With these things the credits are often the most interesting part: Lithuania with some tax scheme, Latvija coming into it somewhere, a few museums which survived USSR Jews' depredations. The Russian houses must have had servants, gardeners, cooks, bakers, clothes washers, nurses for kids in nurseries, butlers, ostlers, footmen; but they're always presented as almost empty, with cavernous interiors. Probably to save on extras.

Tolstoy (like Dickens) is a good subject for TV adaptations: vast amounts of superficial detail, and with identifiable individualised characters with little connection with the overall plot. Just right for the episodic and modular treatment. And the English accents help—US audiences think it's cultured and foreign, and probably the recycled actors are cheaper. ["Wasn't she in one of those Potter films?" - "I think he was that punk bloke, God, years ago" - "She was in the X factor I think" - "I recognise her; she was the pathologist with that detective - Wow, she looks older" ...] And of course scenery. And costumes: plenty of uniforms, ballgowns, peasant smocks. And composer opportunities. And script editors etc.

Interesting to see the huge scenes; I think I detected computer-generated effects, for example mist. And rectangles of soldiers in the distance. The scenes have to be cut-down; and there's a problem with aerial shots, unknown of course at the time. And the timing of artillery and muskets with slow-loading equipment. And the exaggerated puffs of smoke and explosions; and horses being tripped by wires.

Tolstoy was writing before machine-guns, and even before the British expansion into Africa. He had no idea whatever of armaments, costs, loans and the rest. He was something like a romantic writer, 'Gone with the Wind' in Russian. It's difficult to know how Tolstoy was viewed in Russia, in his time. Tolstoy, if his novels can be believed, had no idea about the fomentation of wars. He regarded wars as unnatural, inhuman, and inexplicable. He was indignant at the slogans of the 'French Revolution', and their pretence at brotherliness: there's a fairly complete absence of Napoleon as a grabber of other peoples' assets. I suppose he thought swaggering young men in gorgeous uniforms, and coquettish flirty young women, and their elderly versions dealing in memories of battle, perhaps as recently as the Crimea, and in inheritance and tradition, as something in the natural order in Moscow, St Petersburg, and the vast provincial peasanted Russian Orthodox countryside.

It's a mistake to regard these products as art or culture; any more than a clothes season is a cultural event. Most viewers, after all, probably barely watch. It's amusing though to note there is at least something human struggling under it all. After all, Jews ruled and ruined Russia for more than seventy years: it seems unlikely any of their literary efforts would bear resurrection, except as horror stories or as obvious fakes.

On Weinstein, and childish Jewish propaganda, and viewing in self-defence, here's a review by Onewhiteman of what was Paddington Bear:
Try also looking at children's films such as Paddington, a Weinstein Company production, which is blatant pro-immigration propaganda; a cute (illegal) immigrant bear transforms the life of an English family. The father of the family even risks his life for the foreign stranger and in so doing is rescued from his staid, boring life and regains his lost vibrancy. Oh, and Paddington is almost holocausted by a nasty blonde woman. The film is crammed with manipulative messages.

Top of Page

The X Files (1993-2002...)

The dots indicate the series is occasionally brought back to life, and presumably could be again.

I think probably The Twilight Zone was its black-and-white predecessor, with special effects belonging to the early 'Cold War' and sci-fi, taped sound, and horror genres. Plots all based on Jewish WW2 ascendancy assumptions.

The X Files was future-proofed quite well, mainly by ignoring tedious parts of the real world. Searchable film reels of documents, for example (I can't even remember what they're called) whiz by, rather than creak interminably. Car journeys barely appear; there are lots of cheap helicopters with sprung metal landing supports and a simple cross-fin. Maybe these doubled as ways to move equipment. Short-range phones more or less still look right. Cathode-ray computer screen boxes are by now so old they begin to look like a new fashion. The scripts are homogenous and the technical stuff has a percentage of genuine phrasing.
Most of the urban environment is USA housing with wood beams on the outside and cardboard walls inside. Repeated assumptions include the idea that it's normal to rent—the main characters live in unimpressive apartment, which of course is the normal Jewish presentation for goyim—they think it's their country, but Jews know better. Another repeat them is the automatic calling for an ambulance if anyone's injured: Jewish medical control is so great that sensible Americans try to avoid the massive expenses of third-rate medical stuff. And another theme is the suggestion that the FBI is about policing for 'the nation', which under Jewish information means anyone they import into the country to add to social expenses. At the time the series was made, the FBI was actively concerned to plan to keep the 9/11 fraud from being exposed.
The effects look quite good, though they lack the high detail of motion-capture and surface effects. The big close-ups of faces with detail spotlit for effect look much like they still do. Even Mark Snow's synthesised music sounds effective, I'd guess played on a keyboard with programmable keys, a descendant of church organs with 'vox humana' and assorted effects.

The X Files used effects which are standard in all horror/ sci fi movies, such as facial expressions of terror, dangerous people soundlessly appearing from nowhere, loud explosive sounds, 'bugs' in both senses, deformities, corpses. Back then they had no 'motion capture', no computer to follow body part lights, as in Lord of the Rings and indeed Jackson's disappointing sequel King Kong.
Hence we have liver flukes, man-sized in place of the actual leaf sizes. And a man in a gorilla suit, with arms and legs out of proportion. And 'aliens', once a word for mentally-challenged people, man-sized but wearing big heads with impassive eyes, or actual models.
The casting agents must have looked for many strange-looking people! Extremely old white people are an example, conforming to Jew hatreds. A chap with no teeth allowing draculoid dentures. People with odd deformities must have given casting people work to do. Amputees have been used in more recent psyops, pretending their legs were blown off. More important are the ideas. "Ideas" isn't really the correct word; they're more like memes, or impressions.
When the producers discussed the 'demographics', it might have been interesting to hear them identify their targets. Audience figures, if true, only had maxima of ten to twenty million viewers, not a lot. They had a publishing imprint, written in simple language, which suggests the whole thing was aimed at dim people, no doubt with some renegades who didn't belong (like rhis author). It's of course routine that Jewish media should contain rubbish—a tradition including the Bible.

Many impressions are unconscious: an FBI building is shown as chunky concrete, presumably to instil fear, or the illusion of impressiveness, or the sense that crime is a huge problem. (Miles Mathis thinks it's a way to make ever-more money for institutionalised crime fighters). The FBI is Federal, not a state institution, and could be seen as an intrusion into States' Rights, in a similar way to the US Constitution being changed from "We, the States" to "We, the People". The recent Jew-promoted 'defund the police' pseudo-movement is presumably an attempt at a Cheka-style national organisation.
Similarly, military, naval and air officials are generally shown as 'serving' and other euphemisms; there's never any plot involving war crimes or war aims.

I've just watched all of the DVDs, allowing for some sleep time. We have Mitch Pileggi in his tortoisehell-rimmed National Health specs, a gift from John Lennon. We have Dana Scully, the supposed medical doctor full of buzzwords; I wondered if Dr Watson of Sherlock Holmes was part of her drama DNA. She was shown reading Breakfast at Tiffany's once. Mulder is shown (in Kaddish) laughing at the idea he's a Jew, despite his Russian Jew name. They call each other 'agent' all the time. As with the 'astronauts' in NASA—the stoopid goy dupes will believe. Come to think of it, this is a Jewish tradition, ranging from 'Rebbe' to 'Reverend'.

Many of the episodes are just horror—hair and nails removed, decayed bodies, corpses ingested with maggots or fungus. Years ago I watched a few of these things, and I was surprised how few involved 'alien abductions'. The first I think was Series 3, Episode 2: Jose Chung's "From Outer Space" (not the mixed race promotion).
Some techniques appear so often they are trade-marks, more or less: dim and dark scenes (with moody sounds and some music) for tension; very bright and over-exposed scenes for 'aliens' or car headlights; xenon (I think) flashlights piercing the gloom; rain for sinister effects, admittedly more effective than cheery sunshine. Tyre squeals. VHS tape. Phone books. Aerial TV signal flecks.
I found the scripts a bit repetitive and unreal: "I think you bedda take a look at this" is the standardised formula for prolongation. All the time direct questions are unanswered and direct reasons are omitted.

In view of the Jewish habit of repeating their own fakes indefinitely, I was interested in finding such things. It's easier to see the ones explicitly mentioned. Thanks to Miles Mathis and others, it's easier to find these things than it has been. I jotted down:
• Charles Manson as imprisoned bearded psychotic murderer / Dr Mengele mention as 'angel of death' / Japanese unit alleged to carry out lethal experiments
• Chernobyl
• Jewish medical crap in passing: cholesterol / chemotherapy (pronounced with long ee against cancer) / AIDS / fluoride 'preventative medicine' and dubious biochemistry: dormant genes, serotonin
• JFK I think: "Don't threaten me Mulder - I've watched presidents die". The Zapruder film gets mentions.
• Black seniority thing, used by Jews like blacks in advertising. (But blacks in Jewish positions are never shown—media owners, property conglomerate owners etc.)
• "The worst nazis at Nuremberg trials" - "Nuremberg defence" etc. I don't recall the word 'Holocaust'; maybe too direct?
• NASA fakes in there: "put a man on the moon". "A message of goodwill to SETI" (the 'Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence')
• Nuclear fakes: "sent troops through radioactive mushroom clouds"
• Cold War flickerings, which (of course!) don't mention the Jewish connection with Jews both in the USSR and USA. These include simulated flashbacks US and TV of the time.
• Vietnam War. Mitch Pileggi character I think 18, 25 years before. Talking of 'VC' etc and at the 1982 monument in Washington DC. Quite comedic, like most US memorials to 'heroes', in view of the immense force on one side. Reminiscent of Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya etc; not the slightest honesty or accuracy. Come to think of it, I can recall no mention of napalm bombing.
• Exxon Valdez mentioned somewhere
• US southerners shown as flyover territory hicks.
Other stuff shoehorned in: Carlos Castaneda and shamen, crystal healing, collective unconscious, Salieri and Mozart, Nixon saying "I am a crook"...
• Salem and witches in Chinga. Analysed by Miles Mathis in his Jews-in-early USA mode. Assumed true in the X-Files.
• There were occasional truths, for example the Piltdown man hoax, with a skull boiled in potassium dichromate and a broken sort-of-matching jawbone, which was only revealed after 40 years—Agent Mulder's figure.
• I was fascinated by Redux, 'Season 5, Episode 1' with a general impression of much bigger studios and better effects. Fascinating to see 'Ashley Montagu'—real name Israel Ehrenberg—the Jew doing his attempt at an English accent, with Carl Sagan and others, pus faked films of supposed atom bomb tests, which I recognised from my own videos made in 2012-ish. There was an architectural novelty, a tunnel or link from the FBI in Washington to the Pentagon, rater long and perhaps rather wet.
Traveler, a pun on time travel and fellow-travelers, included HUAC, the House Un-American Activities Committee, showing Mulder watching, on VHS or digital video, Senator McCarthy and Roy Cohn, a Cohen of course working against McCarthy, for Jews, siding with 'Communists' and/or Bolsheviks. I couldn't be bothered to identify their approach to the USSR/ Russia. I doubt if the role of Jews in China (or Japan) would get any mention whatever.

And so on. Then there are are things never mentioned by Jews: no murdered political officials; nothing on blacks as killers; nothing on illegal immigrants; nothing on the Sacklers and oxytocin, or the older equivalents. Above all, nothing on Jews. Nothing that I saw commenting on 9/11—but I haven't watched the later episodes yet.

An episode, Tunguska, on the supposed explosion over Siberia of a meteor, is so descriptive about this event that I wondered if in fact it was a fraud, perhaps covering up some Jewish 'anarchist' bombs. Another X-Files episode shows a cell scene in "Tunguska Gulag" which might indicate something. There is of course scope for going through the Jewish-controlled media to see what can be found. This of course includes the personnel; who for example is Chris Carter?

An episode Kaddish has its very own 'golem', something to do with th idea that people were/are made from clay, with all the usual pro-Jew without anything serious BS. All of the episodes as far as I've noticed are credited to one or two writers; and there's a story editor and script supervisor. This episode is credited to Howard Gordon. Many of the credits are subtitled (in old-style typewriter capitals) as they must have noticed many people ignore them if there are long scrolls of them.

Kill Switch's story stretched AI, "artificial intelligence", working in 'nukes' and 'star wars' and 'evolution of life'. 25 years later the best AI can do is assemble conventional journalism from official sources. Oh, well.

Recently the Occidental Observer had a comment to the effect that Australia should ditch the the monarchy as it's old and outdated. Occidental Observer of course is hopelessly weak. Nobody pointed out the archaic absurdities of Jews and their Biblical and Muslim derivatives.
In the X-Files I scribbled down Gethsemane; The existence of God arguments; Santa Claus—Saint Nicholas. And the even older fading sayings—Easter bunny; Guiding Light; Bonfire Nights; Holy Days. in the words of George Orwell, a new metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, but stale metaphors save mental effort, at the cost of being vague. Orwell said nothing about the Jewish staple of endless repeats of unsound ideas. All Jewish media do this.

The 1998 film The X-Files Movie (and episodes around 1999) seemed likely, looking back, to include attacks on tall buildings by foreigners disliked by Jews, but I didn't find anything, though there was at least one model building explosion. The theme of that movie was biological, with mysterious white bouncy-castle style domes for breeding 'killer bees'. Our intrepid FBI pair, Mulder and Scully, escaped a huge swarm by running fast, and weren't stung at all. The tough hero (necessary; you have to sympathise when they're shot or tortured, but don't want them injured). It's like the faked Jewish support for games, where sports injuries are never reported. I remember a medical comment on the pretend use of severe head impacts in movies, treated as a form of anaesthetic, and not the reality.
The other biological part (which seems pretty much a continuity error) involved injections. Which of course is much more relevant to the present day COVID fraud. (The AIDS fraud was less concerned with injections, beyond encouraging 'needle sharing' and amateur injections and other terrifyingly risky stuff.)
We move with no travel time to Antarctica, or perhaps a treeless part of Alaska. Agent Anon said that hundreds of years ago, the first life-forms were viruses, left by 'aliens' who were 'extra-terrestrials'. So we neatly get a package including ideas of the expectation of information secrecy, the existence of 'viruses' in an unqualified way, 'aliens' not as foreign human beings (or mentally ill people), and the assumptions of galaxy-wide travel. Another part of the package is the implication that deaths are not far away. Another Jewish hoe.
Anyway, those viruses could do nothing much. But now they may be released! Oh my Gawd. Fear porn. Luckily the unnamed research labs have developed a special vax-seen. Of which they have just one ampoule. Mulder/Duchovny falls into an underground lab in an icefield—keeping a low temperature, see? Just like the miraculous 'COVID vaccines'. Mulder finds Agent Scully enclosed in some sort of cylinder, her face, conveniently visible, having a tube stuck in her mouth. She's submerged in clearish green liquid: I think there was a Jewish convention that menace had the colour green. Think of Natural-Born Killers; maybe it's in the Talmud. Anyway, Mulder, ignoring all the other victims, smashes the breakable glass and gets a bedraggled Scully out. And then injects her. She immediately perks up and is back on form, running around, ready to aim her handgun without worrying too much about the recoil. So it'spossible that one point of the film included inserting the idea that vax-seens are real good and act real fast.

Richard Dawkins somewhere complained that The X-Files always used the same plot: two main actors, odd event, with one actor saying it was paranormal, he other saying it wasn't. Dawkins is just another Jew-suppressing type, and what he said is of course wrong. The events are not explicable if they happened.

A much later X-Files film I Want to Believe of 2008 had what was a later set of Jewish themes: Roman Catholics buggering choirboys, and a white 'serial killer'. In fact, Jews have record-breaking figures for abducting women for prostitution, for child sex, and other perversions, which their media control allows them to ignore. And black serial killers are routinely omitted by the Jewish media. On the other hand, anti-white stuff has become a staple of the media crap.
An oddity of the movie was the old Billy Connolly as one of a whole building full of abusers. He kept his Glasgow accent. It seemed ridiculously inappropriate.

How much of the X-Files was programming for the future? I still don't know. I jus doh know.

House (2004-2012)

On impulse I bought series 2: six DVDs, four episode each, = 24 episodes (if I haven't missed something.) Partly this was curiosity about Hugh Laurie, who was I think brought up in Britain, though probably, according to Mathis's Law, a Jew. I half-expected him to make jokes or pull funny faces. But he didn't; and perhaps the designer stubble look was to age him subtly.
His rôle is a maverick medico, though I forget the 'backstory'. Perhaps he's a house surgeon. He is supposed to be highly qualified, but has no fixed place in his hospital hierarchy. Each episode's format is to begin with a hospital-worthy event, generally with crime(s) attached, or controversy of some sort. Then the titles (with computer-generated hospital building—much easier to control) and dispute-driven material. The disputes generally are on diagnoses; there just seem so many possibilities.
You have to hand it to the Jewish mentality: their algorithms squeeze ownership and money and race from everything. Medicine and technology have made enormous progress in a few hundred years, mostly by whites, before Jews won convincing victories in Europe and the USA. Jews then did their best to impose absurdities, as in this case, where racial intelligence levels are ignored. The combined expectation might be much better health, presumably cheaply, but biased against 'goys'. And yet in the USA the average debt across the 'nation', so-called, is something like $10,000 for medical treatments. (That figure is from memory and may be wrong or too simple.)
House has some fixed points which are unquestioned. One is 'tests'. All the time patients are 'tested' and it was a TV convention that testing goes on offscreen and is never questioned. The results are stated; that's all there is. But in House this is not quite the case. The producers or writers or whoever have discovered that 'tests' can be wrong or misleading. There are no discussions in Hillman-style, questioning the solidity of the evidence; the inclination is to identify interactions and complications. Most of the time House gets it right, at least in the second series.
Two is drugs. These are all referred to by name; almost pet names, since they are chosen for market reasons, not science. I doubt if generic drugs are ever mentioned—for one thing, drug companies might not like that. But the point here is that the effects are assumed to be known perfectly, which isn't true. Even anaesthetics aren't understood. 'Side effects' (yeh, they're anthropocentric!) are a natural result of proceeding without full understanding.
Ethical issues form an important part of the plots: plenty of scope for lawyers, shouting, agonised portrayals of sides, including of course Jewish lies: the 'Holocaust' fraud, eugenics as a horror, abortion, switching off of survival machines.
Transplants are another unchallenged aspect of the series I watched, and of course probably apply throughout, since there's a lot of money in them, and Jews love the goy blood aspect. The sad facts of racial differences in organ matching, and rejection, and the need for lifetimes of 'medication' aren't dwelt on.
Worth mentioning that computer graphics are in there when showing scalpeled bordies and guts, with a few red cells to keep the view of the depicted organs clearer. Unsurprising since patients don't need to be videoed under careful lighting.
2024 update: On impulse, I looked at 'Season Five', and was rewarded with House Guests, mostly by three obese Jewish women discussing castings, including Laurie. The dominant Jew interest in medicine is keeping goyim down, mostly by propaganda, and the fat women were careful to evade such things. At least one of the episodes included 'SARS', another phony, but the fat women presumably were trained to assume people like Fauci and the other pirate crew had some knowledge. Anyway, long words take the place of serious stuff. I noticed Laurie at his dad's funeral, surrounded by impassive blacks in Haiti-style uniforms with multicoloured medals. His supposed acute awareness being zero.
I could find (in my restricted set) only one piece on writers and word niggers, Keeping it Real: Accuracy in Writing, a video mainly by 'David Foster, M.D., Producer', but of course there's nothing on the way Jews arrange matters (link is to Lorraine Day video, less than 5 mins), with kingmakers and both input from Fauci types and output to Jewish media and goy underlings. There's nothing on the absurd deficiencies in knowledge, which make much of the dialogue weak. And, just as 'of course', there's nothing on Jewish frauds and evils, such as now present themselves as COVID and imposed famines, with Spanish Flu and HIV/AIDS, back to spreading infections and the Black Death. Nothing of course on Jew narratives: imposed mental illness, imposed religious superstitions, strange broadcast beliefs in politics and weaponry and wars. Foster implied their writers—it's never specified just how many there were; perhaps every episode—follow up some report or sensation and construct around it. But to people with any feel for the jew-saturated corruption of medicine, all the episodes are unconvincing.
If I find more DVDs, maybe I'll write more.

Doc Martin (2004-2022)

Worth watching a sample of this to inspect how proletarians, and mere medical doctors, are viewed by Jews.

I haven't bothered to look up reference stuff. Apart from Clunes, 2004. There are several themes.

First is to include a bit of serious medical stuff; for example, on nasal polyps. Of course next comes the propaganda: the obvious example is injections/vaccinations, with a straight-faced Martin Clunes pretending he has medical knowledge. No doubt some babies will die as a result. This of course is to be expected. But there's a problem with all medically-based dramatisations, which is that most people are healthy most of the time. There's a Keystone Docs quality about Doc Martin, as accidents and poisonings, strange diseases and mental problems and organisation difficulties, come thick and fast.

A few other points seem to follow: the 'doctor' is shown uttering apocalyptic warnings, I suppose considered necessary to make people react, like telling a skivvy a bit of dust is disgustingly filthy. I think the point is that members of the public are preferred to be innumerate by the simple Jews commanding TV. Similarly, medical training and its otherwise-inexplicable lacunae aren't rationally examined.

And of course 'alternative' treatments are dismissed, in a ghostly duplication of the real world.

The scene is a small harbour town in Cornwall, Portwenn. (Not the real name). I was amused to see a scene with a girl suggesting male baby names. Mohammed and variations, the most common, was of course deleted. The whole thing seems to have longevity, rather like the cognate long-term Casualty. Sigourney Weaver turned up. Many pensioned-off elderly actors appeared. They're so old the younger generations don't know them. The very obese and improbable restaurateur appeared in The Russia House, I noted, as something like a Jewish spy. There's a hopeless cop, who may have been replaced several times. Middle-ish class makework hows up in various ways. And so on.

The Mentalist (2008-2015)

'Mentalism' is a philosophical position assigning primacy to the brain. Or it was, until computers showed something of a similar ability to brains. 'Calculating boys' aren't regarded as proof of humanity's superiority to mere things. The series is about a man who 'reads between the lies'—something on the lines of Sherlock Holmes, though co-operating with the official police while not regarding them as rather incompetent. I wondered if the idea was suggested by Darren Brown, despite his base in England, since he was broadcast in 2006, enough to allow for pilots and writing time. Helpfully, the monochrome titles describe a mentalist as 'Someone who uses mental acuity, hypnosis, and/or suggestion. A master manipulator of thoughts and behavior.'
The lead actor is Simon Baker, who I think is Australian, and has a slight Aussie lilt. He sounds exactly like his character, as do the other main cast members.

This seems to be another 'politically correct' series. In my view this is unfortunate, though under Jewish command it seems inescapable. Uncontestables include whites as serial killers and murders; large police budgets, which are shown here as investigating crimes fairly—probably nonsensical, as Jewish frauds are ignored, black criminality ignored, Jewish population frauds such as intentional invasion ignored; while anti-white stuff is common, women assumed to be tough enough to overpower big criminals. And all the rest of it, such as the dominance of hierarchies by blacks and women, and the total omission of Jews and the Fed and corruption by hyper-printed money. There's a running plot, based in California, where he's part of the 'CBI' (get it?) until the last series, involving 'Red John', murderer of Patrick Jane (that's the hero)'s wife, which helps unite the programs (written and directed by assorted people; as they all are—a system that must have been found to work in practice). I didn't personally like the 'Red John' repetition, which allowed for bodies and blood, but not enormously more. The very last series dropped it, and was replaced by a wedding scene between two of the characters. One characteristic of the entire series was the smallish numbers involved—the culprit was often one of few suspects. But given only about 40 minutes these things happen. I expect there's a rule of thumb about the number of actors to be fitted in.

The format seems to be always an introductory scene—murder of one or more people is an exciting way—and a minimalist title ('created by Bruno Heller'). Baker nearly always appears affable and smiling, often in incongruous circumstances. They still use the conventional camera with a flash and loud click. I have to say the multiple writers and directors haven't made a completely convincing character. Some have a bit of Freud; some have sleight of hand; some have results from pop psychology; some have weapons technology; some use DNA. Or in each case an approximation. I'm not sure any use hypnosis, despite the intro. Maybe the genre is just too difficult.

Already this has receded into the past, the characters having aged and been recorded—for the first time in human history leaving fairly accurate records of what they looked like. I wonder if Baker returned to Australia; maybe even now he's greeting the diggers with "G'day sport" and "they're drongoes!" of the monarchy.

Top of Page

Baron Cohen, Ali-G, Borat, Dictator etc
Strange how this ugly Jew gained access when dressed up as 'Ali G' to (for example) Donald Trump, Tony Benn, and others. The secret was never revealed; probably it was Jewish contacts and agents; how else? Cohen has had so far about four characters, backed by careful stylistic work and coaching in limited dialogue. These were Ali G (Muslim, significantly), Borat (from Kazakhstan, significantly), Bruno (homosexual style 'guru', from Germany, significantly) and 'the Dictator', based on Gaddafi, significantly. He had a film part in a junk film about the French Revolution, and apparently failed to play Freddie Mercury, because of 'artistic differences' with the surviving Queens. I haven't bothered to check the timing; I'd guess the Gaddafi character was part of typical Jewish campaigning, in this case against Libya and Gaddafi's dislike of Jewish central banks, and presumably before his murder.

I can't wait for Baron-Cohen's mad Jew, delusionally thinking he's chosen by 'G-d', talking about mass murder of whites in the USSR. And explaining how Jews lie all the time about the Holohoax. It'll be so funny! Millions of corpses made up for money! Oy vey! Come on Cohen! We all know you're a serious comic talent! Come on!!! Why not play someone like Dzherzinsky, luring Russians to their deaths? Or maybe (with a bit of cosmetic work) Trotsky? Or perhaps Kissinger? Or a neo-con? Or a Rothschild? Baron Cohen looks like a turd; why not act one? The world awaits.

Top of Page

Elastica

Another Jewish organisation.

I noted that Justine Elinor Frischmann, their singer, is of Jewish descent from Russia, I'd guess with her father a Jew from Germany, judging by the name. Probably this explains why she and they got lots of publicity. I'm drawing attention to this since many Brits are ignorant of this sort of selective promotion. For my taste the only good track they made was Waking Up, complete with a video of passive nude men, which I assume was a satirical comment.
There were (I was told) 35,000 aspiring pop groups in London alone, though this must have included lots of amorphous and unskilled bands. Since 'Frankie Goes to Hollywood' in 1984, assembled entirely from electronic processors, it's impossible to assume any supposed members of any groups actually recorded their own work. Before that, 'Boney M' had problems with a fake singer, and Elton John went to the Soviet Union, a Jew presumably invited by the Jews there.

Top of Page

Fairport Convention. Notes on the 1960s 'folk music revival', A L Lloyd, and the reshaping of history. Rae West 8 Dec 2019.

This was sparked by a chance look at a video on internet, the 2017 'documentary' celebrating the 50th anniversary of the founding of Fairport Convention. Many of the musical talking heads were unsubtitled, though their names appeared at the end. As I write this, it has been clear the the Jewish-owned Youtube was several years into heavy censorship. So any surviving Youtube is under some suspicion. If you find facts about Jews incredible, I should warn you that you're probably not ready for this article.

'Folk' music is in principle a fascinating topic. I have a copy of A L Lloyd's Folk Song in England (Published in 1967 by Lawrence and Wishart, notable as a 'Communist'—i.e. Jewish—publisher; my copy is the 1969 paperback, cover design by Hipgnosis, with a Morning Star (once the Daily Worker) Communist—Jewish—approving sentence in the blurb on the back. I found this book's lack of thread made it rather unreadable; it has five chapters (The Foundations of Folk Song, The Songs of Ceremony and Occasion, The Big Ballads, The Lyrical Songs and Later Ballads, The Industrial Songs) but the contents don't bear much relation to the chapter headings. Perhaps Lloyd awaited the word processor. Lloyd provides endnotes (with many languages), a bibliography (with many languages), sources of his music examples, an index of first lines and variations, and a general index.
I've just noticed it was reprinted in 2008 by faber & faber, with the paperback in 2009. I haven't attempted to check if this reprint was unaltered.

Lloyd says he received an unsolicited grant from the Arts Council. And something to do with The Workers' Music Association. Both are typically Jewish funding structures, offloading costs onto the natives. There's a short clip of Lloyd in the documentary; in a suit, elderly, politely spoken.
Lloyd uses something like Marxist jargon: village life before the enclosures, but nothing on Cromwell and the Bank of England; poverty, seapower, not very credible accounts of industrial songs—it was often very noisy. Lloyd's mother's name and detail is scrubbed from Wikipedia, but we're told he ‘joined the Communist Party of Great Britain and was strongly influenced by the writings of the Marxist historian, A. L. Morton, particularly his 1938 book A People's History of England.’ I recommend Morton—note that there are no mentions whatever of Jews! The book probably was connected with Jewish promotions aiming for the Second World War.
Lloyd's name is given as Albert Lancaster Lloyd; I'd guess Lloyd was a renamed secret Jew, weighing up all the available information. Folk song coming from below was probably largely mythical. See for example Miles Mathis on 'Ewan MacColl' and others with fake names—The Folk Scene was Totally Manufactured. And on Peter, Paul and Mary as spreading anti-love messages. A suggestive comparison is with Lilliburlero printed in An Antidote Against Melancholy (1661), supposedly a hugely influential song, essentially pro-Jew, and publicised widely, though most of its bellowers would not have known that. The sounds may even be Hebraic. As far as I know the tune is still used by the BBC in broadcasts overseas.
I found this self-referential refutation of 'folk music' online: ‘In fact Bert Lloyd comes from a long tradition that arguably had more influence on folk song than the oral tradition itself.’
Tucked into my Folk Song in England I found a copy of a Times obituary, dated 2 October 1976. This was Dr Maud Kapeles, born 1885, who was Cecil Sharp's assistant and collaborator. I presume 'Dr' was honorary. In a 'family with many international connexions'. 'At the outbreak [sic] of the Second World War she worked to help, and find work for, Jewish musicians...' I hadn't known, when I tried to read this book, of the networks of publishers, BBC hacks and so on who were secretly 'Chosen People'. I was puzzled to find references to Romanians, Hungarians, gipsies and so on, meaning of course Jews, in a book on English folk, though of course it's natural to the Jewish collective influence. Another name I noticed is Mariana Rodan Kahane, described as Rumanian, a folklorologist. Béla Bartók is in there; suggesting that the nationalist movements in 19th-century Europe had faked and Jewish leaderships.
Lloyd and MacColl met Alan Lomax, another Marxist, ‘a song collector and folklorist. They became even more committed to performing and popularising folk songs and they were determined to show the political content of songs as they moved from their rural origins into the Industrial Revolution.’ ‘If they had to alter songs, make up songs and talk 'seriously' about folk songs then they did—does it happen in any other genre of music that the performers explain the origin and meaning of songs before they sing them? They did this essentially for political reasons—to raise working class consciousness and bring Revolution nearer.’ These are quotes from a website about ten years ago.
The 'Fakesong' idea bubbled away in the late 20th century; I doubt the Jewish connection was suspected, and so will not discuss it here. But let me mention another imposition: from 1760, Ossian was the supposed author epic poems 'discovered' by the Scottish poet James Macpherson. And Bishop Percy's Reliques of Ancient English Poetry was a supposed collection of poems and songs published in 1765. About a century after the Restoration, possibly this was arranged to smother true history of the Civil War and Jewish takeover by a thick blanket of Romanticism. Others may have been Cecil Sharp himself, Baring Gould, Scott, Buchan, Motherwell, Jamieson. And possibly Thomas Love Peacock in his populist material in Paper Money Lyrics (published 1837).

Unfortunately his book is not much use before about the time of the industrial revolution. Lloyd mentions a few pre-1900 book titles: William Chappell 'Popular Music of the Olden Time', Gavin Greig 'Last Leaves of Traditional Ballads...' But mostly he leans on collectors, Francis James Child in the USA (1825-1896), and Cecil Sharp in the UK (1859-1924), going around presumably with music MS paper.
Lloyd also collaborated on a book on English Folk Songs, with Ralph Vaughan Williams. Most of the songs are in modern English and 20th century; not old. I have an old copy (bought 1977, at the Lewes Folk Festival. I recall the Watersons singing outdoors a capella. Come to think of it I have CDs of Fred Jordan—see if you like unaccompanied singing: We Shepherds are the Best of Men (not my copyright), John Langstaff, and Martin Carthy. The songs have endnotes, which I think must be Vaughan Williams's, which in many cases try to draw parallels with much older verse. The bibliography is almost all 20th-century.

In the same way that most accounts of Oxbridge graduates say nothing about what they learnt, if anything, the video of Fairport Convention says nothing about record sales, costs of anything, sales of their LPs/CDs, wages, salaries, promotion, reviews, how they learned their music, subsidies. Almost nothing, giving a hollow-centred view. It would be nice to know at least if they lived on the money from their art.
Most of them seem to have come from Muswell Hill, London N8 (I think). I'm slightly reminded of Queen, from somewhere like Ealing, learning about singing, electronic sounds, drums, and being on stage. The documentary had nothing on their training in music; maybe it looked like cheating to not be self-taught.

The three main members we're informed were Ashley Hutchings (his father led a swing band in the 1940s—ignoring wars seems to be a characteristic of musicians; from my perspective, all these people were smug sleepwalkers, ignoring in particular the Vietnam War and the supposed nuclear crises). Hutchings was shown reading his 1967 diary. He was the one with the big collection and familiarity with Cecil Sharp and the English Folk Dance and Song Society.
And Simon Nicol, another founder member. He reminisced about his 12-string guitar, bought for £40 from a shop on North Finchley.
And Richard Thompson, with a virtuoso guitar style quoting jazz, modal stuff, and other things. At the time he looked a bit effete, if that's the right word, but in 2017 looked very different.
The origin of the band's name was a bit disappointing to me; I expected Rhode Island or a massive calling-together of souls, but in fact it was the name of Hutchings' family house plus a fancy word for a few people. I suppose it's better than the Dunroamin Skifflers.

So we're told there was a 'complete revolution'—British Folk-Rock, English Rock 'n' Roll by kids from Muswell Hill.
Britain, and much of the world, has of course a rich and vast history, mostly unknown. Typical 60s folk material included ships, hangmen, broadsheets describing crimes, Ratcliffe Highway, press gangs. The collectors collected from living exemplars of songs, who couldn't be expected to have memories back to the Middle Ages or earlier. Moreover, musical instruments were expensive (Thomas Hardy has some of his villagers with hand-me-downs) and if they existed (e.g. harps) must have seemed dated. And songs for wide consumption would have problems with honesty vs censorship, in the way that operas with large orchestras paid by patrons, such as aristocrats, were generally not outspoken, and often had absurdly far-fetched plots..
For that matter, written language is itself a notation, which of course can take many forms. In addition to singers, print was influential, no doubt more so than the few practitioners. Lloyd discusses broadsheets, printed songs, of which millions, literally, were printed, and in separate printing centres. They had their collectors, for example the diarist Pepys. These were registered with the Stationers' Company, a legal requirement to control printing.
And yet there must have been events worthy of remembrance: the Great Fire of London, with homeless people wondering what to do; Wyclif, Lollards &c trying to spread Biblical ideas; the Reformation; Little St Hugh, murdered by Jews; the East India Company; conversations which revealed secrets; US civil war; the Cotton Famine. Even if such songs or poems existed, I expect Cecil Sharp would no doubt have suppressed them.
And what about WW1 and WW2, and the covert Jewish victory? There are endless possible songs, on VIP spivs, deaths on the Rhine, Dresden, BBC news lies, Uncle Joe, pros in their reserved occupation, Jewish paper money, a nice bit of meat. I suppose the nearest is Charlie and his orchestra; for example The Man With the Big Cigar which is at the moment still on Youtube, to my surprise. On WW1, the 'Great War', i recently found an officer's diary on WW1: millions of shells, and millions of deaths. But these were largely the lower orders.
The whole subject of accepted material is an interesting test of hypotheses on history. The Dubliners recorded a very effective Skibbereen, but there's a complicated situation with Jews assisting pseudo-Irish groups, revealed more recently in the shape of filth such as Shatter. Lloyd gives an extract by Edmund Spenser on starvation in Ireland, as its Celtic base had its 'back broken'. But Lloyd mentions a 'Soviet folklorist Yury Sokolov', leaving little doubt that Sokolov would be careful to omit songs, if they ever existed, on GULags. The (((British))) Empire was in fact largely Jew-run, so we'd expect nothing on the East India Co, or lures to hardy types to settle the Americas and be 'free', or the Opium Wars. So sea shanties are approved. So is mining, though times before electric lights, electric fans and cages get synthetic horror.
Alexandra Denny ('Sandy') introduced Scottish ballads, English and Irish folk songs, when she joined—displacing Judy Dyble. (I haven't attempted the depressing task of assessing Jewishness in the members, financiers, publicists &c but on this subject see below on 'Ewan MacColl'). Sandy wrote her own songs, with elegant handwriting, and sang them, and went on to form 'Fotheringay', the name giving some idea of her view of the past. Ashley founded Steeleye Span, including Maddy Prior, who reminds, or reminded me, of Stevie Nicks, twirling and piercing.
I suspect, though it's a bit saddening, that the upsurge in folk clubs may have had as much to do with breathalysers and action generally against drivers and drink (and the reduction in hard localised manual work). Some pubs had strippers (I suppose I should add they were female). Some aimed for fine dining.

I wonder if singing is 'natural'. Surely the standard method must be transmission from adults to children: I remember one of my sons spontaneously singing "There was a farmer had a dog, and bingo was his name-o. B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O..." combining a tune with a spelling lesson, but without a musical notation. Looking at The English Hymnal, we find All Things Bright and Beautiful of 1848 assigned to the tune GREYSTONE. (It occurs to me that its apparently anti-Darwinian message in fact precedes The Origin of Species).
Lloyd is not very helpful on musical notation. There must have been notations not based on keyboards, surely. He says sight reading was common, and that (e.g.) dairymaids would read and sing broadsheets as they milked. There may have been pentatonic scales; certainly Lloyd gives examples with Greek names but without explanation of their sources. No doubt the Chosen People had more important issues. And in any case singers varied their tunes, the words being relatively inviolate.
In fact, Lloyd quotes with approval the statement that there can be 'no greater mistake' than to suppose illiteracy correlates with musical traditional skill.
It's noticeable that many songs (consider Victorian hymns) have four lines as a maximum, enlivened with perhaps repeated lines or some sort of chorus. One wonders if Eisteddfod songs had long, mnemonic, uninterrupted passages. It seems unlikely that (say) limericks could be set to music very successfully. 'The Vicar of Bray' was set to music, but is obviously too complicated for reliable delivery without a script. Anyway, it seems unlikely to the sceptic that the folk revivals could have been much of a revival.
Songs of the 'I'd rather hang around/ Piccadilly Underground' and 'Great War' songs of the 'It's a Long Way to Tipperary' type must have been professionalised. When the USA was coerced into the war, in 1916, all the Jewish music writers changed the words of their songs to push for war for others to die en masse..
Peter Bellamy, once of the Young Tradition, sang Kipling set to his own music, and died by suicide. I wonder if he did Binyon ('They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn...')

Anyway, back to Fairport Convention. They moved to Farleigh Chamberlain, to a big house, suggested by their manager. And later to a derelict pub in Little Hadham. (Explaining the title 'Full House' for an LP?) They suffered two road accidents—motorway van crash when their long-term manager fell asleep at the wheel and two others were killed; and an impact by Dutch truckdriver, who also fell asleep at the wheel and died at their pub. And two of them lived in Cropredy in Oxfordshire.
They influenced Dutch, Scandinavian, and Spanish music—Germany was unmentioned by Hutchings.

Sandy Denny died young—by falling downstairs, I was told. Dave Swarbrick died a few years ago. (I happened to be in a hospital where the name 'Swarbrick' was marked up; I wondered if it was him, without venturing to find out. He had an influence a bit like Clare Torry on Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon).

Peter Sellers' 1958 Parlophone vinyl LP The Best of Sellers final (B side) track is: Suddenly It's Folk Song. Sellers was obviously in touch with Jewish promotions; no doubt this was his comment. Sellers' voice acts a German tape recordist at work, and we have three tracks which might be regarded as containing sex and violence—the finer points of satire not being present. Sellers was in the film Dr Strangelove... (1964), ending with a series of fake nuclear explosions; I'd guess these fakes may have led to the film itself being in black and white.
Bob Dylan—apparently a Jew with family connection in Ukraine, named Zimmerman or Zimmermann—seems to have been defined as a 'protest singer' by his manager Grossman. Blowin' in the Wind was 1963-ish. This was of course fake, making use only of Jewish causes.
Phil Ochs (pronounced Oaks) was more to the point, e.g. with White Boots Marching in a Yellow Land. I've never checked if he was related to the Ochs & Sulzbergers of the New York Times, that testament to the stupidity and cowardice of Americans.
Now I think of it, Shaffer's The Wicker Man complete with pub singing scene suggested sex, maypoles, new spring life in 1973, plus a kill-the-king motif, as if from Frazer's Golden Bough.

Leaping temporally forward about fifty years, I ought to mention Dieudonné in France and Alison Chabloz in Britain, with their songs against the obviously fraudulent burnt offering to the Chosen Race. And I ought mention Sleipnir, the 8-legged horse band from Germany, but of course most of their songs and videos have been removed from Youtube. Alison commented that Richard Thompson converted to Islam, yet more Abrahamic nonsense from the Chosen. Sigh.

Looking back, I have to say the genre was not very successful. Perhaps because it could not, or was prevented from, recovering the true spirits of times gone by. Now be thankful to your maker.

Roy 'Chubby' Brown

Seems to be a genuine home-grown Northern comedian, who writes his own material. I have a DVD of Bad Taste—WARNING! If easily offended do not buy—and I've looked online. At the time of writing (Aug 2020) he was interviewed, at what I presume is his home, by someone who wondered if it was a relief not to 'schlepp' around; presumably a Jewish manager or something. I was somewhat on the alert, because Wikipedia implied a connection with Royston Vasey, a fictional village and subject of Jewish humour on such things as circumcision.

Brown looked older than his video, unsurprisingly. He sounded like a naive British working man, as ridiculed by the media. He expressed annoyance with the Governments—didn't Churchill fight to get us free speech? How come social media was full of people complaining vociferously?

Brown writes new material himself based on the news—if anonymous media liars can be said to write anything new. He chafes now, not being able to go on stage. I think he believes in 'coronavirus' just as he believes in the wonder of the Second World War.

He's reported to be not 'politically correct'; I think I heard of him from Germaine Greer, who didn't like him, unless she was doing a cunning promotional job. A joke like "What's the most intelligent thing that came out of a woman's mouth?—Einstein's cock!" is not 'correct', though it does give primacy to Jewish fraud. I've never hear him joke about Jews or American genocide or whites unable to fight back against, say, Muslim rape gags.

Ah, well. Funny, but mentally constrained by Jewish barbed wire.

Rae West 18-Aug-2020

Top of Page

anti-Jefferson Airplane

https://boards.christogenea.org/forum/main-category/main-forum/diversity-or-deception/47536-anti-white-propaganda-from-1973

Is a hostile piece. On an obscure record by Jefferson Airplane, under another name. Includes anti-white lyrics, below; some fascination in their primitive stupidity.
Probably the Grateful Dead represent something similar. And no doubt Frank Zappa.

Paul Kantner White Boy

Where will you go what will you do
What will you see when your night is thru
What can you do where will you go
When the people of this planet send you away from here

Where do you come from white boy what is your land
Everybody else knows where they come from
You don't know your place you never did you never can
You can't find a place in this land

Blacks and Reds and Apaches and Jews
All know where they come from
but you don't seem to know
Baby do you understand

You appeared in the Caucasus mountains the southern Russia of now
And you spread your peculiar form of death from Mexico to Moscow
You surprised the Europeans the Egyptian too
All of a sudden you appeared on their land
You made mountains for the Incas built pyramids for the Pharoah man
And you grew and you lived by their hands

Viking Roman fair hair Alexander Emperor slave.
D'you come from the earth D'you come from the sky?
Nobody seems to know

You build and you burn create and destroy,
You rule me now fair skin man with an unfair hand.
Where did you come from where were you born
Where were you living when the earth was formed
What can you do where will you go
When the people of this planet send you away from here
My boy...

Top of Page

Review of British social history and songs CD: Flanders & Swann complete

End of the 1950s.... conventional sophisticated humour, June 26, 2010

Nicely packaged 3 CD set with a multi-levelled nostalgic feel. Michael Flanders was a promising actor, who however had the misfortune to contract polio. [Added later: for possible link between polio and DDT, see elsewhere]. Swann was a pianist/ composer, partly of Russian extraction—or something like that. They worked together for about ten years, after which period the Beatles and other rock performers must have made them seem rather obsolete. Apart from a certain staged malice at Swann's expense, their image was of sophisticated commentary on then-modern life. There are references to such things as: air travel—then a novelty; hi-fi, as it then was—pre-digital; railway stations being closed; thermodynamics—influenced here by C P Snow; fashionable London addresses and fashions in interior design; status symbols (Vance Packard's 'Status Seekers' was published in 1959); modern buildings as criticised by supposedly outdated people; rubbish (or 'garbage') dumped in the countryside; and satire, of course another early 1960s thing. Flanders' skill, or perhaps weakness, was perhaps over-elaborate verbiage; Swann's skill, or weakness, was appreciation of obscure linguistic things. This works well enough (especially as air travel was becoming cheap, so previously out-of-the-way cultures became better known), but isn't everyone's taste. This collection includes several anti-war songs, including 'The War of [19]14-18' and an anti-nuclear-war song, 'Twenty Tons of TNT', recorded originally on small tape recorders. The digitised CD quality seems to me much better than what I remember of the LPs—all the words are distinct. They made two LPs, with cover designs possibly influenced by Tom Lehrer's. However they seem to have run out of material; the third CD, the 'Bestiary', is largely whimsical songs on animal themes—prompted I'm sure by the success of 'The Hippopotamus Song'. If you're in the mood, listen to some of these songs, in a group, with intermissions for sherry, and try to mimic Oscar Wilde amongst yourselves as you visualise the atmosphere of post-war theatres in London and in other places which they doubtless would have called 'the provinces'. There's a small format sleeve-notes booklet with fairly erudite commentary which should help with all this.

Top of Page

Last Night at the Proms

Victorian Prelude

The earliest famous Henry Wood, 'head of a large banking and shipping firm', married Ellen Price in 1836. She wrote stories for magazines edited by Harrison Ainsworth, like her, now an almost forgotten author. Her most popular work was East Lynne (1861), which I think found its way into the musical Cats, transmitted by T S Eliot. East Lynne is always credited to Mrs Henry Wood. Chambers Cyclopædia (vol II), in its brief write-up, says the critics were contemptuous of her, but highly praised her anonymous Johnny Ludlow Papers. She was said to 'unite plot and melodrama with healthy moral teaching'. I believe East Lynne was a three-decker novel on aristocratic life with adultery (or something) as a theme—and including Jewry. Immensely popular as a play, and I'd guess frowned on for not being on respectable Biblical topics such as famines, wars, and exterminations.
[Bibliophiles might like to know this: My East Lynne (undated) was published by The Readers Library Publishing Company Ltd 42-5 Cranbourn St WC2. ... lowest possible price per copy ... Nothing of the kind has been possible ... each volume should have sales of hundreds of thousands of copies ...]
The stories of formal music include pipe organs, which, more-or-less literally, bellowed out music in cathedrals and churches once they were permitted. And opera—around German Städte and perhaps Milan and Genoa—Italian musical notes and notations and descriptive vocabulary are still used, and many cherished instruments are what's now called 'Italian'. By about 1900, we had a subdivision between 'classical' and 'modern' music. Some of the latter was taken up by the 'Proms'. There's of course a distinction between songs and plain music, the latter being familiar from such things as bandstands and parks and people "walking out" and small concert rooms; and also somewhat functional music, such as brass bands and sea shanties and hymns and lullabies. The invention of amplification and recording, mostly in the 20th century, introduced new possibilities, such as huge concerts. The proms started in Queen Elizabeth Hall, a rectangle fronted by a stage, only moving much later to the more spectacular but less sound-friendly Albert Hall.
Significant when talking of London music were the music halls, combining pubs and audio-visual entertainment plus subtler things, including sexual possibilities, and 'propaganda'. (It's time a new term replaced that Roman Catholic one!) In the USA I think Vaudeville had a similar place.
Music Halls could propagate ideas—"Jingoism" being one—"We don't want to go war, but by jingo if we do, we've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too" from the 19th century Crimean War, being well-known. I haven't checked the words, but the pretend dislike of war, the use of the variable 'we', the money reference, and the secrecy of war aims—are of course all Jewish. About 60 years later, in 1916, the Jewish music trade all switched from non-war to support for entry of the USA into the 'Great War'. Similar thing.
The Hackney Empire was chosen by the Rolling Stones for their latest album—though 'Hackney Diamonds' must be an anachronism suggested by laminated car window glass.

Early Twentieth Century

Some Jews in the 'BBC'. An unsourced and undated meme. From my
British TV scattered notes 1956-1997

The Concise Universal Biography, a hefty 1930s reference part-work edited by J. A. Hammerton, and published by the Amalgamated Press Ltd of London—part of the anonymous Jewish press denounced by Hilaire Belloc and H G Wells—we find—I may as well quote it in full: WOOD, SIR HENRY JOSEPH (b. 1869) Born in London, March 3, 1869, he started his career as an organist at the age of 10, gaining fame with recitals, 1883 and 1885. He studied at the Royal Academy of Music, 1886-87, composed songs and cantatas, and later specialized in orchestrations, one of the most notable being his Fantasia on British Sea Songs. He made his début as a conductor in 1889. He conducted the first promenade concerts, which he had helped to found, in Queen's Hall, London, in 1895. The Queen's Hall symphony concerts were also conducted by him from 1897. When the promenade concerts were taken over by the B.B.C. in 1927, Wood remained as conductor, and he also conducted the B.B.C. symphony concerts. He conducted on many occasions on the continent, in America and in the dominions. Wood did much of his music in England, not only by the skill of his conducting but also by popularizing various foreign composers, and in particular, Tschaikovsky. Knighted in 1910, Wood sprung a joke upon critics, musicians and public in 1934 by revealing that the orchestrator Klenovsky, who he had discovered and popularized, and later had announced to be dead, was in fact Wood himself. [Plus a small b/w photo of Wood at Queens Hall, opening night, Aug 11, 1934 40th season of proms. Readers of Miles Mathis may view that date with suspicion].
For many years, conductors held a pop-star-like status. This is why I suspect both the Henry Woods of being family. I've made no arrempt to check this.
Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March (1901) with Land of Hope and Glory, words added by A C Benson (1902). Intertwined with coronation of Edward VII; Victoria's death in 1901 making the end of the Victorian age, and the start of the fairly short Edwardian era, after which George became king, and there was an impulse to talk of a new Georgian Age.
By this time Jews from eastern Europe had flooded into the USA and London's east end (mostly), transported by sea. The Boer Wars gave a few Jews (their aristocratic class; I forget their quaint Hebrew name) control of South African gold and other minerals; the 1913 Federal Reserve based on paper currency and the 'Bradbury pound' of the 'Great War' all consolidated Jewish power over currency.
Land of Hope and Glory of 1902 was a bit of triumphalism over the Dutch. But by 1904 we have 'the Russo-Japanese War ... the momentous character of which is even now not fully appreciated'. (I quote Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950), who lived through it, but didn't appreciate it himself, having no idea of the part played by Jewish finance.
So the flag-waving and excitement of the Last Night (which is newish; and may be fadeout) is as obsolete as Britannia's rule of the waves. The introduction of Jerusalem set to music is quite late. William Blake seems to have been yet another gullible Jew-follower, judging by his output.

TV Proms

The BBC was started in 1922 as a fairly typical Jewish company; many years after the prom concerts were started. BBC Proms is typical Jewish truth-stretching. Sigh. But anyway—this year's last night (9 Sept 2023) was the detonator of this piece. Let's do some accurately severe criticism! Last Nights The days when modern music as opposed to 'classical' was an attraction—and included Tchaikovky and Wagner, for those were the days of the Wagnerites, as drawn by Beardsley—are long gone. We have the sad spectacle of Jew-promoted stuff, though most people would not identify it as such. This year we had a 'black' (codeword for mixed race) chap playing the cello. There was a mixed-race 'composer': I put the activity in quotes because technical changes have made the activity rather unrecognisable. I think I could sense the irritation of the other players, disfavoured by Jews. But of course if they want to work, they have to swallow. (There was a similar process in visual art as sketched by Miles Mathis.)

The discussion in the very long interval was hosted by a 'Kugel' Jew woman—excessively sweet but artificial, like peanut butter, with matching intellect. There was a US mixed race singer, and a Danish queer woman called Toksvig, wearing something like a blue carpet. I found it quite painful to see the fake stuff about being moved to weep by the wunnderful music. It's officially unsaid, but of course the absurd saturation with Jewish stuff—singing 'alleluiah', stuff about rising from tombs, the ridiculous 'God' fantasy, Blake and lots more—needs serious commentary.
The kugel described the kol nidre piece, fairly well known as a yearly vow by Jews to disown all contracts when they want—as a 'Jewish Hymn'.
We had the novelty of 'God Save the King' to Charles III, the new puppet.

The chat was largely about women: someone was the 'first female conductor'. Wow. This reminds me of a woman composer in I think the 1920s, who was compared by an enthusiast with J S Bach. We were told there's some sort of trade union of women film composers, just at the time when there's some awakening from the lethal gas of Hollywood. I'm reminded when it was presented as a wonder that the Church of England would allow women as vicars. Wow; that's real progress!

I may as well add a scribble note I found from November 2021, to the effect that a black women solemnly ascribed a march of the baddies in Star Wars films as though it was a cultural event.

The 'British' Broadcasting Corporations Proms, in 2017, had an evening of extracts from John Williams' film scores, which the helpful slightly deshabillé female blonde host outlined, including Speilberg's 'holocaust' film, 'Amistead' omitting Jews and slavery, Abraham Lincoln's battle against slavery, a 'war horse' from Dartmoor nobly assisting the goyim cattle in the Great War catastrophe, and other mostly-20th century trash. Sigh. The visuals played over the musicians, who look much as they did in 1900, though with intrusions such as saws, iron sheets, and balls on springs. They seemed quite old, apart from the exciting new solo 'talent'.
Their work reminded me of innumerable media workers—everything from anonymous 'news' writers, makers of documentaries, advertisers, publicists, some academics, false-flag fight arrangers, listeners and spies—the armies supporting the restricted overviews encouraged from the top.

Here's 'Luke O'Farrell''s piece from 2008. Titled Brave Jew World - The Enver is Nigh apparently in honour of a Hungarian. He mentions Margaret Oppenheimer and David Camoron (both Jews) on the Proms. And Jewish 'intellectuals' and 'journalists', plus Muslims, and Robert Mugabe. Fifteen years later, I've added My view of O'Farrell's understandably unwitting omissions.

Top of Page

The Dark Side of the Moon

Along with Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, for years The Dark Side of the Moon was said to be the biggest selling LP (in those days), more than ten years before Dire Straits. I don't have much faith in the accuracy of these figures. I'm not sure about the stories of CD factories making nothing else by Dark Side of the Moons. And of course prices have varied, and (since Internet) online streaming and the possibilities of downloads and copying and fakery have made the whole situation more uncertain.

All I want to do here is to comment on some Jewish issues as they reflect on music. My review of the movie Bohemian Rhapsody (on this same page; left-click takes you there, and the back key gets back here) has some quotes on Live Aid, which it seems fair to say was a world-wide Jewish thing, using methods practised by US money-raisers. Involving food and weapons wars, gullible general public goyim, and some Jews seeking extra fame. ["... several threads to the Queen story, including AIDS, making poverty history's charity links, and Jews/Freemasons and politics which would be expected to be unrepresented in the movie."]

I've also reviewed The Wall (movie, 1982. English Child's View of 'the Hitler War') and Nick Mason's book Inside Out - A Personal History of Pink Floyd, [The Dark Side of the Moon was years in gestation] both reviews in this same page.

pratt.pdf is just one Miles W Mathis files which includes Pink Floyd. [" ... So we can gain more insight into the feud between Waters and Gilmour. Although Waters is older and was in the band first, it appears Gilmour may have always outranked him outside the band. In support of this, we see that Gilmour is now CBE&mdashCommander of the British Empire—a sort of lesser knight—while Waters is not. ...]

At the time I write this, war between Ukraine and Russia—or much more accurately between Ukrainians and Jews there, and Russians and Jews there, plus world-wide Jews, is in an uncertain state. But Roger Waters seems to be a leading commenter, while the surviving Floyds are not. Maybe Waters knows more about "the battle of words | and most of them are lies" than is being stated.

RW 10 Feb 2023

Top of Page

Review by Rerevisionist of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo 2011/2012 film set in very grey Sweden and Swedish islands
–
Specimen typical in many ways of Jewish lies smuggled into detective entertainment

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (may as well add that) is set in Sweden; Daniel Craig as a non-existent type, a crusading journalist in Sweden. There's an intermittent backdrop showing Swedish TV, a sort of BBC with foreign flavouring, supplying background story fill-in, at just the right time. - And a girl as another non-existent type, able to hack into secure Swiss sites and move billions around: the Cayman Islands and Zürich appear. The hotshot journalist is unaware that Jews run publishing in Sweden; so are the ageing family who ran steel, construction, other industries, and built modern Sweden, and presided over a declining publishing firm, though this may have been put in to evade tiresome technical details. The company is assumed to have an evil history of dark deeds; no wonder alcoholism is a rivulet in the plot structure. The IKEA logo is included in a bit of set-dressing; and there's a disparaging reference to IKEA as a veneer. I doubt they paid a placement fee! Nobody seemed to have noticed Martin (the Swedish—or 'Jewish'?—actor who was in Mamma Mia) had a torture room and a long history of killings. His house proved easy for the lithe girl (ignorant of paper money swindles, of course) to enter, luckily for Craig, despite that island dwelling having numerous power-controlled doors. It was amusing to see the female laptop whizz (heavily made up panda eyes, faceful of rings, lit-up Apple logo) and home video cameras, doing her computer research, including scans of legal documents which to be fair may possibly exist somewhere, printed on an Epson. Naturally Martin had 'Nazis' in the family, though I didn't follow the supposed family structure. Of course the actual politics, notably of the Second World War, was (or, if you prefer, were) missing. So was a discussion of Jews in the USSR and the 'oligarchs'. The poor old Swedes were shown mostly as rapists, secretive types, incompetents, child abusers, and so on. The landscaping was in my view not well done—maybe filming schedules can't handle midnight sun vs painfully long winters. There was no discussion of immigrants, which Jews in Sweden (such as Barbara Spectre) are so keen to introduce. There was a Biblical motif, involving Leviticus—amusingly, Jewish behaviour as in Talmudic and other 'literature' was transposed into 'anti-semitism'—it occurred to me that the author may have been taking Jewish traditions and attributing them to Swedes, as his little joke. Disappointingly, the scene with Craig being tortured seems to have no Old Testament precedent: condign punishment for liars not being part of 'Jewish' lore.

Thanks to Internet, we can now instantly look up information on the author, or supposed author: he is supposed to have died before publication and promotion. I couldn't find, at least not in a short time, much about him: supposedly he 'researched' the 'far right' in Sweden, using equipment which now seems painfully old and slow. I don't know the extent to which he was funded by, or connected with, Jews. But clearly he was part of the problem. Maybe he was executed as part of the publicity? That would make a good story. Who knows; and who cares.

And there are people who pay to watch such stuff.

Top of Page

Review of Film/DVD quasi-historical Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom

Posted 5 Nov 2017. Review by Dr Peter Hammond, undated but second half of 2013; plus a few comments by Rerevisionist

This review (by a Christian convert, apparently living in Australia) interestingly does its best to grapple with a modern propagandist film, in the Jewish tradition dating back to Eisenstein. It fails to address the Jewish issue, unfortunately.
These include:
• Joseph Slovo and Ronald Kasrils as Jew representatives, and their violence;
• Jewish foundation of the ANC;
• Facts about Jew power worldwide, such as Cuba as Jew-controlled, the USSR as Jew-controlled, money as printed in the USA by the Fed;
• Christianity as a Jew-invented system;
• Weapons supplies and mercenaries as (by now) Jew dominated;
• Jewish control of media, and extensions into all education;
• Saddening history of Africa, including Jew-control of transAtlantic slavery; Xhosas ruined by fake prophet; Africans from the north moving down but not getting to South Africa; Boer Wars and relation to minerals and Jew control;
• Abundant evidence that blacks don't have the intellect for anything modern, and are therefore easily used by Jewish divisiveness.
- Rerev.
April 2020: Very good piece on Mandela as a Jew puppet (and homosexual Jewish actor!) taking account of Jews, Dutch and English and American, and Cuba and Africa, and Dutch East India Co and English equivalent. Miles Mathis and guest writer. Moved to this site so I know it's there. At least for now.

MASS MARKETING THE MANDELA MYTH Film Review by Dr Peter Hammond

The new Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom film presents a selection and distortion of the history of South Africa and Nelson Mandela as the secular humanists of the New World Order would like us to perceive it. The film rushes through the life and times of Nelson Mandela, completely ignoring the Cold War context and threat of Soviet communism on the borders of South Africa at that time. It glosses over the murders and massacres of the Marxists and presents scenes that stereotype whites as racist and blacks as noble revolutionaries only seeking for justice.

Political Propaganda Producer Anant Singh is recognised as South Africa’s preeminent anti-apartheid film producer. Previous productions of Singh include: Place of Weeping, Sarafina!, Red Dust and Cry the Beloved Country. Heavily funded by the South African ANC government and the Nelson Mandela Foundation, this 22 million Pounds authorised biopic presents a selection of incidents from the history of South Africa and the life of Nelson Mandela that will go a long way towards further marketing the Mandela myth.

Emotive Speeches Backed by Orchestras Shot for spectacle with impressive crowd scenes, the legend of Nelson Mandela is presented with numerous speeches backed with swooning orchestration that climbs to emotional peeks [sic] whenever Nelson Mandela addresses any crowd.

English Born Actor Plays Mandela London born actor, Idris Alba, plays Nelson Mandela from his early days as a smooth lawyer through his recruitment to the African National Congress (ANC), to his arrest, imprisonment, eventual release and election as president. Naomi Harris plays Winnie, the fiery revolutionary love interest and second wife of Nelson Mandela.

Animistic Circumcision Rituals The film begins with Nelson Mandela as a teenager going through the Xhosa circumcision ritual where witchdoctors prepare youth for initiation rites. The painting of their naked bodies in white chalk, passing through the smoke of burning everything relating to their childhood and washing off in the river, with full frontal male nudity, is disturbingly depicted.

Anachronism Next we see the Nelson Mandela character depicted as a smooth lawyer in a three piece suite walking past anachronistic security gates and burglar bars (which did not exist in South Africa in the 1940s).

Shallow Stereotypes The film is a mythic and heroic story of man against man. In this case it is a black man leading all black people against white people who are depicted as uniformly racist, shallow and stupid. The film makers apparently believed that the best way to exalt Nelson Mandela was to depict all whites as narrow-minded, selfish, racist bigots. The first scene of whites in the movie is of them sipping champagne on a balcony, while the black workers bustle around on the streets below. Numerous fictional incidents and comments are inserted in order to reinforce this stereotype.

Reluctant Revolutionary The time worn cliché of the reluctant revolutionary is inserted into the story turning Nelson Mandela from a happy-go-lucky smooth lawyer confounding a white woman in the witness box, to a frustrated and angry revolutionary fighting for justice, peace and equality for all.

Police Brutality Numerous incidents of mindless police brutality are depicted, giving the impression that, without any provocation, or reason, they would beat up, or shoot, black men, women and children in cold blood. Adulterous Affairs and Abuse Nelson Mandela’s pattern of adulterous relationships and repeated beating of his first wife are briefly touched on in a few fleeting scenes. Then much attention is given to the romance with Winnie, who became his second wife.

Preferring Paganism In contrast to the repeated, respectful treatment of animism, Christianity is dismissed in a few striking statements and scenes. Mandela states that God only seems to answer the prayers of the Boers, and Winnie declares that there is no God who will save us, we must save ourselves!

Necklace Murders Winnie Mandela gives a revolutionary call to violence from the front of a church, where the cross is obscured. With much anger and expressions of hatred, Winnie Mandela repeatedly calls for using stones, boxes of matches and petrol to ‘necklace’ the informers and kill the enemy. One brutal burning to death of a supposed informer through the ANC’s signature necklace method is depicted. Actually, over 1,000 black people were burnt to death by the brutal necklace murder, so publically promoted by Winnie Mandela. Many of these were elected black town councilors and mayors — but that is not acknowledged in this film, which claims that blacks had no rights, no votes and no elected representatives.

Ignoring the Cold War Context Significantly there is no mention of the Cold War context and not a scene or a reference to communism, the Soviet Union or the Russian and Cuban troops, at that time engaged in conventional warfare on the border of Angola and South West Africa.

The Missing Victims No mention is made of the Cuban training in terrorism received by Nelson Mandela. Nor are any of the victims of his bombing campaign depicted. From the film one would get the impression that his armed struggle consisted of nothing more than night time bombings of unoccupied municipal offices and a power station. In fact none of the ANC’s car bombings are depicted, not even the Church Street bombing bloodbath. None of the ANC assassinations, such as of Bartholomew Hlopane, are depicted or referred to. Nor the Shell House massacre when Nelson Mandela, as head of the ANC, after his release from prison, ordered his security to open fire on unarmed Zulu protestors belonging to the INKATHA Freedom Party.

The Communist Connection At no time does one even see a hammer and sickle. The huge Soviet and South African Communist Party flags that Nelson Mandela spoke in front of are nowhere to be seen in this film. Neither are any of the white Russian communist members of the ANC, such as Joe Slovo and Ronnie Kasrils, depicted in any way in this film.

The Making of a New Religion It is disturbing that this film is due to open across the United States on Christmas Day. With songs of praise and hymns glorifying Nelson Mandela being sung by choirs and taught to school children, we seem to be seeing a beginning of a new religion.

Icon of the New World Order Certainly Nelson Mandela is the pre-eminent icon and idol of the New World Order. The United Nations General Assembly has even declared 18 July, Nelson Mandela International Day!

Strategic Timing The timing of this heavily state-funded propaganda film is interesting as the ANC, mired in corruption scandals, is heading into an election year. Many see the timing of this film as a distraction from the disastrous failures of the ANC, by rewriting history to depict the past in the worst possible light and rally the voters of South Africa behind the party of the revered Nelson Mandela.

Blame Everything on Apartheid The violence of the ANC is mostly blamed on Winnie Mandela, with Nelson Mandela apparently disapproving. Even when referring to Mandela’s divorce from Winnie, Mandela’s character blames it on the apartheid government!

The Missing Opposition Parties There are disturbing and shocking scenes of the black on black violence in the townships with axing, macheting, shooting and hacking of men, women and children, but no explanations given as to who was doing what to whom. At no time is any hint given that there were actually other black political parties in South Africa, such as the INKATHA Freedom Party, with whom the ANC were locked in deadly turf wars.

The Last Word on Everything Throughout the film, Nelson Mandela dominates the screen and always has the most intelligent and profound things to say. He always has the last word, even in court and in prison. No one else ever seems to have a reply for his dogmatic statements. A Redemptive Message After all the depictions of white racism and evil, the film concludes with Nelson Mandela commenting: “If I can forgive them — you can forgive them!” He asserts “peace is the only way.” The film ends with a quote from Mandela’s Long Walk to Freedom book: “My country is not meant to be a land of hatred. People are taught to hate and they can be taught to love. Love comes more naturally than hate.”

Divorced From the Historical Context If the message of the film is forgiveness then it is a good message. However, divorced from the context of the brutal war being waged by the ANC to intimidate the people in the townships, and terrorize farmers and civilians, this film turns communists into heroes and Christians into villains. It also denies the depravity of man, claiming that love (apart from God) is natural and dismisses God as irrelevant.

Presidential Performance The film wisely stops at Mandela’s Presidential Inauguration in May 1994. That is understandable, because at two and a half hours long, the film drags and sags at times. It is quite episodic. However, it would be relevant to note that the Nelson Mandela presidency was a disappointment and a failure in many ways. Nelson Mandela reintroduced race classification for Affirmative Action, Black Economic Empowerment and job reservation. He legalised pornography and abortion. Violent crime exploded with rape and child abuse increasing 400% during his presidency. The currency imploded and the ANC looted the country of billions of rands through chronic corruption.

The Abortion Holocaust Over one million babies have been killed, officially, legally, in South Africa, with taxpayer’s money, since Nelson Mandela forced through the Termination of Pregnancy Bill 1 February 1997. Crime Wave Under Nelson Mandela’s presidency, an average of 25,000 people were murdered each year. Yet, to celebrate his birthdays, Nelson Mandela would regularly open prison doors and set many convicted criminals, including armed robbers, murderers and rapists, free. Some of these were murdering and raping within 24 hours of being released. Well over 100,000 people were murdered under Mandela’s term as president.

The Growth Industry of Murder To put this into perspective, in 44 years of apartheid, 18,700 people were killed in politically related violence. This included soldiers, police, terrorists, civilians, necklace murders, rioters — all victims. However, after Mandela became president in 1994, an average of 25,000 people were murdered every year. Over 67,000 whites have been murdered in South Africa since 1994, 3,000 of them farmers. Many fear that this film will incite further race hatred and targeting of whites for murder. Genocide Watch warns that South Africa is already in the Genocidal process stage 6 targeting white Afrikaners for extermination.

Economic Deterioration In the 1970s, even while facing terrorism, riots and engaged in a border war with the Cubans in Angola, the SA Rand was stronger than the US Dollar. In Mandela’s first four years as president, the Rand lost 80% of its value and more than 2.8 million man days were lost to strikes. The national debt doubled under Nelson Mandela’s presidency.

Financial Failure Therefore, under Mandela, even with no war, no sanctions, no riots, no conscription and with massive international aid and investment, the Rand plummeted to R10 to the Dollar. Economic deterioration and sky-rocketing crime marred his presidency. The Economist at the time described Nelson Mandela’s presidency as: “a failure.”

Do Not Let the Facts Get In the Way of a Good Story However, we are not meant to allow facts to get in the way of a good story. So, this Mandela film calls us to forget all these facts and to shelve our pro-life, pro-family, moral convictions and bow before this new idol, sing this politician’s praises and effectively burn incense before the image of a new Caesar.

Rewriting History Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom presents a selection and distortion of the history of South Africa and Nelson Mandela as the African National Congress (ANC) would like us to remember it. This heavily state-funded biopic is politically correct propaganda which markets the Mandela myth by ignoring the Cold War context and threat of Soviet communism on the borders of South Africa at that time. Stereotypical and episodic, it includes numerous obscenities, nudity, occultism, pagan and humanist worldviews, anti-Biblical and anti-Christian sentiments, immorality, adultery, drunkenness, smoking, extreme, brutal and disturbing violence, revisionist history and racism.

Summary Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom markets the Mandela myth by demonising white South Africans, dismissing Christianity and God, promoting paganism, occultism, humanism, socialism, and justifying violent revolution. The film is a mythic and heroic story of man against man. Despite ending with a call for forgiveness and love, the rest of the film seems more inclined to incite hatred and racial stereotyping. It does not allow the facts of history to get in the way of their story of this icon and idol of leftist causes and the socialist New World Order. Dr. Peter Hammond.

Top of Page

Mondo Cane (Dog World) 1962. Africa Addio (Goodbye Africa; Africa Adieu) 1966.

Two Italian films. These were in colour, and must have used large, clunky equipment, often in difficult circumstances. I suspect reels were used to source clips for many films. I can't tell whether the 'directors' were the cinematographers. 'Shockumentaries'. The narration tried to hold the films together.

Mondo Cane may even have been a reference to eating dogs. Rites, cruelty, animal slaughter, violence, prostitution. Modern Italy had only a small empire and not much anthropology research; the whole 'third world' was their banquet. Not a film for the sunnily optimistic.

Africa Addio had the theme of the post-1945 departure, at least in theory, of Europeans from Africa. There's a scene of Ruritanian-style Brits leaving, one in a three-cornered hat (I think). We see cattle maimed by the Mau Mau. There are scenes of mercenaries in the Congo, looking at Congolese paper money—presumably a Rothschild gift. I wonder if it was treated as legal currency? There are scenes of hunting—elephants, hippos. We see gold miners under Johannesburg. And wars, and the outcomes of wars, though probably Africa was too poor to get the worst of this. Jewish loans would not cover much. The almost invisible shadow of Rothschilds and their puppet governments darkens the film now and then.
At the time of this film, Vietnam was being bombed and ruined, and helicopters used up like US Stock Car races; this African material is relatively tame. In a few years Biafra and Nigeria would be at war; then Uganda in which Netanyahu's brother was allegedly killed.

I don't know how many people still think the 'United Nations' was a fine upstanding project. Or that Jewish media (National Geographic, Reader's Digest, Time, Life, BBC...) are accurate.

Top of Page

2011 Anonymous - the film - reviewed.
(This is copied from my site on de Vere).

So far as I know, this is the first film to treat de Vere as 'Shakespeare' - certainly the first with full scale VFX—despite the disclaimer that it's 'entirely a work of fiction...', maybe reinforced by Sony's make.believe tag. Derek Jacobi (modern day theatre orator, shown linking to the past) and Mark Rylance (plays an Elizabethan leading actor) are known to me as Oxfordians. I don't know about the Redgrave mother and daughter (both playing Elizabeth), or Rhys Ifans (only known to me as the underpants-clad sidekick in a Hugh Grant film, and in a film on Irish people, off to the Spanish Civil War for Jews) as de Vere, though presumably they have some sympathy with the idea. Trevor Howard, more than half a century ago, was an Oxfordian, but, as with a mention in a Galsworthy novel, his interest barely showed in his films.
'Anonymous' presents some known aspects of de Vere's life, and weaves a plot from them, though much of the detail is conjectural. For example, de Vere was known to have killed a man lurking behind the arras—this film uses the incident to force a marriage on de Vere. Another example is a final scene showing Ben Jonson (played by Sebastian Armesto) recovering leather-bound parchment MSs from a metal trunk after they survived the fire of 1613 that burned down The Globe. There is little real evidence (as far as I know) for either joint event, but in each case two puzzles are combined in one filmic solution.
Burford, the modern writer and speaker now self-renamed Beauclerk, is an advocate of the Elizabeth/ de Vere incest theory—a theory which has caused a serious rift in the Oxfordian movement. I won't give the detail here. John Orloff is credited with the script, but I don't remember any historical or literary advisors in the credit list. He adopts the incest idea.
Since 54 years of de Vere's life have to be encompassed, the casting people picked three actors of different ages for several of the parts. I'm tempted to say the sets didn't look very similar—but then, perhaps many people don't resemble their younger selves very closely. William Cecil (I think I'm right in saying) is shown as so old that the make up and prosthetic people only needed to work on one actor.

'Anonymous' is worth watching for its technical skill, not just because it's pathbreaking as a piece of 'revisionism'. But it has many limitations. I'll just comment on a few aspects---

** The Spanish Armada, part of the Spanish War, occurred when de Vere was about 38. This war had an impoverishing effect on Britain (and no doubt Spain). Many parts of Britain had famine. If de Vere wrote the plays, there was a good deal of patriotic material aimed against Spain. There's a very good essay by Capt. Ward on this subject, which the 'merrie England' types seem not to know of. When the Armada failed, these propagandist plays ceased. De Vere is shown as more or less 100% a writer; is comic skills, legal pursuits, travels, are ignored.
** De Vere is believed to have been paid by Elizabeth, essentially as a propagandist; two plays per year being required. At least this story was reported by one of the early writers on Shakespeare as being current in the writer's time.
** The name 'William Shakespeare' is attributed to a Warwickshire travelling player type, just as in the traditional version. In the film, he's shown as unable to write, and to spontaneously giving his name as author of Henry V, since Ben Jonson was unwilling to come forward. The usual Oxfordian view is that the name was made up, both 'Will' and 'Shakespeare' being in some sense synonymous with poetry. Under this version, Shaxper, who lived in Stratford-on-Avon, and was helpfully illiterate, was located as a substitute for de Vere, who lived in Stratford, East London. Earls were not supposed to stoop to writing. And Christopher Sly was de Vere's commentary.
** It would not surprise me if Shaxper was some sort of war profiteer in food; hence the sack of grain and his expensive monument. Maybe. It's easy to imagine a grain dealer asked to visit London to help relieve famine, and being taken up as the hard-to-contact author when the multiple coincidence of his name and place and visits to London were noted.
** The film is constricted—these events occurred when the entire world was opening up. Columbus's 1493 return was fifty years before de Vere's birth. Colonisation of the USA was beginning. Several empires were established—Spanish and Portuguese, and several starting - British, and Russia's land empire. The Italian Renaissance was long established. There were wars throughout Europe; with more to follow. China was felt to be known, through Marco Polo's doubtless faked adventures. De Vere's education (his tutors are faithfully listed in the film) included what are now called 'the classics'. He visited Italy. Not much of this is really shown or implied in the film—Cecil is never shown with his maps and information about ships and their timetables and cargoes; Walsingham isn't shown with his spies. De Vere's sporting prowess is hinted at only through fencing, and real tennis, not with jousting. Nor is de Vere shown at Cambridge, or with lawyers, or at war with the Dutch, or with his companies of actors. London is represented mostly as a present-day small German town, with green screen support; it's too small! But of course many of these things are difficult to film. The mental expansion of the period doesn't begin to be addressed: Machiavelli and Erasmus were new writers, Bruno was a contemporary, Galileo was young but active. Scaliger (the elder) was reconstructing remote history.
** Many events which were recent at the time of 'Shakespeare' aren't put into the film—possibly there simply wasn't time. Henry VIII gets a few mentions as Elizabeth's father, but his wives aren't mentioned. Nor is Henry VII, against whom de Vere had a special animus. There's no mention of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, an event more or less within living memory, which must have had shattering complications, somewhat analogous to what might happen if Jewish power in our own day were to be removed.
** De Vere's wealth, and its disappearance, is part of the de Vere life and legend. Much seems to have vanished during his minority, and much when he was touring Europe. I've never seen a convincing explanation of the underlying economic forces which one assumes underpinned the transfer of wealth—mostly (I think) ownership of land and property, but also some Tudor monopolies (as per the 'tin letters'). It's possible the introduction of interest, made legal by Henry VIII, had something to do with it.
** Financing: the list of implied 'angels' of this film does NOT include the BBC. The BBC gets a guaranteed few billion a year from the British public, and likes to use this financial muscle in assorted ways never intended by the founders. Perhaps it's unnecessary to say that a project like this—and in fact all the plays need a serious revisionist treatment—received no BBC funding; only propaganda and low-grade material gets their money.

Aug 2016 Oona Craig on Jews and England
...de Vere's pain in hiding his authorship must have been much less than his pain at being deprived of his kingship and at seeing England infiltrated and controlled by Lord Cecil and his co-conspirators, such as John Dee.
In The Secret History of the West Nicholas Hagger notes that William Cecil, Francis Walsingham and Lord Bacon did not wear doublet and hose but wore black, imitating the black Jewish attire of the Amsterdam Jewish bankers. The implication is that the Cecils were cryptoJews.
At age sixteen Elizabeth I had an illegitimate child by her guardian Thomas Seymour. Seymour was executed, and the birth was covered up by Lord Cecil who placed the child (de Vere) in several homes. In later life Elizabeth, who seems to have been traumatized into mental instability by the constant threat of beheading, seduced her own son, Edward de Vere. She bore his child. Elizabeth and her son entertained the idea of marrying....but not for long. Lord Cecil seems to have convinced Elizabeth that losing the negotiating card of her marriageability would damage the security of her crown (her head). Cecil blackmailed Elizabeth into marrying her son de Vere to his daughter Anne (Ophelia). To make the marriage appropriate for a royal son, Elizabeth raised Cecil's rank by making him Lord Burghley.
This scandalous secret explains why Shakespeare's plays are continuously promoted by Hollywood films despite their poor box office performance. This explains why major stars are directed to star in these unprofitable films. Shakespeare's plays and movies about Elizabeth I's alleged brilliance have been a staple of Jewish Acting Propaganda for over 500 years. The Jewish spy, John Wilkes Booth, was famous as a Shakespearean actor. Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton performed in "The Taming of the Shrew"; Zeffirelli made "Romeo and Juliet"; Mel Gibson performed in "Hamlet." Al Pacino was Shylock in "The Merchant of Venus."; Helen Mirren, in "The Tempest" (2010); Russell Crowe, in "A Winter's Tale." de Vere's pain in hiding his authorship must have been much less than his pain at being deprived of his kingship and at seeing England infiltrated and controlled by Lord Cecil and his co-conspirators, such as John Dee.
Why is this? Why are there no Hollywood films based on the plays of Ben Johnson or Christopher Marlowe?
Because the Hollywood heirs of Polonius are celebrating their successful destruction of the Tudor line . . the same way they still celebrate Purim -- their successful attack on the Persian throne 2000 years ago. The same way they continue to celebrate their successful intrigues and scams against nonJews by portraying them in Hollywood movies (The Aviator, JFK, Platoon, endless nazi movies....) By celebrating their crimes, the heirs of Polonius are "casting spells."

Lord Cecil's Elizabeth I = Mordecai's Queen Esther. Elizabeth I and her "Virgin Queen" propaganda was developed into the sex goddess propaganda (Marilyn Monroe) of Hollywood. In 16th and 17th century England the Jews perfected their witches brew (propaganda, banking, civil war) that they would use subsequently to poison all nations. The Jews worship the serpent...and the serpent on Elizabeth I's arm in the "rainbow" portrait reveals her sexual bondage to the serpent.

** Interesting revisionist case-study in groups of 'experts' who will not debate. Obviously many people have noticed this sort of thing—'knowledge islands', 'editors as gatekeepers' illustrate the sort of thing. The Shakespeare case is important because it removes the present-day element almost entirely. Hardly anyone now alive has a vested interest in the plays or the people or the properties. We're talking of events 450 years ago. And yet the impulse of 'experts' to keep the topic in-house is almost irresistible.
** Interesting anti-intellectual links: A Jewish movement, as documented by Kevin MacDonald, is anti-white racism, and one of the facets of that movement is the denial of the importance of intelligence and creativity. All the main opponents of IQ/race links are Jewish. Thus the idea that an uneducated man from a remote country area could intuit knowledge, even of arcane subjects such as law, is pretended to be credible. And this 'PC' attitude helps underpin the 'Shaxper' myth. In its turn, this helps deprive English-speaking people of insights into the plays, which are more or less incomprehensible without some idea of the background. This deprivation is both personal, the life of de Vere, and literary and cultural. It has to be said women usually go along with this: there are innumerable mediocre teachers of English who assert, apparently sincerely, that anyone can understand the plays, which are just exercises in oratory. Obviously they can't be expected to take any interest in serious work on the plays. The screenplay writer of Anonymous in effect compares himself with Shakespeare (see the DVD extras) and seems to have no idea of the powerful effects of new knowledge and the spread of ideas. De Vere is shown as watching a play, intoxicated by the POWER of words, in a narrow, advertiser- or news-broadcaster sense. The film-makers don't seem to realise edited, alternative versions of the plays were common.
An additional file shows Emmerich as an amiable German type, I'd guess Jewish, at ease in a world of green screens and CGI and large crowded studio sets. John Orloff seems an unlikely scriptwriter; his version of de Vere shows a man with stacks of scripts, shelved away for future use—probably not unlike Los Angeles with its hopeful writers. Maybe this genesis explains why the film seems to suggest that Julius Caesar, Hamlet and the rest were stories disconnected from Elizabeth's court.

[Back to start]

Review of Film/DVD historical Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

Imaginative reconstruction, February 23, 2012

Interesting as an attempt by an independently-minded star to step out and expand. I suspect the marketing department made their mark though—the title is odd; and what does 'No one can outrun their destiny' mean?

This is set in Mayan territory in about what we call 1600. Mel Gibson (who doesn't appear) presides over an explanatory video; he doesn't seem to realise there are many different types of 'jungle', but anyway he found a site he liked, flat enough to film in, with clear areas suited to building a Mayan-style pyramid complex and village. Both the jungle village, and the Mayan mini-town, are quite well realised though (sigh) marginally on the small side. There's another area, apparently for burning lime for mortar.

The village is shown as idyllic with many practical jokes. For my taste the ethnic make-up didn't really look right, being mostly heterogeneous extras with brownish make-up. However, the lead Maya baddie had an impressive (prosthetic) beaked nose effect in profile. There's a good tapir hunt at the start, with a sudden-death gadget which slightly reminds me of a thing in 'Badlands'. Maybe it's inevitable, but there were suggestions of other film influences—an un-escapable pit (as in 'Silence of the Lambs'), a leap down a waterfall ('Butch Cassidy'), arrows and spears being tugged out (LotR style). The village life was well done—happy kids, cheerful healthy people, comfort, some communal things, fires, thatch, dancing—and throughout the film the scarification, tattoos, nose and ear jade pieces looked convincing and, like the colours throughout, were supposed to have been researched and accurate, as was the subtitled language. The dancing looked a bit under-choreographed to me, but you can't have everything.

But we also have 'the universality of warfare and its oftentimes awesome savagery' and we have a scene with a very similar group, fleeing in dread. The village chief was not interested in asking them why they were fleeing—the forest is his, and fearlessness is right. (Come to think of it, the fleeing group didn't blurt out why—also a bit odd). Anyway—there follows quite a long scene of what looked like a massacre, but turned out to be a roundup of captives. This was slightly like a Vietnam War scene could have been, if filmmakers had independence and courage. It's surprising how easily a film can cause an emotional reaction: one of the overseers taking a group of captives, roped to a long stick, for their long march to town, was a sadistic type. Yeh—fall down the cliff too! The lead kidnapper had his clothing style worked on—there's a sort of Aztec/ Roman feel, plus animal skulls. We have a nod to worrying superstitions—a little girl with awful warnings.

Then we have the town. It's well done, with interesting human types. I have to say the top of the pyramid, the rectangular platform, looked a bit small to me, as if an energetic desperate prisoner could have taken quite a few guards rolling down the steps. There are some impressive headpieces for the priests and (I think) the king. We have a sacrifice, complete with beating heart held aloft, removed with an obsidian knife. At this point we have a real stretch: a total eclipse of the sun, just before the hero is about to become heartless. It's not filmed very accurately—a partially-eclipsed sun can't be looked at directly, so there's just a chill and some oddly shaped shadows. Most films get implausible some time earlier. It's made clear that the killings aren't just being nasty. (Or—I thought this was another fact, or factoid—so that the priests could eat young women). The Maya are having problems, and hope a few deaths will appease the Gods.

Anyway—the would-be victims are now to be disposed of. We have a pit with bodies, an open area, spears and arrows and stones, a corn field with genuine maize, a lot of running through jungle, and a waterfall. The lead baddy's feebler son—the daddy is obviously a bit disappointed in him—gets himself killed, which emotionally propels the chase of half a dozen Mayans against the remaining villager. We have death by snakebite, death by jaguar, a wasp's nest, a poisonous frog blowpipe, and a repeat of the tapir wood stake trap. This is nicely done but not completely convincing: the pit of bodies would surely have been heaving with maggots, flies, carnivores, and birds of prey. And the jungle was almost insect-free...

Another stretch here is just related to the distances: I've no real experience running through jungle wearing not much clothing, but probably the town to the forest home might be about twenty miles. So surely they'd have some idea of what was happening... Anyway, there's the waterfall drop scene—a green screen job, surely—which the lead baddy emerges from holding his bow and arrows...

A subplot is the hero's wife, and young son, who has a gash stitched with severed ant heads, hidden in the well—which was dry, but now fills—we seem to get about 70 inches of rain in a few hours. She also gives birth underwater.

And we get to the sea, presumably the Gulf of Mexico. By a standard convention, the two hunters and their prey all gawp at a sight they've never seen—three European ships, offloading white men in small boats. ...

Three stars for originality.

This film probably deserves more stars; I was just watching a video of a third-rate British (perhaps) comedian who was slurring Gibson on the usual ZOG lines. Sigh.

Top of Page

Review of DVD/Film Jewish Race Film Jack Nicholson: The Bucket List

Sausage-machine with synthetic emotions and green screen, February 4, 2012

2007 film. I thought I'd be nasty and give one star. Because....
[1] The two main characters are too synthetic. Nicholson as a billionaire in hospitals—a field noted for groups operating illegally. Not at all realistic, and the character is absurd—more or less acquaintance-less, perhaps to keep the cost down; and also without anything one imagines billionaires to have, from sophistication (there's a drawn-out thing with a type of coffee he would certainly know the details of) to grasp of his business and will. The other one is a sort of Nelson Mandela type, not showing the sorts of characteristics noted by US blacks. In the same way blacks are promoted as athletes—for want of anything else—this character is shown as a TV quiz type, quoting simple-minded factoids, though the script does allow a bit of play there.
[2] The events are too obviously selected to be tear-jerking, like some guilty person making up a story about a dying relative as an excuse. This is of course is a standard technique; it doesn't really work here, because of the extreme contrasts of the operations, shaved heads, near-death, and stumbling around in hospital clothing stuff, with the going round the world material. As is a Hollywood standard, the black character is morally impeccable, turning down, for example, a sh*g with a woman presumably paid by Nicholson. Some of the regret material seemed better, but, well...
[3] The effects didn't quite work... the scenes trying to race cars showed the characters talking to each other through open windows; and with obviously implausible stunt scenes. The landscapes look processed and fake—an 'Egyptian monument' was some studio thing.

The bonus material includes a chat with scriptwriter—one of whose ambitions was to get a film made 'by a major studio'. Possibly worth a look by would-be scriptwriters. I wonder why actors, who after all must have some experience of the world, never seem to write anything. Maybe it's just easier to get a call from an agent, read up a bit, and turn up to do your takes and retakes.

Top of Page

Review of Possible science conspiracy interest DVD: Capricorn One (1979)

Part-conspiracy, part-escapism, part-journalistic hero, part action man..., 17 Nov 2011

This isn't a full conspiracy film; one man is shown as a maverick running it all (unlike the real NASA, with vast numbers of departments) and he arranges the fake with anonymous others, who aren't shown, another convention which saves a lot of unconvincing detail. He wants to keep his show on the road ...

These are just notes—in keeping with the film's scrappiness---

* Not very consistent—rather odd lost-in-desert scenes with rattlesnake and scorpion (one of each—low budget?)
* Equally inconsistent scene with crop-dusting biplane piloted by Telly Savalas, being shot at by helicopters (which of course miss) and which are cropdusted to death despite the pilot having no idea what was going on. Incredibly, the survivor astronaut clings onto a wing despite looping the loop and sudden steep drops
* Plot hinged on three 'astronauts' heading for Mars—very last minute change dependent on life support system being found not to work a bit late in the day. This aspect of the plot is on-topic here, I suppose. NASA is shown as not knowing about a duplicate set made up in an airbase (abandoned since I think 1945)
* The usual sparse dialogue which seems compulsory for films—apart from what's supposed to be snappy mono- or dialogues by the main actors—maybe the screenwriter wanted to save typewriter ribbon?
* Rather implausible plot with an all-American journalist on the trail, with the inevitable conflict scenes with dim boss; the day after a near-lethal crash in a 'Boston brake' car going at 100 mph the journalist is back at work....
* Suspicious employee of NASA puzzled by his strange readout. He is vanished away (luckily, presumably, he had no friends). Incidentally it's remarkably low budget considering that NASA's moonfakes had huge numbers of people with their TV screens. Surely for Mars there'd be more?
* Clue inserted by supposedly returning astronaut referring his wife to a vacation—filming just one shot in a cowboy film was fascinating—with equipment like that, they could fake anything!
* Suspended ending with surviving 'astronaut' meeting his wife again at the supposed (or real) funeral of the other two.

Top of Page

Review by Rerevisionist of Wolfgang Petersen Das Boot [=The Boat] DVD 'The Director's Cut'

Not the Second World War: this is Britain vs Germany Autumn 1941 (according to Radio Times notes). U-96 from La Rochelle to the Atlantic, including resupplying at Vigo in Spain, with an inexplicable trip to Gibraltar and back to La Rochelle.

My version says 200 mins, copyright 1985, 1997 Bavarian Film. Thirty years ago, twenty years ago, about events now seventy years ago. The Jewish propaganda version of WW2 still seems to rule, judging by Amazon commentators. Just three comments:-
[1] This film is in my view simply too light on technology: how did they know where they were? How did they get radio messages? How often did they need to surface? How did the engines work? Could they in fact operate deeper than 200 metres? These boats were technologically advanced. The result is a kind of schoolboyish gee-whiz, lacking technical backbone.
[2] It is low budget: there's no view of how the high command saw things, what was happening, what they thought they were doing. Fair enough in a film, and no doubt how wars are perceived by most of those involved, but a bit restricting. Views from outside often have a buckets-of-water-thrown-over-the-actors feel; there are no aerial shots showing the vastness of the Atlantic; burning ships are hard to film, dwarfed as they are by the sea in real life, so there are not very convincing views through binoculars. But the interiors look accurate: wood panelling and table and lights with shades for the officers, bunks, just one 'head', man with headset listening, torpedo tubes, illuminated gauges.
[3] Maybe a new genre will arise, involving new scripts and voiceovers, as a sort of samizdat film. The sort of thing I mean is comments on Churchill having declared war on Germany, which many people in the west don't seem to know. And France having declared war at the same time. They might sing, instead of 'It's a Long Way to Tipperary', one of the songs by (say) Charlie and his Orchestra—'The Man with the Big Cigar' perhaps, or 'German Submarines'? Maybe something on mass murder by Jews in the USSR, and their fears about Stalin invading Europe. Or perhaps bombing of Germany and France, with some detail of 'Bomber Harris' and his actions against civilians. Or perhaps stories of how America might be inveigled into war, just as happened in the First World War, though I doubt they could have guessed Pearl Harbor was in the future. Or accounts from WW1 of naval blockades causing starvation in Germany, probably of some interest to the crew. Or maybe accounts of Poland and the varying borders with Germany. Or a truer assessment of the U boat campaign. Plenty of possibilities—intelligent students of film might try their own voiceovers and/or subtitles! Lothar-Gunther Buchheim's novel might be a good start; I don't know.

Perhaps someone will film tank crews? Planes, ships, submarines; plenty of films. But tanks?

Top of Page

Goodbye Lenin!

2002 BBC4, UK Film Council, BAVARIA FILM, WDR/arts, others.
Screenplay: Bernd Lichtenberg. Co-writer: Wolfgang Becker. Director: W Becker
Daniel Brühl | Katrin Sass | Maria Simon | Chulpan Khamatova | Alexander Beyer | Florian Lukas
15 chapters + end titles. 1 hr 56 min (avge 8 mins per chapter). 15.

Evidently an attempt to show clouds disappearing and obsolete propaganda vanishing. But in truth the subtext slowly reveals itself to be a different view of another set of lies.

I found my 2003 Dual Layer, Single Sided DVD in a 'Gift Aid' shop; a 'funny, moving, charming and original' film about Lenin. Having watched it several times, I realise I can't remember if it had subtitles! That must prove something. In fact it's in German, and not even dubbed.

I'll try to explain the story first. Then the deeper stuff about worldwide propaganda narratives, and their local variations.

The Berlin Wall between parts of Berlin was demolished on the 9 November, 1989. (I quote Wikipedia: it was 96.3 miles long). This event—I remember Roger Waters of Pink Floyd staging a simultaneous TV event—was presented as the result of a public opinion and pressure. Symbolically, a couple of years later, around Christmas 1991, the USSR 'fell', with Gorbachev handing over to Yeltsin(!).

Workers, peasants, and 'intellectuals' (i.e. Jews)

That's the background; the story is a tiny microcosm of the totality of the GDR ('German Democratic Republic'; DDR in German). Note the DDR flag with its presumably freemasonic symbolism. The story starts about 20 years earlier, about 1970, with Super 8 home movies of a young boy and girl playing and laughing in a garden. There are views of (I think) Alexanderplatz, views rebuilt after the holocaust of WW2. The 1989 present has mother, son, and daughter in their 79 sq metre apartment. Their father left for the West; the full story had to wait, but the mother entered a long depressive period. Katrin Sass was praised online for her firm voice, and on recovery in Spring 1979 "my mother married to our socialist fatherland ... an activist for the common people". B/white TV: "Now for our report on the award ceremony. Factory and office workers, scientists and collective farm workers, artists and retirees arrived in Berlin today to receive our country's highest awards. ... the party's central committee traditionally honors exceptional citizens." The mother was shown dictating stern letters of adverse comment. The son was in effect part of their double act. (Daniel Brühl was in a Tarantino film—actors can't be choosers!)
On about the 40th 'birthday' of East Germany, Alex was shown joining a protest march, perhaps a 'spontaneous demonstration', against the wall—but police, or Stasi, baton action, including Alex being thrown into a truck, made his mama/mutter collapse with a heart attack. She was in a coma for months—this in fact seems fairly accurate, medically—a long, deep sleep. Incidentally the love interest of Alex was sparked by an 'angelic girl', Lara, a nurse, [Chulpan Khamatova], who showed concern for him.

With the wall down, the 'first free elections' took place. Deutschmarks poured in, westernization took place, things were finally happening, the flat was refurbished, the son worked in satellite aerials, the daughter in Burger King, Germany won at football, 1-0, drab corner stores became gaudy consumer paradises, Coca Cola trucks appeared, and then Christina awoke in her hospital bed. Her son is warned "... she could mix up long term and short term memory ... you must protect her from any kind of excitement" and Alex conceives the scheme of protecting her from evidence of change. And decides to make her bedroom as it was; the old stuff was stored, I think in a cellar, as is more or less needed by the plot. And his scheme took on a life of its own, as he tried reconstructing packaged foods long familiar in the GDR.
Her birthday party arrangements are well filmed; neighbours are clued up re mama's unawareness; a drunk ex-teacher speaks; Young Pioneers sing; a Coca cola banner is hidden away, and comrades smile at each. But she wants to watch TV...

... And Alex doesn't want to shock her. Florian Lukas plays a fellow TV man, a Wessie, who has VCR copies—how clunky the cassettes look now—of old GDR TV news, and equipment to copy tapes. So he can piece together his own tapes. With Alex's Grundig camcorder, and a few props, they assemble their own news programmes: refugees from west Berlin streaming into Berlin, 9th Central Committee in which Honecker resigns, East German cosmonaut, Sigmund JÃ¤hn, a real person—perhaps, talking about his view from space, in Soyus 31 in 1978. I'd hoped the 'cosmonaut' would be laughed at as a fraud—with the tantalising prospect of Buzz Aldrin becoming a taxi driver—but no—the pretext to this day is played out—see Wikipedia. This was the point at which I understood the film was itself part of the propaganda construction.

The movie includes quite a bit of Lenin imagery. Lenin was at one time reputed to have more images than any other person, though I'd guess Stalin and Mao exceeded this record. There was an echo of La Dolce Vita, in which the top half of a Lenin casting was moved by helicopter. In 1900 Russia was full of icons; now they have almost gone. And an insecure bust of Marx. Displaced by an IKEA, and car sales being negotiated—Christiane was pleased not to have to wait three years or her Trabant. When Christiane finally got up, and went out rather unsteadily, for the first time since her collapse and coma, that's what she saw. I have to say I think the scriptwriter ran out of steam; too few words near the end.
And more: worthless paper money, Berlin flats being freer when some Berliners moved out to Hungary, the family's father living in Wannsee (home of a Jewish document used to make money—see Wikipedia who still push this fraud), his letters hidden behind a wall partition, the biggest mistake of her life—she just couldn't go west, presumably as it was 'capitalist': "Did your husband discuss leaving the country? Has he contacts in the capitalist world?"; her ashes scattered to the winds.

I recommend the film to people in the West who are awake to the issue of Jewish propaganda. There are parallel endlessly-echoed slogans (democratic, free, socialism, liberating, free speech, pioneer, individual, free speech, hate) that many people can now see through.

Taking a long view, there are (sigh) many still-censored topics: Germany is still occupied; it has a pseudo-Constitution foisted on it; Jews control the banks and education; the Holohoax lie extorts vast sums from them; the mass expulsions from further east barely get a mention; the mass rapes after WW2 are still unacknowledged; the book burnings, torture rooms, thefts of everything from patents to factories not hinted at. Evidence of the Ministry for State Security—Stasi— Volkspolizei, Combat Groups, and Free German Youth (FDJ) are still more or less banned. The mass killings and replacement by Turks and Muslims are not mentioned. The film hinted at killings in Vietnam and Madagascar, and to this day Germans participate in wars, taking orders from world Jewry.

If you watch this, reflect on its twists and turns, and the continued deception by the BBC and Bavaria Film. And by the Jews of the world.

©Rae West 27 Nov 2019

Top of Page

Oom Paul

1941 black/white film. Always called an ‘Anti-British Propaganda film’

Ohm Krüger (or Oom Paul). 'Uncle Krüger' was Paul Krüger, 1825-1902. President of the South African Republic from 1883-1902. First Anglo-Boer War was 1880-1881, for about 3 months, before Paul Krüger was President.

Krüger's ancestors included a soldier in the Dutch East India Company (founded 1602). Jewish finance is a shadowy accompaniment to the whites in Africa. The precipitating event was in 1886, when an Australian prospector revealed a gold reef, leading to the Witwatersrand Gold Rush, and the founding of Johannesburg, with an influx of uitlanders, including Jews. Cecil Rhodes played a large part after this; the events of this film mainly involve the Anglo-Boer War, which included the use of concentration camps and starvation—in some ways like the US war between the States—and was regarded by some as the start of the downfall of the British Empire.

Kruger (the Germans restored the umlauts in his name for the film) seems to have been uncouth; the film does its best to unstress this. The film has Rhodes dealing with Chamberlain (Joseph, not Neville), Queen Victoria attracted by gold, her son Albert (Bertie, 'Tum Tum') interested in showgirls, Lobengula, Kitchener organising massacres, all, as far as I could tell, fairly accurately done. And a deathbed scene, in which Kruger predicts the fall of the British Empire; 'A World Empire Falls' is part of a German song.

There's a subtitled version into English (and I'd guess other languages). I recommend the film for those trying to work out whether Jews co-operated world wide in arranging both world wars. Examination of the roles assigned to Jews in the film—and other German films of the time—might provide clues as to the 'Nazi' perception of Jews. I think they did co-operate around the world. RW 16 Apr 2019

Top of Page

Pride and Prejudice

2005 Universal Studios DVD

First, look at my review of Nicholas Ennos's book Jane Austen - a new revelation. I've included comments from the author himself, and a few other people.

Ennos has more-or-less determined the locations in all the books attributed to Austen (as have others). Chatsworth in Derbyshire is the only one in this film. We're told (e.g.) that the Head Butler or Housekeeper made a subsidiary income from tips, showing visitors around. And that Macfadyen considered that Darcy would have been thoughtful to the surrounding people. the fashion, perhaps due to the cost of extras, is to treat these places as more or less deserted, though in their time they must have been local centres of activity. Probably Burghley House, built by William Cecil (".. near Stamford ... unspoiled ... on of these extraordinary people who rose through the ranks..."), vast, in particular must have been filled with contact names, maps, records, details of lands and estates, accounts of money, addresses of owners, ships, ports, cargoes—a working office building. Though nobody says so. Cecil no doubt was a Jew or Jewish-supported, a very strict taboo.
The three other buildings in the film are Wilton House, Wilts; Basildon Park; and Groombridge Place—a '17th century moated manor house', nothing like the real home of the clergyman, his wife, and numerous daughters.

An unusual part of this movie was Mr Bennet as a rather unkempt hairy type, shown as a naturalist, with exotic potted plants and insects on pins. Certainly 'Austen' showed little interest in male working activities.

Top of Page

Reach for the Sky

'War' film. 1956 (supposedly) based on an earlier book by Paul Brickhill.

Speculative Note on Douglas Bader [ Top of page ]

Manufactured heroes of various types emerge along with the more spectacular thugs; Stakhanov may have helped the USSR, as with Stalin; the Lourdes people no doubt helped Roman Catholicism, along with a few Popes.
Watching Eamonn Andrews in This is Your Life March 1982, on the Jew-owned site Youtube, with its obviously unanswered questions, led me to wonder if Douglas Bader was a crypto-Jew, anxious to get bombings increased and money wasted; losing his legs seems to have been a cover for his being shot by his own side; he loved the war and recommended several more or less suicidal styles of fighter and bomb manoeuvres. Incidentally Adolf Galland was supposed to have been a well-known rival; ask yourself how much behind the scenes arrangement would be needed. I'd guess both were crypto-Jews, supported by bits of information, for example Bader's name and early life in Hampstead.
He may have been backed by the fictional character of Biggles; many British pilots were killed as they committed war crimes in Germany, perhaps influenced by the Biggles character's brainless and expensive adventures..

[Douglas Bader on This is Your Life March 1982. Video Aug 2019]

Andy Pay - 1 year ago
Unfortunately Reach for the Sky was total balls. My grandfather worked with Bader and did not have a good thing to say about him, apart from he was a total self serving bastard. Bader was shot down not had a collision as he claimed and was portrayed in the film, Galland confirmed that he was shot down. Bader lost his legs doing a low roll at 50 feet totally against all regulations that he continually broke. He wrote off two Spitfires through bad flying, over claimed victories immensely claiming 3 on one day alone, his total score was 4. His role in the Battle of Britain was minor apart from pissing everyone else off with his theory of the big wing which naturally would have benefitted him. As a POW he was detested by fellow inmates.
[Note: Jewish banks love destruction. It leads to government borrowing from Jewish banks. So Jews get repayments over many years. They require payments for the debts of the losers too. Clear proof Jews form their own power group, not aligned with either side.]

lordmick roach - 1 year ago (edited)
I had the misfortune of meeting this man twice. He was rude and arrogant, he had no thought for anyone else. He was the cause of many young pilots dying because of his attitude. The Cranwell system of the 20`s and 30`s ensured that he did not get the court martial he deserved for disobeying an order and writing off an aircraft. There is strong evidence that he was actually shot down by one of his own, to protect others just as bad sea captains disappear at night. ...

sockington1 - 3 weeks ago
read books, do research, and most importantly, don't watch fictional propaganda films about this horrible piece of work

supernumery - 2 days ago
"after I saw the film "Reach for the Sky". I'm sure that film did indeed offer you inspiration but both the film and the book were utter nonsense. The REAL Bader was a thoroughly unpleasant man who was abusive and unkind to his subordinates. He was driven by arrogance and was NO hero. Even Kenny More who played him in the film disliked him.
In the fifties he was allowed to flutter around in a Spitfire and was known to suddenly drop into air bases to 'inspect' even though he was no longer in the RAF. He would fly in and inspect the men every so often telling an oik that his cap-badge wasn't straight or his tunic wasn't buttoned up. ...

David Hertzberg - 1 day ago
@supernumery Many years ago I worked for a company that had shared Shell's office in the city. It was before my time but many people remembered Bader and all of them said he was incredibly rude and arrogant and thoroughly unpleasant. He apparently would walk across the road without stopping and swear in front of women which at that time was unacceptable.
The people who told me this were city insurance workers and not left wing agitators. He lost his legs showing off aerobatting too near the ground. His big wing was a tactical disaster. The French family who sheltered him during he ridiculous escape attempt died in a concentration camp for helping him. ,,,

LordMick Roach - 2 years ago (edited)
Really? He was a pompous, rude and extremely arrogant man. He caused many,many of our pilots to die through his poor leadership and was disliked by most of his peers. Adolph Malan could not stand being in the same room! He was the root cause why Dowding was sacked and Keith Park was removed... Hero nothing, just a nasty and insubordinate officer who should have been court martialed for disobeying a direct order and writing off what was then, a very expensive aircraft

... @Tim Fouraker Yea, by the time he was 25, he had disobeyed a direct order, written off an expensive Government aircraft and lost his legs, what a fucking great achievement, I met him a few times, did you? And, by the time I was 25, I had been wounded in action, had been taught to fly by the RAF and was married...What did you do laddie?

... @Tim Fouraker Oh dear, you believe what Paul Brickhill wrote rather than the truth. Example, he had a batman in Colditz who was to have been repatriated in 44, Bader would not allow it because he wanted a servant, the poor man had to stay in Colditz for another year because of the pompous, selfish and arrogant Bader. Like it was Bader who championed the fighter sweeps into France which had no tactical value apart from getting young pilots dead. This man is used at Staff college as an example of bad leadership and management. So tell me again, when did you wear a uniform?

scott Å¡zabo - 1 year ago (edited)
after shot down and captured, Adolf Galland personally responded to Bader's needs, to include cigars and cognac..had the guards and commandant to treat him with respect. even had the RAF drop a replacement prosthetic leg for him

Rs500ybd - 2 weeks ago
just a note to the haters . Have you ever been in combat ? ever had someone who is much like you in life try to take your life without knowing the real reasons why . the only reason we went to war was to stop the takedown of the Zionist empire . The sole and only Reason . So everyone whom fought or took part in this was Brainwashed . Things have changed now and we know the truth of it all . but you can not disrespect what they did to protect this island if they was alive today they would all don there spitfires and attack London target westminster . because they did not fight for this shit today . Respect to them all .

Top of Page

Review of Victory of Jews in World War 2. Chabrol's Eye of Vichy DVD: Remember Me (1993)

Black and white newsreels, mostly from Vichy France. 110 mins in my version, English subtitles and voiceover

Chabrol (then over 60) was involved; I haven't tried to check what part he played in this film, or what event it was for, though I'd guess 50th anniversary.

Here is Peter Ustinov in his memoirs (Dear Me, 1977): The French are deemed an extremely intelligent, or at the very least, an extremely intellectual people. In Pierre Laval they had a politician who saved millions of French lives by processes which were judged to be below the dignity of France. As a reward he was degradingly prevented from committing suicide, and was led before the firing-squad so weakened by stomach-pumps that he could barely stand. ... a romantic little mafioso like Napoleon splashed French blood liberally all over the European landscape, assured the unification of Germany by compelling German to fight German, therefore being directly responsible for Prussian sentiments of revenge, 1870, 1914 and 1939, and is worshipped as l'Empereur by a nation of republicans who consider that the gratification of panache, the lump in the warrior's throat, outweighs the millions of dashed hopes, of broken lives, of annihilated talents in the balance of national history. ... I hated the idea of striking bargains with the fascists,... I am merely saying that he and Pétain between them saved millions of lives, an error for which France could never forgive them. Ustinov's father, Klop Ustinov was a Baltic German previously in the service of the Tsar of Russia, who worked closely with British military intelligence. (Said 'Lobster', a 'left-wing', presumably Jewish, magazine; I haven't checked to see if it still exists). Ustinov sounded humane, and it's important to be reminded that Vichy saved Frenchmen, though Jews and their puppets verbally condemned them for not working for Jews.

The French part of WW2 is of course confusing: joint declaration of war, with Churchill; 1941 defeat by Germany, who made Paris their capital; bombing of French navy; Darlan's assassination; Vichy in the centre of France perhaps pro-German, sending French workers to help Germany; removal of Freemasons; Pétain; Vichy's Institute to study Jews; trains to Auschwitz—a British voiceover added that this was for immediate extermination; a French orator, saying Britain had lost its empire and was defeated—perhaps he heard it from Churchill. Atrocities from the resistance, or alleged resistance; the newsreel voice says twenty (or something) Frenchmen would die; on the face of it, it would be more consistent to say twenty (or something) Jews would die. Then de Gaulle leader of 'Free France' conjured up at the 'liberation'; and all the rest. The film is inevitably confusing; probably it was made ultimately as part of some Holocaust fraud. The intensity of bombing of France is underplayed; rapes in France are underplayed; Jews in the USSR are barely mentioned, though the Soviet Embassy in Paris gets a newsreel extract—bars on the window, cremation facilities, peepholes. The newsreels must certainly be Jew-owned, and serious criticism removed, of course. If, as seems quite likely, Hitler and the NSDAP leaders were crypto-Jews, some explanations change. Maybe it was felt that the USSR ought to administer a lot of death on Germany, while receiving death itself, thus maximising white deaths. Could this be why Richard Sorge told Stalin where Germany intended to attack? Vichy was left to administer the French Empire, which had implications later for Vietnam and Cambodia, and north and central Africa. There was rationing, no doubt run by Jews, as in Britain. The sense of Hitler as 'Moschiach', a new birth for the France, appears in the films, as it did in Germany.

Rather easy watching, as the propaganda parts have to be simple, and the subtitles even simpler. Despite the pro-Jew production values, some truths peep through.
RW 19 Dec 2017

Top of Page

Review of DVD/film thriller The Fourth Protocol

Crap, February 10, 2012

DVD 'The Fourth Protocol', filmed (1987) from a book by Frederick 'Freddie' Forsyth, with Pierce Brosnan and Michael Caine. There's a section where Pierce Brosnan and the sexy red-haired Finn (well, sexy depending on your age) assemble their atom bomb from U235. There's a ball with a hole through it of silvery metal, and a cylinder, repeatedly called a 'tube', designed to fit inside and make up critical mass. There are also disks of plutonium, and 'lithium'—presumably some compound, since lithium would just oxidise and catch fire, imported in various deliberately improbable ways. The bomb assembly part starts at about 1 hr 12 min in my DVD version. It's presented as able to devastate 2 sq miles (diameter of say 1 1/2 miles) and centred on housing near the perimeter of a US airbase.

I can never decide with people like Forsyth and 'John le Carre' how much of their stories is tacitly agreed with officials. If there was an explosion centred near the perimeter of a base, why would Americans be blamed? If they were, what would be done? The public aren't supposed to know about false flag/ provoked events—Pearl Harbor, Churchill bombing civilians etc etc—so why should they accept instant huge retaliation? Did Forsyth check out the supposed details of an atom bomb? (Displayed on a BBC micro, itself possibly an attempt to boost the BBC's attempt at a new flagship micro). How come all Forsyth's plots accept all Cold War mythology, and there are never any alternative plots—why not Day of the JFK Jackal? Why not The Paper Money Devil's Plot? Why not something on US activities in south-east Asia? Why the pro-Jewish and nasty Nazzy references? Why the sneers at South Africa? Why the failure to mention mass murder in the USSR? Was he hired to turn out his rubbish?

Top of Page

Review by Rerevisionist of William Hurt in Gorky Park (1983 DVD) Genuine mystery film! 2 Oct 2014

The USSR, USA, Jews, and the propaganda/film industry

1983 film with a weird cast: William Hurt, with Lee Marvin doing his best to be a sophisticated American trader. Several British (or 'British' Jewish actors)—the plump Richard Griffiths, Alexei Sayle, Michael Elphick (Jewish extras?). Joanna Pacula provides the erotic interest. Script attributed to Dennis Potter, possibly trying to get out of his BBC cage. Book by Martin Cruz Smith, who, um presumably wrote other stuff too.

The mystery is what the film was supposed to be about, now half a lifetime on for the cast and the rest, and a resting-place in charity shops. Possibly this was some contractual arrangement, for which a host of disparate types were roped in? I don't want to try to juggle studio problems, actors' contracts, slots to be filled, jobs to be awarded (director did The World is Not Enough about fifteen years later; Joanna Pacula—Jewish actress from Poland?), promises to authors, and so on.

Starts as a detective story, rather in the mould of the then-recent Silence of the Lambs with faceless bodies. Fifteen years earlier, Frank Sinatra was in a film with queers with penises removed: similar idea). This film may have been intended to comment on Jews in the USSR, ambiguously, so their descendants could bask in their achievement, or pretend it didn't ever happen. Could it have been about nuclear stuff? (Three Mile Island had been a few years earlier, no doubt a fake; if so it was written out). Was it about US trade with the USSR, allowing Jewish roles to be sneakily introduced? ('Vodka-Cola' was five years earlier). Was it to suggest US/USSR 'intelligence' links? Was it to comment on exploited animals? (There a sub-plot about sables). To rejoice in great writers being a plot of earth?

I have no idea, and little interest, but if there are serious students of 'film' and propaganda out there, you might give this film a look. What, if anything, was the point? Why was it made?

Top of Page

Review of The Sound of Music Film from 1965, reprising Mary Poppins of a year earlier

Specimen typical in many ways of Jewish lies smuggled into popular entertainment

Accurately Hostile Review of 'The Sound of Music' on the website of the Institute for Historical Review, by Mark Weber (2011). (This is not my review). Serious students of 'film' might note the way in which Jewish memes appear then fade: there's little of sadism and cruelty in this film; and there's little attempt to smuggle in homosexuals, lesbians, and paedophilia, or blacks, or immigration as an issue for non-jews. This film predates the 'Holocaust' fraud, and also has no need to mention Stalin, the faked nukes to keep democrats from invading eastern Europe. There is no serious comment on the First World War, or of course Jewish frauds and money.

On second thoughts, I uploaded it here on 1 Jan 2020, in case the original is lost.

INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW

How 'The Sound of Music' Distorts History

Hollywood Mythology About Austrians and Hitler

By Mark Weber

"The Sound of Music" is perhaps the most popular American musical picture ever produced. This entertaining 1965 movie, which includes such catchy tunes as "My Favorite Things" and "Do-Re-Mi," won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. But whatever its merits as entertainment, the film's presentation of history is deceitful. In particular, its portrayal of the 1938 union or Anschluss of Austria with the German Reich is a gross distortion of reality.

Ordinary Austrians are portrayed in the movie as decent, patriotic and devout, and unhappy with the grim German takeover of their country. For decades American educators and scholars have similarly presented the Anschluss as an act of aggression. Historian William L. Shirer, for example, in his best-selling book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, refers to the 1938 union as the "Rape of Austria."

What really happened?

According to the movie, the head of the von Trapp family decides to flee the country with his wife and children to avoid having to serve in the German navy. While it's true that Georg Ludwig von Trapp, who is played in the movie by Christopher Plummer, was a monarchist who was hostile to Hitler and National Socialism, he was never forced to choose between service in the German armed forces or emigration from the country.

In the movie, the von Trapps flee Austria in secret, hiking over the mountains into Switzerland carrying their suitcases and musical instruments. In reality, they left the country by train, and they did so quite openly. And instead of going to Switzerland they traveled to Italy before ultimately settling in the United States. As daughter Maria said years later in an interview: "We did tell people that we were going to America to sing. And we did not climb over mountains with all our heavy suitcases and instruments. We left by train, pretending nothing,"

A more serious distortion of reality is the movie's portrayal of Austria in 1938, and the attitude of Austrians toward Hitler and National Socialism. In fact, the vast majority of Austrians joyfully welcomed the union of their homeland with Hitler's Reich. This is explained in detail, for example, in Hitler's Austria, a scholarly and well-referenced book by Evan Burr Bukey, a professor of history at the University of Arkansas.

In the years before the March 1938 Anschluss, Austria was ruled by the Dollfuss-Schuschnigg regime, a repressive one-party dictatorship that called itself a "Christian Corporative" state. It imprisoned National Socialists, Marxists and other dissidents. But there was one important section of Austria's population that supported the dictatorial regime. That was the Jewish community, which made up 2.8 percent of the total. As Prof. Bukey writes: "The Jewish community regarded the Dollfuss-Schuschnigg regime as its protector ... Under the Dollfuss-Schuschnigg regime the Jewish community recovered a measure of governmental protection it had not enjoyed since the days of the Habsburgs. The public was outraged."

In spite of their small numbers, Austria's Jews wielded vast and disproportionate wealth and power. As Prof. Bukey writes: "The predominant position of the Jews in an impoverished country only intensified the fear and loathing of the Austrians masses. As we have already seen, Jewish businesses and financial institutions managed much of the country's economic life. At the time of the Anschluss three-quarters of Vienna's newspapers, banks and textile firms were in Jewish hands ... The extraordinary success of the Jews in the learned professions also inspired jealously and spite. Over 50 percent of Austria's attorneys, physicians and dentists were Jewish. "

On the eve of the Anschluss, Austria's economy was in a catastrophic condition, and nearly one-third of Austrians were out of work. But people also knew that, just across the border in the German Reich, unemployment had been eliminated, living standards and working conditions had greatly improved, and economic, social and cultural life was flourishing.

Even Hitler, who was himself a native of Austria, did not realize just how eagerly Austrians looked forward to the union of their homeland with the Reich. Commenting on his entry into his Austria in March 1938, Prof. Bukey writes: "What he [Hitler] did not take into account was the tumultuous welcome he would receive from the Austrian people, an outburst of frenzied acclimation seldom seen the days of the Caesars."

Virtually the only people in Austria who did not join in the general outpouring of joy was a small minority of Jews, Marxists and monarchists. Hitler ordered a free and secret national referendum on this great issue. As Prof Bukey notes: "Hitler sincerely believed that 'all state power must emanate from the people and [be] confirmed in free state elections'."

In the run-up to the referendum, Austria's Roman Catholic and Protestant leadership, along with the country's labor leaders, issued statements welcoming the incorporation of their country into Hitler's Germany. The Catholic primate of Austria, Theodor Innitzer, personally welcomed Hitler to Vienna. Together with the country's other Bishops, Cardinal Innitzer issued a pastoral letter urging the faithful to vote for Hitler. The Catholic leaders also authorized the draping of swastika banners from the country's churches. In Austria, well as in the rest of the German Reich, approval of the Anschluss -- as reflected in the plebiscite -- was nearly unanimous. Even foreign observers acknowledged that the lopsided, 99 percent "Yes" vote reflected popular sentiment.

Following Austria's incorporation into the Reich, conditions improved dramatically. As Prof. Bukey writes: "In one of the most remarkable economic achievements in modern history, the National Socialists reduced the number of unemployed in Austria from 401,000 in January 1938 to 99,865 in September; in Vienna from 183,271 to 74,162 ... By Christmas [1938] 27 percent more jobs existed in Austria than before the Anschluss." In 1940 the unemployment rate fell to just 1.2 percent.

Between June and December 1938 -- that is, in just seven months -- the weekly income of industrial workers rose nine percent. "All in all," writes Prof. Bukey, "the Austrian GNP rose 12.8 percent in 1938, and 13.3 percent in 1939." Seldom in history has a country experienced such rapid, dramatic economic growth.

Shortly after the Anschluss, Germany's National Labor Law and the Reich's comprehensive social security system were introduced in Austria. These guaranteed basic rights at the workplace, afforded protection from arbitrary dismissal, quickly provided relief to more than 200,000 desperately poor people, and extended health care benefits to the working class. A large-scale construction program was launched to provide affordable housing. Cultural life was greatly encouraged, with energetic promotion of music, the fine arts and literature. Together with the increase in prosperity and optimism came a jump in the birthrate.

Economic growth continued even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, in spite of a shortage of labor and other difficulties. In 1941, Austria's GNP increased by 7.2 percent. "By 1941," writes Prof. Bukey, "wartime mobilization was bringing palpable improvement in the material conditions of everyday life to many Austrians."

In November 1941, Austria's bishops issued a pastoral letter, which was read in all churches, affirming support for the war against Soviet Russia. In it the Catholic leaders solemnly declared that Germany was conducting a crusade against a monstrous "threat to Western civilization." Rather than "keep silent," the bishops went on, Catholics should "recognize the danger for all Europe should Bolshevism prevail."

During the war years, Austrians continued to apply in large numbers to join the National Socialist Party, so that by May 1943 two-thirds of a million had signed up. Austrian support for the regime remained strong to the bitter end in May 1945.

In short, the "Sound of Music" portrayal of the Austrian people's attitude toward Hitler and the National Socialist Reich is a deceitful perversion of historical reality.
-- May 2011

My bookshop browsing has produced a Fontana Paperback, same style as Agatha Christie thrillers of the time, published by Collins in 1965; my copy is their fifteenth impression, dated 1968. The first publication is listed as Geoffrey Bles [sic] in 1953, of Maria von Trapp's The Sound of Music. The contents are in two parts, Austria, and America. The second part is longer than the first. It appears to have been written in English; but who knows, in fact.
Two other books by Maria are advertised as 'The Trapp Family on Wheels', and 'Yesterday, and Today, and Forever.' The advertisers seem to have had a problem with selecting the image: a musical family making a living from songs, a new American family, a Christian family (in the company of C S Lewis and others), or just a best seller along with Dr Zhivago (joke book about the (((Russian))) Revolution), The Agony and the Ecstasy (on Michelangelo), and Born Free.
Christopher Plummer for some reason suggested an educated Clint Eastwood to me—hard to imagine, I know.

Top of Page

SOCIAL ENGINEERING JEWISH FILMS. From Aug 11th 2018 | 6 March 2022
Occasional Notes on Jew-Controlled Films [ Back to top of page ]

Added 6 March 2022: Looking into Stanley Kubrick, the website www.aulis.com of David S Percy FRSA, ARPS and others. Percy' first outing, that I know of, was on Channel 4 TV in Britain, in 1999, in a programme After Dark hosted by Ronson. I have a version on this site at https://big-lies.org/media/nasa-fraud-1999-2010.mp4.
I found at lot of information on a couple of Kubrick's films, mainly The Shining. It's a tribute to the mass publicity given to Jews that I don't even need to describe that film; I can assume people have heard of it. I found it agonisingly dull. The Aulis pieces (there are at least 3 pages) go into details on an 8x8 chessboard structure of visual appearances, material on a maze (not in those days computer-generated, just as supposed moonscapes weren't computer-generated), in codes suggesting NASA and colors and oddities of architecture.
Remember this is about 20 years after their earlier 1999 debunking. I wondered at the time why they omitted other serious issues. Now, Jon Ronson is clearly a phoney, dabbling only in 'politically correct' topics, and the same is true of Aulis. They say nothing of the frauds involving nuclear issues—as regards Kubrick, in Dr Strangelove, where the entire last scene is taken up by fake films in black and white, recognisable as newsreel and other 'fear porn'. There's nothing on the 'Holocaust' frauds; Kubrick seems to have been assigned the supposed hi-tech stuff. Probably the most important issue to be avoided is the idea of Jews winning the Second and First World Wars. Judging only by censorship and its intensity, this (and the related topic of Jewish support for wars and war-crimes) this is the topic most hugged by Jews. Of course there's likely to be a pecking-order of lies: looking back, it's clear enough that the moon landing fakes could go first, since they provide the explanation for never again 'returning' to the moon. Jon Ronson must have been part of this; even if he'd wanted to debunk (say) Auschwitz, he would not have been allowed to. Probably Kubrick was instructed to leave ambivalent messages; they presumably had an expected lifetime. Percy keeps on turning out his stuff as a distraction from serious issues. He carefully avoids the fake cameras-in-space and their watercolor 'images', and 'space stations', though he must know something about this. I have no way of knowing how successful he is; hardly any publishers give sales figures, for example. I suppose Kubrick's descendants can make more money—though presumably in diminishing amounts—from his crappy films.
I couldn't relocate the passage, but somewhere Percy & Bennett emphatically claim the extreme importance of the lunar issue to the political self-image of 'the United States'. This of course is nonsense; both countries were run by Jews. And Jews want assets for themselves, irrespective of harm and damage. I don;t know what relation Percy and Bennett have to Jews, but therein lies their little secret.

August 2018: First, a glance at the time before the Second World War, and after it. While I remember, a film from 1938, black-and-white, partly by Alfred Hitchcock, made from a novel but with many rewrites and false starts. This was The Lady Vanishes, a sort of thriller/comedy. At that date, obviously Jews were pushing for war. The goyim, in traditional manner, had no idea about this. I'll just draw attention to double acts mocking goyim. In this case, we have Charters and Caldicott, acted by Naunton Wayne and Basil Radford. The characters were created by Frank Launder and Sidney Gilliat. All four names may be Jewish fakes. They have no idea about Europe, languages, or anything outside England. They presumably redeem themselves in Jewish ideas by shooting at foreigners (their handguns not seriously aimed; this may be a deliberate cinematic evasion), by driving a train in messy shirtsleeves, by watching a pacifist get shot, and praising the English legal system.
The duo became very popular and were used as recurring characters in subsequent films and in BBC Radio productions. Charters and Caldicott have also been played by other actors including eventually their own BBC television series. Their film listing in Wikipedia is: The Lady Vanishes (1938)| Night Train to Munich (1940) | Crook's Tour (1941) | The Next of Kin (1942) | Millions Like Us (1943) | Dead of Night (1945) | A Girl in a Million (1946) | Quartet (1948) | It's Not Cricket (1949) | Passport to Pimlico (1949) | Stop Press Girl (1949) | Helter Skelter (1949). Meanwhile, Alfred Hitchcock contributed to the construction of the Holocaust fraud, installed in Hollywood.

Here's social engineering in TV, naturally only a tiny subset of the sewage outfall of Anglo-Jewry.

'Feature films' have been more difficult, unless you're the retarded type who sees many of them, or like collecting DVDs. This short piece was sparked by a comment made by Miles Mathis, to the effect that Tom Hanks, or whatever his real name is, is likeable. I've put in links to reviews in this same page.
Just a few notes; it surprised me that an intelligent commentator should show so little aesthetic and emotional grip. I don't know whether Hanks has been outed as a 'Jew'; his whole assemblage of fake causes is Jewish. Looking at his films, Apollo 13 is one of a series propping up NASA's fraud, or frauds—there's not much point checking his output.
Saving Private Ryan of course is in the Jewish tradition of barefaced lying on the First and Second World Wars, and of course related topics. Philadelphia is about the Jewish fraud of 'AIDS', slowly being wound down and phased out. Forrest Gump seems to be a double thrust against simple white war criminals, and their use by Jews to profit from wars and control money—and indeed entire economies. I'm told his impersonation of white simpletons is convincing. I doubt if Kissinger appears. Hanks appears to have voiceovered, or something, a Ken Burns film (2007), called The War, more WW2 propaganda. This is of course important to Jews acting against whites, who have to be persuaded that entering WW2 allied with Stalin was wonderful; and but has many important side-effects, including presenting whites as viciously evil. Then we find Bridge of Spies relating to the balancing act of the 'Cold War', in which both sides were Jew-ruled. This included Spielberg and was supposedly about Gary Powers, probably a psyop to increase 'tensions', nuclear propaganda lies, and profits for Jews; and no doubt help the Jewish war effort against Vietnam. (Nominally this was about 'KGB spy Robert Abel').

Schindler's List, by the maestro of Talmudic mechanical imagery, is (I think I'm right in saying) along with a TV film Shoah the first film raising public doubts, soon to be spread by Internet, of the whole fraud; there must have been a general decision to try to keep it going, still active today.

There are endless other droppings, decorating and defacing the post-1945 world. For example Stallone's fantasies, Tarantino's anti-German fantasies, even fantasies such as The Sound of Music. The vein seems to be transmuting into low-budget enclosed stuff: Captain Corelli's Mandolin and The English Patient and The King's Speech illustrate the type of thing. Mostly these seem hinged on authors, mostly Jewish. John Fowles's The Magus, for those who remember the book, illustrates something of the process. Stanley Kubrick is another Jew tosser. His promotion in effect of NASA, the faked 'nuclear' bombs in the black-and-white sequences in Dr Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket are all transparent propaganda.

I was again quite shocked to find that Miles Mathis thinks Meryl Streep (Peters?) is a wonderful actress. He even seems to have liked Sophie's Choice. Come on...

I've just noticed some promo stuff about Peter Jackson and 'colorized' World War 1 photos, and perhaps films too, to be prepared by 2018. The samples given by the press show smiling gullible soldiers in khaki, most of them presumably killed soon after. I wonder if there'll be any scenes of death, such as the rictus-faced corpses. I'd guess probably not. And I think we can be certain that the Jew bankers behind the scenes will not be shown by Jackson.

On the subject of social engineering, lies about wars are of course not the only preoccupation of Jews. Manipulating blacks has been a Jewish concern since the 1920s, but after 1945 came to its legal peak in 1965. Somewhere here I've reviewed a film with William Shatner, on Jewish agitation for things like single black women getting paid to breed, but only if males were not around. 'Woody' Allen made many films of this sort, though I doubt most whites noticed the messages, any more than whites in Britain identified Jewish actors, Jewish concerns, and Jewish lies. Allen's films are almost a script walkthrough, bullet-point by bullet-point: teasers about drugs; Jewish immigration to the USA; German cars being efficient; 'shiksas' as special targets to be f*cked. These days, we have the absurd rubbish of 'same sex marriage'—supported by Hanks, incidentally. And of course mixed races, despite all the possibilities for social, medical, and cultural disaster. Watching Love Actually I could see all such themes, including what I take to be a race between a black and a Jew to fuck Keira Knightley, with the Jew losing—as perhaps directed by his rabbi. And homosexuality. Not (yet) child sex and forced prostitution. Many people noticed the sudden media approval of homosexuality; if I can help them understand where it comes from, I'll be pleased. The extras included an interview with Richard Curtis, a rather impassively-faced Jewish propagandist, who apparently married a descendant of Freud. He co-wrote BBC TV series, long ago, with Rowan Atkinson—British history, with, of course, Jews removed.

Top of Page

Independence Day 1996
Roland Emmerich as technician. The directors and actors and script barely matter [ Back to top of page ]

Roland Emmerich appears in low-grade information sites as German, but I'd guess, following numerous clues, that in fact he thinks he's Jewish, and one of the ZOGdog army. (And there are several Emmerichs including from the second-world-war).

As far as I can find out making little effort, the special effects were less developed than the Lord of the Rings type, I think with models rather than computer-generated scenes and objects; but I may be wrong. The story, such as it is, may be part of the preparation for future wars, related to neo-con Jews and the earlier Iraq war of five years earlier.

The man characters are a Jew and a 'black', meaning in fact a mixed-race actor, I'd guess because full blacks aren't too bright. Jews like to pretend they are on the side of blacks; see for example online comments on the NAACP, The Jewish 'National Association for the Advancement of Colored People'. And Jewish covert support for anti-white activities in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The plot begins with 'city size' objects, what used to be called 'flying saucers', soundlessly hovering above cities. (By the end of the film they crash to earth, not on top of urban stuff, though Los Angeles and New York are reported as destroyed).

Looking in a jaundiced way at the start of the film, I wondered if what of course would be called 'aliens'—a Jewish word-change that seems to be semi-permanent—would remove Jews from the world, but, regrettably, that didn't happen.

Apart from the 'stars' there's the usual cast of crappy actors: US President, young and clueless, and supposed White House etc people, plus more crap actors in military-style costumes saluting and saying thinks like "Good job" and "You should be proud". And "Gee the good days when bombing was right."
They don't seem to have worked out any conventions to show huge scenes of devastation on a par with a handful of crowd-pulling stars. It's a sort of hymn to bombing, shooting, and moronic violence—to which many Americans appear to respond. It's a bit like the late Roman Empire, with endless wars draining their blood and awaiting replacement as superstition displaces competence.

An interesting-ish aspect of Emmerich is his Anonymous picture. Emmerich is quoted or misquoted [Phil Semlyen in Bauer Consumer Media] with “According to Emmerich, "It's an historical thriller because it's about who will succeed Queen Elizabeth and the struggle of the people who want to have a hand in it. It's the Tudors on one side and the Cecils on the other, and in between [the two] is the Queen.” A struggle of Jews to enter Britain, pre-dating the Civil War.
Conceivably Emmerich might film Germans being bombed and raped and starved. Go on, Roland. You know you want to.

Top of Page

Jaws

I found on Jan Lamprecht's historyreviewed.best website (dated 3rd October 2019) a comment on Jaws, reviewed by a Professor of Film Studies, at Bangor University in Wales, UK. This seems to be 'Professor Nathan Abrams' in or at their School of Music and Media. I looked around the sites a bit, and was disappointed not to find anything on the quintessentially Jewish propaganda piece, Dr Zhivago. The general level can be assessed from other material of his, such as the horrible medical experiments of Dr. Josef Mengele at Auschwitz, Kubrick on Lolita, and Dr Strangelove, no doubt with noting on the Jewish fraud of 'nukes'. He also seems to have written a book on Jews and sex.
My review below is based on his comments, but with my helpful truths added. There's a photo, presumably of him, strikingly resembling a Lithuanian or Latvian Jew on TV.

Jaws reviewed by Rae West, largely based on the work of a 'Professor of Film Studies'. Direct quotations in grey.

A copy of (presumably) the original review was on the Jewish Chronicle dated 2015. I gather this publication has been discontinued; the reason given was lack of money, but of course this must be nonsense.
Jaws was a book title by somebody Benchley; I haven't checked the publishing history, but the Professor gives 1914. There was at least one other book, on the making of the film, including a small actor to make a shark cage look bigger, rubber sharks, the shack for ROBERT SHAW, and records of Music I think from Ealing public library. No doubt the Professor talks about publishing tie-ins.

I remember when Jaws was being publicised: in (I think) Tottenham Court Road (in London) an office block had a large banners with 'Jaws' on it. It was a time when aware people wondered what the outcome would be of US war crimes in Vietnam. Hardly anybody, apart from Jews, understood the connection between Jewish media and Jewish wars. I like to hope this is less true today, almost entirely because of the influence of Internet.

This month marks the 40th anniversary of Steven Spielberg's film Jaws. You may be very familiar with the film but did you know that Jaws can be read as Jewish? For example, why is the film even called "Jaws" in the first place? It is because the title is only one syllable away from the word 'Jews'. But there is much more to it than that and Spielberg and the team behind the movie give us a series of other subtle clues.
Jewish writer Howard Sackler was asked to contribute to the screenplay because of his experience as a scuba diver. He did not receive a screen credit, though, as he felt that he didn't work long enough on the film. Nevertheless, Sackler's contributions helped to infuse Jaws with a subsurface Jewish sensibility. Sackler, who hailed from the Bronx was a classmate of the great Jewish director Stanley Kubrick, whom Spielberg greatly admired. Sackler also wrote the screenplays for Kubrick's first two films Fear and Desire (1953) and Killer's Kiss (1955) respectively.

It's perhaps worth pointing out that Jaws's plot is similar to Ibsen's A Public Enemy has a town mayor wanting to keep secret an outbreak of cholera or typhoid, to reduce possibly critical loss of revenue.

The image of Jews as sharks has also been around for a long time. Consider the idea of Jewish loan sharks, raising the "vig", or Shylock desiring his pound of flesh. Jaws feasts on multiple pounds of flesh in the film. Just Google Jews and Jaws and any number of images that have replaced the shark with a stereotypically Jewish caricature will come up.
Online sources say ‘the term "shark" for such a person has been cited in print since at least 1713.’ Another source mentions the US 'Civil War'. Looks Jewish, for people who like etymology.

The shark is depicted as an outsider who doesn't belong. A wandering, nomadic predator, Jaws is an unwanted presence in the small American coastal resort of Amity (which means "friendship"). Amity was most likely the type of place that was probably restricted to Jews in the past. The film makes much of the town's close-knit nature and its white picket fences. It is populated by people with such gentile names as Quint and Brody. Jaws' invasion disrupts this quintessential all-American idyll, as if he was a metaphor for immigration.
All this is misleading. The Mediterranean had Jewish trade. This was split between towns (Jewish parasitism operates on largish populations), but also from other seaside places: Texas had a Jewish presence (hence e.g. Lyndon Johnson), as did the US east coast, where Jewish-owned slave ships landed. So did Jewish breweries. So did Caribbean pirate ships. In Britain, Southport gave the 'historian' A J P Taylor to 20th century bullshit.

Spielberg named the mechanical shark "Bruce" after his lawyer, Bruce Ramer. So not only is Jaws Jewish, he is also an attorney! Ramer later became national president of the defence organisation, the American Jewish Committee (1998-2001).
The 'AJC' says this of itself: AJC is the leading global Jewish advocacy organization, with unparalleled access to government officials, diplomats, and other world leaders. It still seems to exist; and says it was founded in 1906. This is before 1913, that date of the 'Federal Reserve' and for example Income Tax and the 'Anti-Defamation League' reacting to Franks murder of a young girl. AIPAC was founded in 1951; I'm tempted to suggest AJC is earlier and possibly more honest, but a bit of reflection—for example on world wars—shows this cannot be true.

The very idea of having a Jewish shark as a protagonist raises the ugly head of the historic blood libel. It taps into age-old fears of the Jew as predatory, lusting after gentile women and the blood of young Christian children. Surely, then, it is no coincidence that the first victims in the film are a (presumably) non-Jewish blonde and a young boy. Indeed, the poster for the film plays on these fears in its depiction of a blonde female swimmer being menaced by the huge (read: phallic) shark.
And when one character states, "It wasn't Jack the Ripper, it was a shark", this allusion implicitly compares Jaws to the infamous Victorian serial killer who was also alleged to be Jewish.
Naturally, a Jewish author does not consider the truth behind blood accusations, which Hollyood has done its best to ignore or deny. NB part of the iconography of the 'phallic shark' may be a n indication of circumcision.

Whenever Jaws appears the colour yellow is prominent in the background. Yellow has long been associated with Jews ever since it was the colour of the badge that Jews were forced to wear in medieval England and later continental Europe, culminating in the Jewish Star of the Nazi period and yellow triangle of the concentration camps.
In fact, Jews were given special privileges both by noble, and, despite frantic denials, by the Roman Church, which supported Jewish loan monopolies as far as it could. Naturally the author talks of the 'Nazi period', omitting to hint at the huge Jewish concentraitons of power at the time—including Germany.

Made only a couple of years after the Yom Kippur War, Jaws can also stand in as the tough Israeli Jew. A ruthless and efficient killer, he anticipates Spielberg's 2005 film, Munich. If you think this is a stretch, then read the reports of how the Egyptian media and authorities accused tourist-killing sharks of being Mossad-trained spies.
'Tough Israeli Jew' is a bit of a joke. Gullible US 'goyim' contributed immense fortunes to support the Jewish USSR, and huge armies. Jews did little, beyond taking money and telling lies. They did kill people (see Deir Yassin when they were defenceless.

Certainly Spielberg seems to identify with the shark. He said that when he first read the novel, he found himself rooting for the shark, because the human characters were so unlikeable. This explains the high number of point-of-view shots in the film, where we see things from Bruce's subjective perspective, that is, of the shark (this was also dictated by pragmatic concerns as "Bruce", the mechanical shark, kept breaking down).
We can also interpret this as a projection of Spielberg's own sense of childhood otherness among a largely gentile population in which there were few other Jews. Spielberg recalled being physically bullied and subject to antisemitic comments as a child.
Another Jew is drafted in to help hunt down Jaws, possibly along the lines that it takes one to know one. A young, Richard Dreyfuss, whom Spielberg called his "alter ego", plays Hooper, the oceanographer and shark expert. In stereotypical fashion, he is the rationalist, sceptical intellectual, whose knowledge is invaluable in the shark hunt.
When Hooper takes to the seas with police chief Brody (Roy Scheider) and grizzled seaman Quint (Robert Shaw), Jackie Mason's quip "Is there a bigger shmuck on this earth than a Jew with a boat?" immediately comes to mind.
Stereotypically, Diaspora Jews have not been seen as a seafaring people and when we see Hooper initially neither are we convinced. He seems more like a student rabbi who has inadvertently taken a wrong turn.
Indeed, when he is aboard the boat hardboiled Quint gives him loads of stick, reflecting their public off-screen relationship in which they did not get on at all. Shaw accused Dreyfuss of cowardice and suggested that Dreyfuss would only have a career "if there's room for another Jewish character man like Paul Muni." But Hooper does play to type at times. Like a stereotypical Jew, he is always eating (just like the shark who has no table manners, another stereotypically Jewish trait).
But Hooper proves himself to be tougher than that. When he faces off against Jaws, it is the diaspora Jew vs the tough shark and the former wins. Hooper is thus the brave Jewish outsider coming to the rescue of the gentiles.
He ultimately disputes Jackie Mason's quip about Jews on boats. In fact, he outlives Quint who becomes the shark's fifth victim (hence his name, Latin for five or fifth). In an act of possible retribution for his harsh treatment of Hooper, Spielberg stages Quint's death as particularly gruesome.
Yawn. But it's worth reading this piece by Josh G. on Dreyfus, a fascinating multimedia psyop at the start of the 20th century. And you might try Introduction to nuclear revisionism with a mention in Jaws of shipping the supposed atom bomb, and the ship being sunk in suspicious circumstances, the goy sailors being mostly killed by sharks. Come to think of it, Quint was annoyed by the Jew saying yes, he's rich. They print money, you see, and hand it to each other. Some of it gets to universities.

Top of Page

Review of Saving Private Ryan Spielberg

More Jewish Lies from Spielberg. It's surprising how difficult it is to find good reviews of Jewish junk, such is the power of propaganda. As yet there's little serious criticism on 'Hollywood', BBC etc ad nauseam, though I hope this will change dramatically. I haven't checked the biographical information below. - Rerev

Hans Schmidt, from revisionisthistory.org

Michael A. Hoffman's Note: I am proud to call Hans Schmidt, the author of the following, my friend. I have had the privilege and honor to know several German WWII veterans personally, from Wehrmacht privates to Major-General Otto Ernst Remer, and I found each of them to be fine men and great human beings.

In the annals of modern history, I do not believe there are military veterans who have had to face the ordeal of vilification and falsification which these German veterans have endured. They are hated and reviled in spite of the fact that they generally fought cleanly and honorably in a war that can hardly be said to have been of their choosing.

Having met these men in the flesh, my intellectual convictions about the horrors of the fratricide that was World War Two were confirmed emotionally and personally. To regard these blood brothers of Americans as the enemy was the real "war crime."

By Chance —I found the following on the website of Scripps ('The Women's College'). From 'American Studies', the 'Edward A. White Award' given annually to a senior who has done outstanding work in the study of the United States and its history, culture, or politics as evidenced in her senior thesis. The very sad list includes 2002 Megan Harris Memory in Celluloid and Stone: Saving Private Ryan, the National World War II Memorial, and Collective Memory

Spielberg's "Pvt. Ryan" is about saving a surviving brother from the fate which befell his other siblings in the American army. But concern only for the life of the brother in American uniform is fatally short-sighted. Saving Private Fritz was just as necessary. To think otherwise is to engage in deadly self-hate masked by the slick celluloid of Spielberg.

It is this hatred for the image of the German stranger, who is in fact not a stranger, but the face in our own mirror, that is at the root of the rot we observe today in France, Britain and America. Where now is the civilization the Allied soldiers died to preserve?

Contrary to Spielberg's suggestion that Western, Christian civilization was saved in WWII by the killing of Germans, the opposite obtained. One cannot make so colossal a blunder as to mistake one's own brother for the enemy and compound that tragedy a million times and expect the restoration of anything.

I now present to you the only reaction I have thus far seen to "Saving Private Ryan" from one of those brothers our American countrymen sought to destroy.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 12, 1999 — Defense Secretary William S. Cohen presented the Defense Department's highest civilian award to director Steven Spielberg at an Aug. 11 ceremony here.
A military honor cordon welcomed Spielberg to the Pentagon, where he received the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service for his 1998 film "Saving Private Ryan." The movie sparked national awareness of the World War II generation's sacrifices. Cohen said it helped reconnect the American public with the nation's men and women in uniform.

[Undated letter; earliest online source appears to be 2004]

Dear Mr. Spielberg:

Permit me, a twice wounded veteran of the Waffen-SS, and participant in three campaigns (Battle of the Bulge, Hungary and Austria) to comment on your picture, "Saving Private Ryan."

Having read many of the accolades of this undoubtedly successful and, shall we say, "impressive," film, I hope you don't mind some criticism from both a German and a German-American point of view.

Apart from the carnage immediately at the beginning of the story, during the invasion at Omaha Beach, whereon I cannot comment because I was not there; many of the battle scenes seemed unreal.

You made some commendable efforts to provide authenticity through the use of several pieces of original-looking German equipment, for instance, the SchÃ¼tzenpanzerwagen (SPW), the MG 42s, and the Kettenkrad.

And, while the appearance of German infantry soldiers of the regular Army in the Normandy bunkers was not well depicted, the Waffen SS in the street fighting at the end of the film were quite properly outfitted.

My comment about the unreality of the battle scenes has to do with the fact that the Waffen-SS would not have acted as you depicted them in "Private Ryan."

While it was a common sight in battle to see both American and Russian infantry congregate around their tanks when approaching our lines, this rarely if ever occurred with the Waffen-SS.

(The first Americans I saw during the Battle of the Bulge were about a dozen dead GIs bunched around a burned-out, self-propelled, tracked howitzer.)

Furthermore, almost all the German soldiers seen in "Private Ryan" had their heads shaved, or wore closely cropped hair, something totally in conflict with reality. Perhaps you were confusing, in your mind, German soldiers with Russians of the time.

Or else, your Jewishness came to the fore, and you wanted to draw a direct line back from today's skinheads to the Waffen-SS and other German soldiers of the Third Reich.

Also, for my unit you should have used 18 or 19-year old boys instead of older guys. The average age, including general officers of the heroic Hitlerjugend division at Caen, was 19 years!

The scene where the GI shows his Jewish "Star of David" medallion to German POWs and tells them: "Ich Jude, ich Jude!" is so outrageous as to be funny.

I can tell you what German soldiers would have said to each other if such an incident had actually ever occurred: "That guy is nuts!"

You don't seem to know that for the average German soldier of World War II, of whatever unit, the race, color or "religion" of the enemy didn't matter at all. He didn't know and he didn't care.

Furthermore, you committed a serious error in judgment when, in the opening scenes of "Private Ryan" you had the camera pan from the lone grave with the Jewish star to all the Christian crosses in the cemetery.

I know what you wanted to say but I am sure that I was not the only one who immediately thereafter glanced over all the other hundreds of crosses one could see, to discover whether somewhere else was another Star of David.

And you know the answer. In fact, you generated exactly the opposite effect of what you had intended. Your use of that scene makes a lie out of the claim now put forth by Jewish organizations that during World War II Jews volunteered for service in numbers greater than their percentage of the general population, and that their blood sacrifice was (therefore) higher also.

I visited the large Luxembourg military cemetery where General Patton is buried and counted the Jewish stars on the gravestones. I was shocked by their absence.

After World War I, some German Jewish leaders mounted the same ruse: They claimed then and still do to this day that, "12,000 Jews gave their lives for the Fatherland," which would also have made their general participation higher, which it was not. But perhaps the "12,000" figure is intended as a symbol denoting, "from our point of view, we did enough."

During World War II, as now, about a quarter of the American population considered itself German-American. Knowing the patriotic fervor German-Americans harbor for America, we can be certain that their numbers in the Armed Forces were equal or higher than their percentage of the population.

Yet in "Saving Private Ryan" there was not one single German name to be heard or seen among the Americans.

Did you forget Nimitz, Arnold, Spaatz or even Eisenhower? Well, perhaps Capt. Miller from Pennsylvania was a German whose name had been anglicized. In omitting the American Germans you seem to have taken a cue from the White House at whose contemporary state dinners rarely someone with a German name can be found.

Well, maybe someone thinks that the abundance of German sounding names such as Goldberg, Rosenthal, Silverstein and Spielberg satisfies the need for "German-American" representation.

My final comment concerns the depictions of the shooting of German POWs immediately after a fire fight. A perusal of American World War II literature indicates that such incidents were much more common than is generally admitted, and more often than not, such transgressions against the laws of war and chivalry are often or usually excused, "because the GIs got mad at the Germans who had just killed one of their dearest comrades".

In other words, the anger and the war crime following it was both understandable and, ipso facto excusable. In "Private Ryan" you seem to agree with this stance since you permit only one of the soldiers, namely, the acknowledged coward, to say that one does not shoot enemy soldiers who had put down their arms.

As a former German soldier I can assure you that among us we did not have this, what I would call, un-Aryan mindset.

I remember well, when in January of 1945 we sat together with ten captured Americans after a fierce battle, and the GIs were genuinely surprised that we treated them almost as buddies, without rancor.

If you want to know why, I can tell you. We had not suffered from years of anti-enemy hate propaganda, as was the case with American and British soldiers whose basic sense of chivalry had often (but not always) been dulled by watching too many anti-German war movies usually made by your brethren.

(For your information: I never saw even one anti-American war movie--there were no more Jewish directors at the UFA studios.)

Sincerely,

Hans Schmidt

P.O. Box 11124
Pensacola, Florida 32524-1124
Fax: 850-478-4993
Hans Schmidt is chairman of the German-American National Public Affairs Committee (GANPAC) and publisher of the monthly "GANPAC Brief" ($50/yr. [$35 for students and pensioners] $60 overseas). In 1995 he was arrested in Germany and imprisoned for six months at BÃ¼tzow prison in Mecklenburg, for the "crime" of having mailed his newsletters to Germany.
The 71 year old Schmidt remains unbowed and continues to address American audiences and write his memoirs. His 490 page paperback book, "Jailed in Democratic Germany" is available from him for $25.00 postpaid.

Top of Page

ICA? I Care? No—Ideological Content Analysis Reviews

Mostly 2012-2017 reviews of US Jewish films; about 250 of these, I estimate. The index (alphabetical) is ICA Reviews here. (Wordpress site; plenty of wasted space). I found this after seeing a comment that Icareviews was one of the most outstanding bloggers this country's ever produced. ... brilliant. ... outstanding in every way ... a good man... The reviews turn out to be mainly a list of graded categories: 'statist', 'xenophobic', 'pro-miscegenation', 'pro-gay', 'macho' or whatever. Itemised lists do away with judging the entire emotional or take-away feeling of the Jewish mass-produced artefacts, or situating them within the routine Jewish worldview checklists. Probably just ineffectual therapy against the assaults against ordinary Americans, and their use as thugs.

Top of Page

Review of Film/DVD The Intruder b/w 1962

Interestingly shows Jewish penetration of the USA just before JFK's murder. Review November 18, 2011
Very interesting propaganda film with William Shatner. (Of 'Star Trek', yet more Jewish propaganda). Made just before the Kennedy assassination, so that the Jew or crypto-Jew Vice-President LBJ could be made President.—part of the Jewish push against the USA. Note the way whites are all trash: the filmmaker didn't bother, or was too stupid, to be consistent—e.g. with the loudmouth salesman and his nympho wife. All the blacks shown as completely decent. NAACP explicitly mentioned, as is—several times—the 'Patrick Henry Society', and there's a lot of triumphalist emphasis on legality—"it's the law".

Note that Jewish roles in mass murder in 'Communist' USSR, slavery, rented property, secret groups and infiltration etc are completely missed out. Similar attitude and idea to Griffin's fake book 'Black Like Me'.

Thanks for making this available.
Films made by the US industry of similar genre include 1962 To Kill a Mockingbird, and a clutch in 1967 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, 1967 In the Heat of the Night, 1967 To Sir With Love. 1972 Superfly shows a change in propaganda direction.

Top of Page

Review of Monty Python's film The Life of Brian (1979)

I can remember seeing this film, in those days in pre-digital format, in a cinema in Golders Green, north London, where a loud forced laugh came from a Jew in the audience at the scene where Brian Cohen as a newborn was revealed to be next stable to a well-lit obviously sacred nativity scene. Monty Python was a team with a cartoonist, John Cleese, and four or five others, not very distinguishable. Some folk mythology has collected around this film: filmed in Monastir, in Tunisia; top-up funding from George Harrison, because he wanted to see the film; banned from some cinemas; interview on the BBC with two rather ludicrous characters, Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood, a flamboyantly dressed 'deviant' Anglican bishop. Looking back, this must have been in-house advertising by the BBC, who certainly would never devote part of a show to anyone sceptical; imagine Arthur Butz in a mock debate!

According to the routinised life, Jesus‐of course now known to be a mythical figure, but perhaps none the worse for that— was born in year 0, lifespan c 34 years. The period is not well annotated, at least in popular works, no doubt because of the mythology erected around 'Jesus' and Judaics of various types, whom I'll just call 'Jews'. Long before, the remains of Alexander's empire, described as Hellenistic, was attacked by Maccabees and Romans. Josephus' Jewish Wars (66-73) were later, and unfortunately only his writings appear to have survived; Hadrian's "tremendous massacres and counter-massacres of Jews and Europeans" later still.

During Brian's lifetime, sicarii, Jewish murderers armed with daggers, assassinated both Romans and Jews: how many there were seems impossible to guess. In 6 AD, Judea was taken over by Romans, essentially as a strip of land bounded by the Mediterranean and inland mountain. In 9 AD, three or so legions were exterminated by Arminius, in the Teutoberg Forest.

This sort of thing is obviously not well adapted to comedy. Come to think of it, perhaps uncertainty could have been made a joke. But it's surely ridiculous to show Brian Cohen as a harmless and well-meaning chap. Or crucifixion as specially horrible when strangulation was a Jewish method of execution. The Judean 'people's front' would have been in practice Rabbinical, with plans recognisably modern—killing the best 'goyim', great secrecy including language, prostitution, sex with little children, money for temporary allies, non-Jew leaders as targets, revocation of oaths, thefts of assets. A possibly deleted character with a 'thin Adolf Hitler moustache and ... German accent' shouted accusations of "racial impurity"—a black echo of the Talmud. The planning of orthodoxies and heresies, and insertions of 'circumsized Jews' into a forthcoming Church, might have been worked in, but the film had nothing on the mysteries of religions, and the oddities of Jews.

I found with aimless browsing a 1979 Jew York Slimes piece: "The 'Life of Brian' is a vicious attack upon Judaism and the Bible and a cruel mockery of the religious feelings of Christians as well," Rabbi Abraham B. Hecht said Sunday, speaking for the Rabbinical Alliance of America." I suppose you have to laugh.

RW 2018-12-03

Top of Page

John Cleese and other Pythons on Youtube Rae West's comment Review

Looking back on Monty Python it's not entirely clear where its appeal came from, to the people who liked it—I've never seen figures for actual viewers; possibly many fewer than was implied, just as viewer figures are kept very secret. One feature was the use of educated aspects of life; bits on Oscar Wilde, Greek philosophers, Beethoven trying to compose while a vacuum cleaner made noise, a Judge chatting to a homosexual colleague. Another feature was swearing, which I suppose was a relief from excessively prudish language. And their was the low-budget situation skits, as found in e.g. The Avenger; joke newscasts for example.

Cleese was (in my view) the star, having mannerisms and style well above the others. Some TV and theatre appearance have appeared on Youtube, a source guaranteed to be (((Kosher)))—they removed my nuclear videos without any warning. What do we see, up to fifty years later?

I haven't attempted a Miles Mathis style rabbit-hole plunge into Cleese's family tree, or those of the other Pythons. However, on the balance of probabilities, I'll take the view that they were mostly (or all) Jews, probably propelled into Cambridge by the deaths of whites and the supposed torment of Jews and a post-war feeling, now more or less extinct, that official education was a good thing. The Pythons seem to have been given a selective passage. I *think* none ever graduated.

Anyway, let's see. Everyone knows about his father's name change from Cheese. This sounds like a Jewish manoeuvre to me. Other evidence includes the Spanish Inquisition material; this a of course a feature of Jewish anti-Roman-Catholicism, at a superficial level. Cleese in Amsterdam registered his surprise that the Inquisition accounted for only 1,200 dead. The Life of Brian (the hero is Brian Cohen) is something like a complete view of Christianity as seen by Jews.
At least one youtube shows Cleese in Amsterdam, talking, with a male interlocutor, to an audience. It's rather saddening to see the youthful faces, some worshipful, others hoping to pick up tips on being rich and famous and entering th media, with the essential point omitted. It's such a civilised town! Cleese doesn't seem to know that the Dutch plus mercenaries invaded England and installed the Bank of England, in between plagues and wars, and indirectly installed the BBC, which indeed gave him fame and money. Cleese wondered, or acted someone wondering, why he didn't live there. One of the reasons is that London is no longer English. But Cleese fails to explain why that is.

Another set of issues is Jew-related wars. The 'Great War' has a few Python sketches, such as the award of a clock to (I think) an officer. The Second World War has quite a few sketches; it's hard to be sure of possible Jewish origins, but there it is. There are some thunderflash-style bomb now and then, a reflection of Spike Milligan. But in film. There's a Vietnam War jungle bomb somewhere, interspersed without comment.

Cleese refers to the other Pythons in what is probably a heavily-edited way. He talks of Terry Gilliam, and recounts the "bunch of water" joke with a different storyline. Gilliam is somewhere online, with a similar audience, who may or may not be genuine. Gilliam bemoaned the lack of subject matter. He might have made jokes about Jews (or serious films—the animate Talmud?), or modern wars, perhaps against the Vietnamese. No surprise that wouldn't do that.
Another long-term issue I noted is the connection with Spike Milligan, who, as one of the Goon Show members and writers, had a considerable radio influence, including on the then-Prince Charles. Milligan complained they'd plagiarised 'every one' of his ideas; Cleese was careful to say they'd watched Milligan's show (Q something?) after they'd worked on heir own stuff. Sounds they were accused of plagiarism.

Graham Chapman and his 'coming out' as homosexual , presumably to the surprise of his wife-to-be. I don't know the cause of his early death; perhaps he was a so-called 'AIDS' victim, poisoned by Jews, like Freddie Mercury. Who knows?

One of the Pythons wrote on Islam, including how advanced their thought was. Just another wearying Jewish meme. Sigh.

It appears Cleese's last wife, now divorced, was awarded a huge sum of money. The full reasoning was not given by Cleese. But it's worth noticing that many places, such as Germany, have been rifled by Jews. So it may well be a perfect come-back. A thought occurred to me, looking through some of these online notes, that Cleese had often appeared in money-making schemes, for refugees to come to Britain (I'd guess priority to European Jews). Perhaps he'll have to do a day's work.

© Rae West 2022

Top of Page

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of Film 18 May 2015, 31 May 2024 Lord of the Rings

J R R Tolkien was born in 1892; just right for the 'Great War', in which (my notes say) three friends from Birmingham Grammar School died in the trenches. They agreed on some personal aesthetic, not very clearly defined, which perhaps Tolkien felt obliged to carry on. Tolkien became a Professor of Anglo-Saxon; by 1924. He called himself 'Ronald', wrote with an 'italic' pen in archaic style, and explored other languages, such as Finnish. The Hobbit was first published in 1937, with his own hand-drawn maps and runes. It attracted quite a wide readership, including people one would not expect to like such a story. The Lord of the Rings was published from 1954-1955 in three volumes, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, when he was Merton professor of English at Oxford University.
He was over 60; it's claimed he wondered if he'd find any readers. Many supposedly-educated persons in that pipe-smoking era were influenced by Greek and Latin classics; Tolkien's mental furniture was rather different, and its flavour of ancient rurality and antiquarian lore affected many people, musing over such things as the Anglo-Saxon meaning of 'Arkenstone', the possibilities that Merry was Merovingian and Pippin Pepin, the Welshness of place-names, the Victorian interest in the Morte DArthur, whether such documents as the 'Red Book of Westmarch' existed, and where 'Middle Earth' might be.

Tolkien's influence must surely be responsible for the crude US 'fantasy' genre, with dragons, unusual linguistic structures (in English), and exotic-sounding names and places. Even fairly recent history had places which no longer seem to exist: Transylvania, Schleswig-Holstein, Wessex; and fantastic titles: Kings, Prince-Regents, Empresses Regnant; lost occupations: cooper, thatcher, wheelwright; and strange prophecies, predictions and beliefs, such as the 'Angel of Mons'.

Tolkien's publisher was Allen & Unwin, the same as Bertrand Russell's, and of course a art of the Jewish campaigns for wars between whites. There were various takeovers, including by a group $1 billion in debt. His books sold posthumously (after 1973) in huge numbers, and the final reckoning must have been expanded by the films. I wonder if there was much wrangling over the rights.

All this is entirely unfilmable without computer-generated graphics, with Peter Jackson and his large studios and fellow-workers in New Zealand as the facilitators. There are glaring sillinesses—the principal ring only being destructible in the 'Crack of Doom', and Saruman only having a single assistant, and the long perilous journey when the eagles could presumably have flown with the ring and delivered it more expeditiously. A more overarching problem is the chronology: as with a fairy-tale, everything works out just at the right time: Treebeard's waited before noticing trees once his friends had been cut down; the Dwarves' Hall converted into a tomb, apparently a century or two earlier, and yet expected to be occupied; Aragorn inspecting a broken sword a few thousand years old, and yet being part of a continuous bloodline—the tale's components are left around, like props waiting to be picked up. Much of the film follows the book, though I think ringwraiths in the book are afraid to travel except at night. There are anachronisms—tobacco, potatoes.

A fascinating aspect of the 'Great War', though perhaps not as perceived by Tolkien and his youthful friends, is the question of finance and repayments. The orc asking Christopher Lee, "What orders from Saruman, my lord?" is told he has been instructed to build a huge army. (Something like that). Apart from a complaint about maggotty bread, there's no hint about practicalities, just pictorial stuff showing industrial activity and what might have been meant to be biological or genetic processes. This is of course an accurate representation of the simple mechanicals propagandised and conscribed and shuffled into war.
The Two Towers extended DVD has two Appendices, one showing Peter Jackson—at the time I write this, about 25 years older—discussing the 'Great War' in innocent, unrevisionist form. He thinks it was a disastrous waste, not imagining that some people wanted war and planned and worked for it. Bob and Harvey Weinstein seem to have contributed much of the advance budget, so that Jewish bias, as is normal, dominates the films. Jackson is shown (with an untranslated b/w sequence of Hitler) saying there were no doubts about the Second World War, a Jew-based view which also erases Stalin. I wonder if the screenplay writers had any clue about this sort of thing. I'd guess not. In any case they could mostly use Tolkien's rather empty verbiage, slightly reminiscent of Churchill in his usual oratorical mode.

The main failure in my view was the omission of what must have been part of Tolkien's emotional message, namely the effects of the wars in Mordor and Helm's Deep and wherever. Volume 3 of Tolkien's trilogy, The Return of the King, has 'the scouring of the shires', in which the malign influence of Saruman is fought against: morals have decayed, a strange wizard moves about corrupting people and their lives, frauds and trickery multiply. Bilbo's hobbit-hole effects are being auctioned: in just such a way Tolkien, returning from France and from the war he never understood, must have mourned his lost friends, and been shocked at life continuing in its rather sordid indifference.
The film has none of this, apart from the auction: just a sentimentalised last journey, a painfully slow ending, resembling in fact the conventionalised 'we will remember them' lie, and resembling what must have been the experience of many 'veterans'. The long-drawn-out ending suggests that a lot of material was abandoned. There's a parallel with events after he 'Great War', when Jewish paper money from the USA and control over the US regime led to flooding of eastern Europe with terror. Pretty much omitted from all Jewish 'narratives'.

I wonder whether a large part of the attraction of the books—the feelings of stability, the Ages of Middle Earth, the historical appendices packed with details of remote events—is the fairly systematic accounts of meaningful history, as a counter to the squelching absurdities of Jewish rubbish which have been imposed for at least a thousand years on Europe.

It's why I give the film only 4 stars, and even that is excessive considering the ending. It seems appropriate that Jackson's subsequent work includes the completely unimportant impossibly large monkey in New York, and the Belgian cartoonist's Tintin, animated with Steven Spielberg, the Jewish fantasist and liar. Modern techniques could film (e.g.) the Jewish takeover of Russia: murder scenes, famine scenes, war scenes, worldwide skulduggery. But this is not for our time and would need determination on a scale I cannot believe Jackson has.

(But at least it provided a title for my 'nuclear' video, Lords of the Nukes).

When I watched this in a cinema—a long time ago—I watched the interminable list of specially-credited fans, in alphabetical order. I now see that Luke W. Mathis is one of them; brother of Miles W. Mathis?

I wonder if 'Gondor' might possibly have been London, with two letters changed. I also wonder how much filmic spectacle had part of its function distracting from 9/11.

Top of Page

Review of New Multi-Part Movie The Hobbit (part 1 2012)

I don't much like the cinema: I'd recently seen a DVD—Jewish American, something about a heist, charmless Jewish actors trying their short sharp voices, on a plot pretending Jewish fraudsters put their money into gold cars—which couldn't work, would be noted and don't have the liquidity that all financial crooks need.

It's a relief to turn from this shit to something with at least some cultural pretension. I don't like the insulated-from-reality feel of cinemas, and it pleased me to see the drop in adverts; nothing except products for visual fantasists—cameras, laptops, electronic games, advertised as though they were the real world. Not much else except padding and a mostly-empty cinema.

Ten years or so after Lord of the Rings, we have Peter Jackson again (and other directors), plus actors (and many of the original cast). Jackson was remarkably implausible as a director and/or producer—fat, bearded and waddly with sandals. But he filmed something unfilmable. All credit for that. I wondered if, ten years later, the actors would be able to look prequel-ish: Gandalf looked much the same, Ian Holm if anything looked younger thanks to careful lighting, though Frodo and Galadriel looked older than they should have. I thought Christopher Lee seemed slightly gaga and remained seated through his speeches. However ... what's The Hobbit like?

The film is long; I haven't read the book for years, or, indeed, decades. Let me get out of the way a few anachronisms. Just as potatoes in Lord of the Rings were not credible for something pre-16th century, I was pained to see matches at the start of The Hobbit. I'm sure tree and geology experts would frown at the plant and landscapes of The Hobbit. But let's forget such things.

Let's look at some of the scenes. There's Gandalf's semantic discussion of "Good morning!" just as in the book. The dwarves turning up uninvited, eating poor Bilbo's food, causing chaos, singing rather prolonged songs, but revealing themselves as good guests who even do the washing up, is all in the book. (Bilbo's hobbit hole seems to have sprouted a café and pantry extension). So is the collapsible Orc cave with strange bits and pieces (and treasure—would they really leave it there?). The orcs in the clearing have cockney accents exactly as per the book. There's an evolutionary problem; if creatures exposed to sunlight are immediately lapidated, is it likely they'd live to a mature age? But this is Tolkien's invention, not Jackson's. The riddle scene with Gollum is quite well done, and similar to the book's, except for the impossible ambient lighting. And we have 'out of the frying pan into the fire' with a baddie pale orc, wargs, burning trees, and eagles, the latter more feathery than in Lord of the Rings, a tribute to ten years' improvement in computer graphics.

Between the action, since it seems logically impossible to have 100% action, we have the quiet bridging scenes. Typically: a crowd emerges from a mountain, and they look at the landscape; they never seem to know where they are, or even what they see is called: the town of the elves? Erebus, the lonely mountain? But to be fair, this is in Tolkien, and is related to the unlikely scene-setting in which the comfortable Shire suddenly seems dangerous, even though the neighbouring zones have been there for centuries. A variation on bridging scenes is emotional reconciliation, or just conciliation: looking to see if somebody's missing; or somebody saying he knows now that (say) Bilbo is a terrific fellow.

Let's get a few other odd conventions out of the way: the swords never seem to have any blood on them. The dwarves have plaits, elaborate coiffures, and facial hair with small intertwinings—decorative, but on the face of it inconsistent with mining traditions and the Scottish and Irish tough vocal presentations.

I found some of the scenes new; at least I don't remember them at all. Radagast 'the brown' is a wizard living alone his cartoon-shack-style tree-house, doing things like eating mushrooms and trying to resuscitate an ill hedgehog. He travels in a rabbit-powered superfast sledge; was that really in the book? I thought the actor was Michael Palin, but realised he's an ex-'Doctor Who' actor able to cross his eyes. Another scene I didn't remember was a battle of storm giants—I'd guess a science-free explanation for thunderstorms given to Tolkien when young and credulous. Good CGI, though the survival chances of people on mountains while huge rocks the size of houses are chucked around would seem a bit low. In particular, I don't remember that the motivation for the entire trip to remove or kill Smaug, the dragon, was not to grab his bullion—which looked considerably more than could ever have been held at Fort Knox—but to reclaim the subterranean world of the Dwarves from the goblins.

Since this is planned as a three-parter, it's necessary to hint at events in the future. An abandoned stony hilltop fortress, ending with "-Dur" I think, seems to have been reinhabited, by 'the necromancer', suggesting that baddies are gathering. Smaug's eye makes an appearance at the very end. The Durin's Day keyhole subplot can only be there to make sure that opening the Lonely Mountain's secret door would be a cliffhanger. ... Speaking of which, cliffhangers may be overdone in this film; with (for example) several dwarves hanging on by fingertips to each other, and onto Gandalf's stick, as their tree topples over a huge drop.

I found this film quite painful to watch in one sense; just as you think of the eyesight of someone carving elaborate woodwork detail in a huge room, I couldn't help thinking Breughel would have spent months just painting one single frame. Every single scene must have been storyboarded, every significant character and creature designed... just think of the sheer effort...!!!

The 3D effect is tricky to deal with: in life, nobody feels the need to ensure objects are close enough to exaggerate the effect. And photographic 3D tends to look flat, like pop-up theatrical flats. And background out-of-focus detail looks wrong—it doesn't happen in life. And the computer-generated stuff is not very convincing—birds, the Atlas moth emissary to the eagles, flames, even embers in smoke and raindrops, present their own difficulties. For some reason the titles and endtitles are lettered in a way identical to Lord of the Rings, though occasional subtitles are fairly close-up. Both eyes have polarising plastic with seemingly-identical effects of reflections; in fact they use what's called circularly polarised light. There seems to be no crossover between eyes.

Anyway ... if you like this sort of thing, you'll probably like the film. If you don't, you probably won't.

Malory's Morte DArthur might provide a follow-up; or perhaps the genuine de Vere plays, one every six months. Or The Decameron again ...

[1] Tolkien's strength was in narrative description. There's little analysis; his stories resemble sagas - when he was young, William Morris's saga-like poems, and the Morte DArthur (first ever printed book in English, I believe), were influential. Bertrand Russell was almost christened 'Galahad'. Tolkien's anonymous chronicles the 'Red Book of Westmarch' illustrate his style of historical story-telling.

I'd suggest the atmosphere is like that in Brewer's Phrase and Fable, which includes possible etymologies of elves and goblins (Dr Johnson thought maybe Guelfs and Ghibellines), orcs as sea monsters (as presumably in 'orca'), trolls as dwarves of northern Europe, playing tricks like sneakily exchanging babies. Brewer is fascinating in its collation of disconnected items, all of which appear to exist by chance.

I couldn't see any reference to Jews, or for that matter to any modern set of people. Something nasty coming from the east suggests maybe Germans at the First World War, or 'Russians', but surely the dominant feeling is antiquity, in a descriptive and romantic sense. Tolkien made little attempt at any sort of consistency, as far as I can see. For example, I suppose he must have known that tobacco and potatoes (and maybe fireworks) came to Europe relatively recently; not part of an 'egalitarian hunter-gatherer society turned agricultural'.

[2] Tolkien's weakness was the cushioned comfort of academics and the upper middle class. There must have been Hobbit lawyers etc - Bilbo had wills - and Dickens, Trollope, and 'The Forsyte Saga' author had many lawyers. But there are none in Tolkien. No teachers, no banking, no money apart from chests of gold and gems. There are few references to artisans; woodcarving skills are more evident in Jackson's films than in Tolkien. There are no priests - unless you count a few eccentric wizards, with exciting but rather limited powers, usually of a deus-ex-machina type, ad hoc things to escape 'certain death' or summon 'the eagles'. Tolkien didn't need to consider such things in much detail, and so neither do his characters.

The First World War appears in a modified detechnologised form: the united band of innocents, singing songs together, naive, confident they could win against absurd odds - typical of the start of the war - but in my opinion the return from the Great War influenced Tolkien more. Most of the really heroic men would have been shot by machine-gun fire, or blown up by shells. As compared with Weimar Germany, or Russia, the shocks must have been relatively mild, but the lack of respect or even pity to demobbed soldiers must have been shocking to Tolkien. Their lot was death duties in rich families paid for their dead sons, women munition workers pleased in effect that male deaths had given them money, goods auctioned and jumped-up bureaucrats - these appear in Tolkien - and 'hard-faced men who look as if they had done very well out of the war'. Tolkien noticed these societal changes. War profiteers are a heavily-censored topic; my belief for example is the Vietnam War was entirely to make money for Jews; but Tolkien had little understanding of factory-made weaponry.

The simple-minded division into good and bad in Tolkien is another part of his cushioned ease. What we do is right and good. Obviously. We win battles. Obviously. Non-white immigration was unthinkable; literally. Britain had always been white; so much so it wasn't even noticeable; nobody before mass transport described the British as 'white'.

Top of Page

Truffaut: Jules et Jim

Review of François Truffaut Jules & Jim
Jules and Jim. Widely Misunderstood. (Review 1 Dec 2017)

From a first novel found by chance in Paris by Truffaut. Largely made up of reminiscences of scandals, it seems to have influenced Truffaut as Les Grand Meaulnes influenced John Fowles—except that Henri Pierre Roché survived the Great War. Jules et Jim came out ('was released') about a year after Breakfast at Tiffany's. The meme of playful (but unqualified) young girl who is effortlessly but superficially happy seems to have been coincidental.

Truffaut made little attempt to age or pre-juvenate his characters; they look much the same throughout. The early scenes are what Britons might call Edwardian; but no doubt are one of the French Empires. We have bikes in the Wheels of Chance adventurous mode, with the not always very appropriate clothing of the times. And scenes probably in mimicry of Manet and Renoir. Early railways are represented from (I think) newsreel. There must be the then-newish Eiffel Tower, surely? A few original Picassos appear on their walls. There's little attempt to recreate German scenes: much of those territories must have still resembled pre-unification German states. England is a remote influence (Shakespeare, pronunciation) and one might wonder why and how Napoleon and the Franco-Prussian War happened; a sub-theme is German books in a French house, and Goethe's Elective Affinities. There's a Swedish play—Ibsen? Strindberg? "Shakespeare" is pronounced in a remote, wishful way—Moreau's character is supposed to teach Shakespeare, on the face of it an absurdity, until one recalls the cohorts of intellectual pretenders in the world. It's salutary to be reminded of the bitty unevenness of Europe at its peaks, and the immense and precious fragility of civilisation in the face of Jewish parasitism. Probably the main point of the film—at the time, though I doubt if many people notice—is the plain fact of friendship between men declared to be enemies. This is characteristic of Jewish presentations post-any-war—once the covert intentions have been carried out, there's no point continuing that old stuff.

Moreau has set-pieces of enthusiastic impulsiveness: a jump into the Seine, invitations to race and catch, a sudden hatred and pointing of a revolver, her last drive. No wonder she found Jules (shown interested in local nature, and about to write a short book on dragonflies) a bit dull.

The Great War is represented by newsreel, and the original film must I think itself have been staged, judging by the safe nearness of the explosions to the camera. The War 'broke out', and the characters show all-but-zero interest, as in all generally-accepted censored presentation of 20th century events. Jules (shorter, blondish, I think Austrian) and Jim (taller, moustached, skinny, French novelist and journalist) are for my taste hard to distinguish. They are not given to displays of 'negative' emotion, giving the film some of its enigmatic puzzling nature. When Jules takes Jim aside for an earnest conversation, we're told Catherine (Jeanne Moreau, carefully selected for the part) had been away for months, and Jules wasn't sure she'd turn up to see Jim. She'd been unfaithful three times. I'd guess there was some fumbling by Trudeau [I just noticed this error—Truffaut] in presenting this sort of thing: the numerous anecdotes supplied by Roché, including a wartime obsession, are a bit too similar to each other. Ménage à trois is, thus, not quite correct, but economy (or discretion) dictates the suppression of visual traces of the larger numerals. The possible suggestion of 'gayness' between the two men is negated when Jim reads a bit of his unimpressive-sounding novel to Jules. The film includes a guitar-accompanied song (Le Tourbillon de la Vie—The Windmill of Life) by a visitor, the title possibly suggested by La Ronde, and, perhaps, the interlude suggested by Audrey Hepburn's handily portable guitar.

Truffaut's film is an attempt to put France (in black-and-white) against the lies and vulgarity (in color) of the USA. Technically the fixed camera shots are composed with the traditional curves and sweeps 'to lead the eye', and rectilinearities, which I suppose are necessary. It's nice to be reminded of devices such as yellow filters for clouds and film selected for dim night effects. Difficult scenes are shown in fragments.

Hardly any mention of money—unless there's a lot—is part of the romantic presentation, and here we have a trip to the Adriatic, and various rentings of huge châlets, and a bare mention of Catherine's parents—English mother, father from an old Burgundy family: that's why she's not ordinary.

Towards the end of the film, we have newsreel shots of books being burned, to the incredulity of Jules—pretty much the only reference to the undercurrents of the War, and money, and Franc-Maçonnerie. This evasiveness is, I presume, part of the film's supposed permanent charm. The suicide scene (or, perhaps, escapade scene)—voiture driven by Catherine from a damaged bridge into a river—and cremation scene (Jim and Catherine in a double funeral)—provide a firm fixed end-point. At least Hamlet had a skull to display; ashes (including crushed bones, pestle-and-mortared) seem sadder and perhaps more anonymous.

A film dated 1972 Une Belle Fille Comme Moi or A Gorgeous Girl Like Me (Or Gorgeous Kid - the film's subtitles use various words based on US slang, including 'tramp') has a sociologist descending into the depths of real life, Bernardette Lafont as the abused and unfortunate/precocious and exploitative woman 'researched' by a rather innocent sociologist, Stanislas Prévine. I wondered (with nothing much for evidence) if this was suggested by the sociologist Stanislav Andreski.

Top of Page

Truffaut: Jeanne Moreau: The Bride Wore Black

Review by rerevisionist of The Bride Wore Black 26 November 2017
François Truffaut 1968 La Mariée était en noir

Jeanne Moreau died in France in 2017, almost exactly half a century after filming this. Her fellow actors in the film are of course fifty years older, where they survived. Cine film with sound was long-established, but colour was still fairly new at that time, especially where budgets had bite. For the first time in human history, accurate records exist of people and places and memories. Jules et Jim, 1962, with its Franco-German associations—something like Europe's answer to the US Civil War—was in black and white, and perhaps Truffaut's personal pinnacle, which he seems never to have equalled. Both films were modified from books; the books came first, which for some reason remains something of a tradition.

The film is tinged, now, with nostalgia: the small-town French settings, the south-of-France yachts and palm trees, the artist with his instant drawings (at the time, Hockney used colour slides—much less effort), the luxury concrete Le Corbusier building with its concièrge possibly modelled on Hitchcock's Psycho actor Anthony Perkins, the cars with chromium trim, the Paris train, the tape recorder and telephone equipment which now look plastic and cheap, the all-white-plus-crypto-Jew population, the absence of mobile phones and Internet and small computers, the hints of Roman Catholicism.
At the same time, more hidden, are suggestions of real twentieth century revolutions: the American slang, such as the child called 'Cookie' and the télé of the elderly mother alone in her big house; the decay of the opera house; the suggestion of lots of money for the businessman from secret sources, perhaps (I'm guessing) the Franc-Maçonnerie. France was bombed during World War 2 more than most countries, and no doubt memories of black rapists from Les État-Unis remained.

I remember watching this film in a châlet near St Moritz, on an aunt's TV, and decided, thanks to Amazon, to watch it again. It is slightly clunky—cutting and cementing real film is a bit difficult; and Truffaut's mise-en-scènes needed hard work to fit around the hefty cameras. There was (I think) a legal ban on showing successful killings, so all the murders are made implausible; at least, that's how they seemed to me. One-person revenge against many is not a very common genre. The Count of Monte-Cristo relied on conspiracy; in this case there's a collection of accessories to an accidental shooting to be removed. It's far remote from Jewish faux-revenge murders of the commercial junk Tarantino type.

Truffaut: The Last Metro

Review of François Truffaut Le Dernier Métro (The Last Metro) 1980

Interesting as a French propaganda film made long after the event (Review by Rerevisionist 5 Apr 2019)

Gérard Depardieu and Catherine Deneuve (1980) in La Dernière Métro seems to be a feeble anti-'Nazi' film. The French declared war on Germany, jointly with Britain. This film, about 35 years later, is 'against the backdrop of fascist tyranny'. (From the sleeve notes by Artificial Eye, 2014). It's not just Hollywood and UK film industries that presented rubbish to their audiences.

Re-examining the French film-makers (the financiers and producers are I think rather obscure) born in the 1930s, we find (of course) parallels to Hollywood and Jewish domination: it's not coincidence that there are no widely-publicised films on the reality of sex in the Weimar Republic, on Vichy France, the Franc-Maçonnerie and Banque de France, the joint declaration of war against Germany in 1939, Churchill's sinking of the French navy, the extensive bombing of France, or (later) the battle of Dien Bien Phu. And at the domestic level, nothing much on Algérie Français, or for that matter nuclear power. But there is adultery, small families, 'existentialism', and gun violence—this latter perhaps a promotion of gun control to disarm the French, as in the 1996 Port Arthur false flag shootings in Tasmania. The Jewish-planned nonwhite immigration is unspoken, for obvious enough reasons.

The plot looks at a smallish Paris theatre during WW2; part of Vichy France. The southern part is always called the 'zone libre', though not, presumably, by Germans. We're told there was an 11 pm curfew; hence the rush for the last underground train home. The scene-setting includes, incidentally, a poster for the b/w German film about Britain and South Africa, Ohm Kruger, also titled Oom Paul. The plot is about as simple as possible, consistent with Truffaut's couple plus extras: Jewish (from Poland) theatre owner, Steiner, married to a French woman, who in true help-the-audience style is repeatedly described as beautiful, enchanting.

Steiner is in hiding, in the cellar. Mrs Steiner is shown dealing with accounts, bums on seats, ticket prices—all new to her. Steiner is rather inconsistently shown as the displaced owner, but also as dealing with casting, scripts, rehearsals. This seems to be what displaces Mrs Steiner's affections to Depardieu; he final scene shows a nascent lovemaking scene on an office floor, with a sight of thigh and her words, or rather word, "yes".

Depardieu looks big and chunky. There's an amusing scene when a critic, Dixiat, who appears to be something like a German cultural figure, is menaced by Depardieu, after an unflattering review of their new play, I think by an unknown Norwegian‐maybe this was a code, as a Youtuber refers to Jews as Finns. And a scene with a leg of pork being secretly transported in a double-bass case suggests wartime stresses, as do the boy planting something like tobacco. And so on, with hints of the Résistance, including an explosive gramophone. This may have been a reference to the assassination of Admiral Darlan in December 1942. In view of what happened in Europe, the 'German oppression', of the blurb-writers, is rather ridiculous.

I'd guess the film was part of the fightback by Jews (two of the three scriptwriters seem to be Jews; I don't know about Truffaut) against opponents of their 'Holocaust' myth; Faurisson on Anne Frank was in 1978, for example. They must have pulled out all the stops, on their loud but dissonant organ: this film received ten César Awards, several awards from the USA, and a few others. It was ten years before the Loi Fabius-Gayssot.

Depardieu (we're told) regarded Truffaut as bourgeois, and Jews in France must have been easily powerful enough to suppress facts about the Soviet Union. Possibly Depardieu was treated as a Jewish ally, big and tough, though not overburdened with intellect.

Fascinating to see propaganda films from other countries, especially when aided by subtitles, though the really horrific events will not be filmed. Top of Page

Kingsman

Review of Kingsman (2014)

At least special effects are cheap

A sort of tribute to James Bond, as the image appears in films. There's a Savile Row ad intro (as vaguely in e.g. the 'Man from Uncle' Jewish 'Cold War distraction, and a Pink Floyd video). Colin Firth appears early in the scene-setting, which is itself preceded by title/sceneset of Middle East building been shot at, in the (((American))) style of air destruction. Firth tries to atone for a blunder—something to do with a Jewish idea of terrorism. Firth does his best to act a gentleman, and part of the plot is to convert a London white plebbo to something like himself by 'rising above his previous self'. Michael Caine looks like an old Jew.
The entire film can be dated by examination of internal clues, though whether the effort is worthwhile is a decision for you. The advert for working class plebbo is an old theme; the (((Royal Navy))) had a TV ad showing a white youth, whose world is ruined by Jew thefts, joining the navy and supposedly doing thing: this sort of thing has a long history—WW1 British naive kids getting killed, 1960 US simpletons off to Vietnam, Americans sent to Iraq.
The Bond-type toys include a bulletproof umbrella, a remote poison-activating fountain pen, shoes with a Germanic heelkick lethal knife. Lots of talk of 'neurotoxin'. The scenery is largely interiors; I suppose studios are cheap enough and unwanted outdoor hecklers a problem. There are some snow scenes. There's a woman with springy lower legs, I'd guess green screened. There's a lot of action which presumably is still done by erasing harnesses. Swedes are a particular Jewish hate: a Prime Minister is done away with, and a princess is shown as a tawdry blonde. Jewish hate fulfillment, presumably.
As in Star Wars, the baddies are all in white; very likely a message. Of course they always miss. There are thuggish whites, of course. There's anomalous music: Money for Nothing (Dire Straits; 1985) and Give it Up (can't remember; 1982) aimed at people remembering 30 years back. It has a global warming professor (serious pollution is dropped by Jews, in a similar way to (((AIDS))) and the (((Liberty))) and (((nukes))). The warming myth is ingeniously paired up with a revived/copied idea about heating removing viruses. (Not bacteria. There are checklists of Jew frauds to be mentioned: 9/11 of course, though with caution. Viruses are looking doubtful. Also the actual existence of satellites looks doubtful; the plot here has a woman, afraid of heights, carried by weather balloons high enough ... anyway; never mind. There's a church in southern USA with a manic preacher hating sodomites and niggers and Jews, all wiped out, mostly by Colin Firth, possibly by mistake an advert for keeping guns. Luckily there's no blood shown, yet another cinematic convention.
The plot involves something like implants in people's necks which generate heat—enough to explode heads. And/or to release violence-inducing hormones. James Bond baddies were shown as foreign (the type depending on current Jew ambitions), and somewhat smooth, and vastly rich. Maybe Jews at present are trying to cosset blacks, part of their TV campaign, now, to never show black violence in the USA and out, and similarly coax them into aggression. A (((campaign))) similar to Muslims etc in Europe. At any rate Samuel Jackson was chosen. It takes more effort to note teaser propaganda, and permanently blocked topics. The Vietnam War is still never mentioned—Mussolini-style Stallone types don't count. It's interesting to note that drugs as a topic aren't here. My guess is people are more aware of shipments tolerated in spite of illegality; and perhaps inadequate control over opium derivatives. Jewish money is never mentioned—Colin Firth's character as a billionaire in presumably a little joke. Jewish brothels similarly. I noticed one reference to 'Mossad'.
And so on.
v.22 Jul 2018

A few years later, Miles Mathis's site hosted a PDF piece on Kingsman. Worth a look! - 13 Feb 2022

Top of Page

Review of Jewish interest DVD: Last Orders (2002)

Indirectly reveals the powerlessness of actors, 20 Nov 2011

Curiously fantastical film. The east end of London has in fact been transformed by immigration, including of 'Jews' in the late 19th century. This film is deliberately phoney; virtually all the characters are shown as white—honest cockney caricatures, spending much of their time in almost-empty pubs joking about whose round it is. False names and false characterisations. The Lancashire actor is the exception, and is duly given hardly any lines. There are wartime scenes—the Second World War was of course the huge triumph of Jews around the world, with a few hundred thousand unthanked goyim from many countries—with a young actor pretending to be Caine, and scene of hop-picking in Kent. The scenery is minimal—it's quite an appropriate match, really, the cut-down scene-setting with the cut-down perspective of the film. There's a wartime scene celebrating our plucky country helping Stalin with his mass-murders. Curious obsolete trash which indirectly reveals either how powerless actors are to select their material, or the depths of their contempt for whites. Or perhaps how big cities become permeable as the numbers of natives expand unmanageably.

Top of Page

Review of DVD—Pop Mickey Jones (Drummer): Bob Dylan—World Tour 1966: The Home Movies

Worth watching to de-romanticise yourself, December 7, 2011

Many people of a certain age-group believe that pop music provided a fantastic, wealthy, out-of-this world, exciting experience. This video is basically an interview of a bearded drummer who played with Dylan, and apparently was specially requested by Dylan. He's shown sitting beside some sort of video edit suite, occasionally doing voiceover commentary. He seems a regular guy but also seems, like many people of course, to have learned nothing much through life. There's no musicology here, and no analysis of what impressed people about Dylan's lyrics. There's virtually nothing about hotel-room discussions they must have had, or even details like what the roadies got up to hauling equipment round. It's a sort of vacation home movie, with the emphasis on things which tourists see, rather than anything deep or subtle. If you have a lurking corner of your persona where you play air guitar or imagine being in front of a huge crowd, this DVD might be a valuable de-romanticiser.

Top of Page

Review of 9/11 hoax maintenance DVD: Remember Me (2010)

Rubbish probably intended as part of 9/11 lies, 9 Jun 2012

Probably just a part of the large scale lies to fix the 9/11 fake in the minds of the gullible. Dull rubbish with assorted cast of people wanting to be in films. Crap dialogue, silly acting, a bit of sex for the proles, a bit of this, a bit of that, shallow emotions in effect saying gee, maybe love exists etc. Callously lightweight. Avoid it.

Top of Page

Colin Firth A Single Man

Review 17 June 2015

Low-Budget Film with Multiple Jewish Frauds

Colin Firth as something like a British Tom Hanks. Curious Zombie Film.
I counted four Jewish propaganda points here:
[1] Of course, the promotion of homosexuality. It's amusing to see the risks of anal sex ignored. In somewhat the way that sex in unrealistically inserted by Jews into films in pre-contraception times. Many people still haven't worked out the reasons for Jews presenting homosexuals as sympathetic figure: all the homosexuals in Jewish film and TV are presented entirely uncritically, since say 1960, and here is the nth plus one such film. Colin Firth is shown as a responsible and shrewd male, so far as is possible for someone emotionally deficient, and whose ideas are limited to 'literature'.
[2] More subtly, the promotion, in the job sense, of people with correct views. Firth is shown as a professor of 'English'—'English' in the BBC sense. "... They don't communicate in a logical manner, rather they are into the arts, but the arts are the transmission medium for the ideology. ..." This film may be based on Christopher Isherwood, either a novel or life; he was certainly an ideal type for such a job, moving the the USA for more money. Firth isn't quite the right actor for realism, as Isherwood had more than a touch of the Francis Bacon facies about him.
[3] The inclusion of Jewish historical fakes: in this case we have, conveniently situated in 1946, the end of the Second World War as portrayed by Jews, and shown here in west coast America. Probably this includes 'Nazis', Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, heroic Americans, and all the rest. Omitting the USSR's atrocities, US debt, murder of Kennedy, war crimes in Vietnam ... The events are given, like a primitive chronicle, with no historical interpretation at all, giving a dead feel—nobody discusses the issues, since in the world of Jews there is no debate.
[4] I was amused to see the 'Cuba crisis' inserted with no questions. The 'Cuba missile crisis' is another Jew fake. (The same page has other questions, such as whether V2 rockets existed in WW2).

The dialogue is far below what might be expected at university level. It's pitched low, either to appeal to the likely audience, or to reflect the realities of the US education system. So we have WW2 entirely justified; academic teaching as uncritical syllabus-following and high pay; a young person scene-set in the Jewish film way as claiming to have many ideas, while clearly having none. In the same way that prostitution is often presented favourably, and not for example as white women trapped by Jews in Tel Aviv, so presumably Firth is deemed better than some ugly pervert obsessed with whipping or anuses.

It's low budget, with few extras, and what look like cheap outdoor sets somewhere in southwest USA.

Hanks leads in the world of phony actors, I think: AIDS, NASA, WW2, and other deliberate misrepresentations. Firth has his ridiculous film of a very unfortunate British monarch; another as a 'human rights' barrister, making money from some unfortunates, but not others; another as menacing a Japanese soldier (whose family had probably been burned out of house and home, if they were lucky).. There must be money in this sort of thing, presumably.

Interesting to speculate on future formulaic material in this genre. How about a secret child sex addict, driven to embezzle money by a heartless world, combined perhaps with war scenes in Iraq and a touching story of a 'Holocaust' fraudster?

Top of Page

Denial Movie 2016, DVD 2017.
Reviews & Study Notes by Rerevisionist 14 May 2019

This film is of course dishonest Jewish propaganda.
And it has many, not immediately obvious, aspects. ...

Overview
Lipstadt's Penguin Book
Factual Background
Early Reviews
Questions Suggested by 'Denial'
Plod Through 'Denial'
Jewish Presumptions - Making of - Titles - Actors
Oxford, Cambridge, History
Jewish Endgame?
Conclusions

Irving libel prosecution film studio courtroom

Single frame (above) from Denial. The courtroom was Court 37, West Green Building of the Royal Courts of Justice. The courtroom is inaccurately represented as largely empty. There were 30 to 40 'experts' on Penguin/Lipstadt's side, and numerous visitors from around the world in public galleries.
There are oddities about 'Davenport Lyons' which advised or represented Penguin Books, at least in Britain. According to Wiki—admittedly an unreliable source—Davenport Lyons were incorporated in 2001, after the trial, and 'entered into administration' in 2014, before the film.


Stills from making Denial. Two sources at least list the writers as Max Borenstein, Russ Krasnoff, Jeff Skoll of BBC Films, Joe Oppenheimer, and Andrew Karpen of Bleecker Street, in addition to Hare.

This film is 'Holocaust' propaganda, part of the Jewish big lie process, in the same mould as Judgment at Nuremberg, The Eichmann trial, Sophie's Choice, Schindler's List, and very many other Jewish films, mostly intended for naïve Americans.

It's clear the film is aimed at young people, its simplified message in the long tradition of Jewish lies. It's the same target as the fraudulent 'Holocaust Museums'. It's the same principle as a simple credo.

David Irving's site is www.fpp.co.uk. Click the 'Action Report Online' button and perhaps search for 'Denial' (or 'Dental', possibly a little joke about Evans's overshot jaw).
It's of important psychological interest to form an opinion on Jewish lying. Jews seem unable to evaluate evidence; instead, like savages, they have a simple egocentric view. Or maybe there are complications. But whatever is true, ascendant Jews have harmful impacts. All people now must make the effort to understand so-called 'Jews'.

Click the screen-captured image below, to open a new window, and browse my detailed account of the four-month span of the libel trial, preceded by my predictions of what might happen, written at the time. (The court transcripts only apply during the second half of the film).
Court transcripts were copied onto 3½" disks (just 1.4 MB then!) from the transcription machine's hard disk. David Irving's transcripts are better as regards proper names, languages, archive info.
NEW: a site searcher is included now, for the trial. If you decide to search—and there's a lot—remember the files ending DAY number are court transcripts, each more or less one day of talk. Other files are my own commentary on what I observed, often, in my biased opinion, more useful than the official stuff.
IMPORTANT NOTE: If you find a 'quotation' in the film which looks unlikely, you may well find the garbled original by careful searching.

Above, Left: David Irving. Book jackets. World's most successful historian? Note: Uprising (1981) which identified Jewish killers and thugs in Hungary, must have pointed the way to Jewish worries over Irving. And as television expanded in quantity but—bought and run with Jewish paper money—not in quality, he never became a TV pundit on WW2. Credits 'special thanks list' includes Sir Charles Gray

Above, Right: Germar Rudolf's Bungled: Denying the Holocaust 2017 pdf download (and there may be a 2016 edition entitled Fail: Denying the Holocaust). Published after the film Denial, this is probably the best shortish book available on Holocaust revisionism, a detailed crit of Lipstadt's rubbish. Easy-going, thorough, reliable. Its Index of Names is impressive. Germar Rudolf has impressive qualifications in chemistry and scientific method. And he is polite to traditional historians, I'd guess more as a diplomatic feat than as a mark of respect. But Germar Rudolf perhaps misses the point that Lipstadt is a traditional Jewish liar, with no interest in scientific truth, but only in primitive 'pragmatic' 'truth'.
Like Irving (“I always have accepted that Adolf Hitler, as head of state and government, was responsible for the Holocaust...”) Rudolf states that Jews suffered. As do virtually all sources. Personally, I doubt this.

Some relevant links in date order from David Irving's website, fpp.co.uk (the linked pages open in new windows) –
• An account of a talk by Lipstadt in Australia, in July 1994: the famous $1,000 challenge over her fake claims over the Auschwitz 'gas chamber'.
• Irving's September 1996 'Statement of Claim' against Lipstadt and Penguin Books. Penguin must have decided to contest this. There followed a number of "Preliminary Hearings", which I presume were confidential to the court; Irving spoke of them in a Youtube video of one of his talks, I think recorded in Alabama. David said one of the reasons for Lipstadt's silence was contained in the words 'Kol Nidre'; 'her lawyers warned her she might be arrested for having sworn a perjured affidavit on her Discovery'.
• A mysterious "research report" provided to Lipstadt confidentially ('don't let this fall into the wrong hands') by Canada's Simon Wiesenthal Centre. (October 1996). Part of the discovery process. Legal/Discovery/DL
• 500 word summary of Irving's case, required 'under the new Civil Procedure Rules': (1998) Penguin/docs/summary.html.
• Gray's suggested list of points in dispute: /Penguin/issues020300.html.
• /Penguin/transcripts/ are the daily trial transcripts, January-April 2000, spell-checked and corrected by Irving. These are a bulk download, i.e. a long file. There's also a drop-down menu, by day number, but unindexed.
• David's edited version of the trial verdict: Lipstadt_judgment.pdf. At the bottom of page 2 is David's amusing and bemusing list of errors in the Judgment of Tuesday 11th April 2000. He is a documentary historian!
• David Irving's 'Action Report' explains the fight so far. ActionReport/AR19/ July 2000 account, after the trial, before the appeal.
• Rather typical online diary entry, Aug 1st 2004. Irving trying to recover personal and archive materials from Jews. ActionReport/AR26/RadDi1.html
• Items on the 'ineffably gullible' Professor Richard Evans: /Penguin/experts/Evans/, who hadn't even heard of Albert Speer.

• Overview

The ‘Holocaust’—Mass Murder, Fraud, or Fake?
Rampton arose, and all was left opaque.
- RW 2000

Irving's joint prosecution of 'Professor' Deborah Lipstadt—one living witness to American education as a Jewish joke—and Penguin Books—one corporate witness to 'Jewish' control of propaganda—for libel, started publicly in London, after a preliminary day on 10 Jan 2000. 'Day 1' was Tuesday 11 January 2000, and the final 'Day 32' Wednesday 15 March 2000. Gray's Judgment was 'handed down' on 11th April 2000, referred to as 'Day 33'.

Some Web Links: David Irving's Website now
Chronology of the Biggest 1990s Publishing Scandal—Irving on his Goebbels book and breach of contract
Irving's September 1996 'Statement of Claim' against Lipstadt and Penguin Books
Daily trial transcripts, January-April 2000 spell-checked, corrected by Irving, BUT Apple Mac format long document
David's edited version of the trial verdict. (At the bottom of page 2 is a list of errors in the Judgment document).

• Lipstadt's Penguin Book

Start of 'Denial' file
The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory was first published in 1993 by Penguin books. There's at least one online version, I think retyped, not scanned. The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem played some part here. So did e.g. the 'research department of the Anti-Defamation League' and the 'chief librarian of the Simon Wiesenthal Center'. How these phonies love their masquerades.
Lipstadt was allegedly born in 1947, the same year as the Anne Frank 'Diary' was published. In 1961 the film 'Justice at Nuremberg' came out; so did Hilberg's 'Destruction of the European Jews'. These of course were only a tiny part of the deluge of Jewish lies; I mention them as they coincided with Lipstadt's young years, and may be the sort of thing she thought of as 'Truth and Memory'. The 'Six Day War' of 1967 helped fix Jewish lies firmly.
Here's an astonishing passage from Lipstadt's book: "For my cousins the Civil War and slavery are not events of the distant American past. They occupy primary places in the storehouse of their childhood memories." Do the sums.

Lipstadt says somewhere (and denied somewhere else) that she invented the phrase 'Holocaust denial'. Phrases including 'denial', 'denialism' and so on have been spread so widely that I'd suggest data miners seeking Jewish frauds try computer searches for 'denial'. 'AIDS denialism' is an example of a perennial fraud dating from 1984; 'climate denialism' another fraud, 'IQ denialism' a reference to black race characteristics. Obviously 9/11 and 'dancing Israelis', nuclear frauds, the Liberty, anti-white and and-Christian activities, Middle East Wars, the Fed, and of course Palestine, are likely subjects for 'denialism'. As are both world wars, and a host of other topics, including the 'French' and 'Russian' Revolutions, and nuclear matters. I found 'antivaxxers' insulted on the 'Guardian' website, a Jewish 'newspaper' in Britain.
Lies about the trial have spread widely. A phrase I searched on was:
"The judge called him [Irving] a fraud who doctored the historical record to promote his own racist agenda. He was not a historian at all."—Except the Judge did not say that. On the contrary he declared that expert defence witness Professor Richard Evans had been wrong to maintain that.
On 'racist agenda'—remember this is supposed to be about a world war with vast numbers of deaths—except of Jews. It will astonish future generations, I hope, that Jews should mix their lies in this way.

Lipstadt's book has a strange hard-to-satirise aura. I'm tempted to quote extracts verbatim, and to supplement these by inverting extracts from Lipstadt on Irving (“.. no intellectual prominence ... more or less equivalent to a hateful extremist bigot, a supporter of Jewish supremacist race thuggery, embittered by her ugliness ... mimicry of serious work ... likes disgusting creatures from Leo Frank to Yad Vashem murderers ... so-called 'Jewish' students, professors and even university presidents venerate Stalin ... Let me make one thing clear: Lipstadt is free to stand on street corners, risking attack for spouting simple-minded filth and primitive number magic...”) but such an approach lacks the wooden reinforced feel of her intellectually empty cumulative repetitions of threats and slogans.
And Lipstadt's mass-media vulgarity is difficult to satirise in short passages: ‘she was incredulous ... [at Lipstadt's] turning down an opportunity to appear on her nationally televised show.’

I must make a note here on the ‘Chosen People’ notion. I presume this is a source of comfort or reassurance to many people who think they are Jews; but it is a notion which is very clearly not soundly based racially or intellectually.
It's an interesting possibility that ugliness has a genetic effect in helping Jews isolate themselves. And perhaps encourage homosexuality. Try Googling 'ugly Jews' to see search engine censorship in action. Possibly mirrors made with float glass have introduced a new pitilessness to the world. The sad Jews who have to repeat scripts in call-centre-style Jew sweatshops, or who supervise the paid, sad, screamers of slogans and thugs, project the same message: quite a high percentage of Jewish money is allocated to full-time liars, and this dates back to the founding of state Christianity. Funders of women welcoming immigrants etc, and other 'race advisors' and 'activists' promoted by Jews—an example is Jordan Peterson who 'worked' with Soros, interviewed by Jews such as Cathy Newman—are introduced into propaganda as though they are spontaneously generated.
Those interested in the heavily-lied-about topic of parasitic genetics, might read this fairly short piece.

Some readers welcomed Lipstadt's 1993 book on the grounds that it mentioned many people readers had never heard of. And when Internet was coming on line, these names spread more quickly than Penguin—accustomed to unidirectional propaganda control—could have guessed.
But despite the web of Jews world-wide, Lipstadt's book is narrowly US and Canada based. Writers and groups in Germany, Italy, Austria, France, Norway, Brazil, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine [and so on] were not mentioned. Spain and Hungary got a bit. Turkey and China almost nothing. Japan had a comment on Masami Uno, possibly taken from the New York Slimes (March 12, 1987, Page 00013, The New York Times Archives). He asserts that Jews form a "behind-the-scenes nation" 'controlling major American corporations'. I wonder if there's a Japanese person who wrote on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, analogous to David Irving on Dresden.

Digression on a British book. In the UK, The New Fascists, (1981 pubd Grant McIntyre, 1983 paperback) 231 pp, by Paul Wilkinson, 'Professor of International Relations at Aberdeen', Scotland, looks like a precursor of 'Denying the Holocaust' (published in 1993, ten years later) of about equally low quality, but with more extensive content. It's quite likely Lipstadt would have known of this book. And removed some of the references.
Wilkinson's book includes Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson, David Irving, David Duke, and others, but not Did Six Million Really Die? It has some material from France, Germany, Italy, Spain. It has the usual unevidenced claims of violence, and the usual omission of Jews and paper money and other frauds and Anglo-US violence. Everyone investigating the World Wars is 'extreme', 'fascist', or 'neo-Nazi'. And of course any concern over population shifts is 'racist'. Few if any publications comment on the role of Jews in financing wars, including Wilkinson's.

• Factual Background

Start of 'Denial' file
Nobody could guess from the film Denial that the case started with a publisher's breach of contract. St Martin's Press decided, under Jewish pressure, not to publish Irving's book on Goebbels, which included material from Goebbels' own handwritten diaries, found in Moscow by Irving. Or perhaps planted in some way. As recounted here, in newspaper style: by David, in his AR17 ACTION REPORT for the entire trial which includes his diary for the intervening days.
Wikipedia says this of St Martin's Press: Founded in 1952 by Macmillan in London, St. Martin's Press ... is a book publisher headquartered in the Flatiron Building in Manhattan, New York City. ... one of the largest English-language publishers... But Wikipedia is coy about Jewish ownership and control, and about the censorship characteristic of Jews. Internet started during this period, starting (say) 1995, and by 2000 was clearly a powerful new force.

After twenty years, I think I finally understand why the publishers were so worried about Irving's book. Of course Jewish publishing is an endless sewer of junk material. Why would they suppress a book which promised higher quality, and completely new research? Jews naturally worry over their Holocaust fraud: the cornucopia might end, and its direction reverse. And they have unimaginatively stepped up anti-white propaganda—here's a huge illustrative tweet collection by lightweight Jews and agents, the troll/call centre/online types. Oddly stupid material about whites has been leaked out for years, by (to name a few household memes) Abe Foxman and Barbara Spectre and Noel Ignatieff and Susan Sontag and Tim Wise and Merkel and Sarkozy and rape-obsessed rabbis, and Jewish advertisers promoting race mixing, and Jews suppressing truths about race violence in white countries and Jew-funded—via the USA—violence in the near east in particular.
But I've come to think most of this, though true, and disgusting, is partly distraction. Jews operate by using their media control to flood the world with whatever memes they decide to push. What Jews fear now—above all—is people realising that Jews by 1913, world-wide, controlled money, propaganda, secret communications, and weapons. And they did this by secret collusion between tens of thousands of Jews in perhaps twenty countries, and with local collaborators in large numbers.
This idea, that Hitler and the top 'Nazis' were Jews in secret collaboration with other Jews, whether labelled 'Democratic' or 'National Socialist' or 'Fascist' or 'Communist' or 'Nationalist' or 'Christian' and able to choreograph wars to maximise goyim deaths and Jewish profits, has to be suppressed. Or people might wonder if it is still true—as it certainly appears to be, so far as the heavily-censored evidence suggests.
Hitler must always be presented as a one-man solo show, in isolation, the great dictator, the solitary Führer. That's the Jewish rule. There must be no suggestion that Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini co-operated.

An illustrative meme in Denial is Irving's supposed objective, 'the exculpation of Adolf Hitler'. But David, fresh from his archival discoveries, had proved that Hitler did what he could for Jews, not against them. Reichskristallnacht was proof enough. There are some videos of David speaking on the subject. Here's Hitler Intervened for Jews. 10 minutes, recorded c. 1986. It was removed by Youtube within one hour.

And there's another Jewish policy important to them. The situation with Jewish power extends back centuries, far longer than most people realise, and Jews intend the entanglements—the Talmud, war finances, destruction, paper assets, rents/ Catholicism/ Islam, assassinations, funding of thugs—to be kept secret.

David Irving's own day-by-day written account of the trial and the events leading to it (from 1995) is online on his own website here; it includes a mass of information on emails from supporters, money, witnesses, Rampton's not-so-sotto-voce interruptions, visitors from around the world, accounts of journalists from the world's press—Irving somewhere states that the Jewish Chronicle gave the best coverage!—and many items like the following, omitted of course from the film:
• I should have pointed out yet again, there and then, that the trial could have been cut short two or three weeks ago, when I offered to end it forthwith if they could scrape away some of the gravel on the roof of Crematorium II, and find that the Zyklon-B introduction holes described by their "eye-witnesses" have been there all the time. There are no holes however, and we know it (apart from the hole that the Defence is in, in this respect).

David Irving's closing speech is repeated here and of course includes his reasons for taking action for libel, for having his reputation attacked—THE DEFENDANTS in this action, the publishers Penguin Books Ltd and the American scholar Deborah Lipstadt, have sought to cast this trial as being about the reputation of the Holocaust. It is not. The world's press have also reported it in this way. Again, it is not. ...

• Early 'Denial' Reviews. Cinema 2016. DVD 2017

Start of 'Denial' file
Ffion Docherty on the libel trial not being a test of truth. She sees (which many do not) that the massive structure of Jewish propaganda, which most people take lightly—they know nothing of detailed studio practices, 'news' sources, broadcasting, anonymous writers and the rest—is hugely elaborated and planned in detail for its Jewish messages-of-the-moment. In this case, Ffion says a simple archetype - Overcoming the Monster - is deployed to 'explain' the law case. The truth is 'fitted up' in the common phrase. Nothing in the film can be assumed true.
The timing (2016) coincides with ever-greater Jewish 'Holocaust Museum' frauds dotted round the world.
Michael A Hoffman II's fact-packed review puts the emphasis not on legalisms, but on questions arising from Zündel's trials in 1985 and 1988. (The verdict against Zündel was overturned in 1992). Doug Christie (attorney), and Robert Faurisson (critic and writer), and most revisionists, are omitted from the film. Possibly Zündel was only inserted for some Talmudic reason. Hoffman ends with revelations from the film, including 'He was indeed libeled by Penguin and Lipstadt'.
Hoffman said he liked the film and even liked Spall, and thanked Hollywood! He said ... the film's production values are high and the cast is A-list. I wonder if this assessment is remotely true. It sounds to me a 'halo effect', the result of endless self-praise by the Hollywood junk industry. Hoffman even thought Weisz, who presumably cares nothing about war deaths, was attractive. The reported box-office figures provide a public assessment—8M US $ takings, about as much as Ned Kelly. It's true the long story could hardly be squeezed into a couple of hours. I like to hope, with Hoffman, that some viewers will be prompted to investigate further.

Comical Rubbish. Written before I'd seen it.
My DVD says it's 105 minutes. Michael Hoffman says 109—the US version judging by the teaser trailer includes Lipstadt finding a nasty message in her mailbox. The blurb (UK version of DVD printed insert) says ‘DENIAL is the gripping and inspirational story of a relentless fight for justice. When writer Deborah Lipstadt speaks out against the lies of Holocaust denier David Irving she is faced with a high-stakes battle to uncover one of the darkest deceptions in history. Passionate, fiery, and independent, she decides she must face him in court..’ The blurb warn against ‘strong and racist language’. [Everything sic]. And the cover repeats and amplifies: ‘A SHOCKING TRUE STORY. HISTORY'S GREATEST DECEPTION’
All these lies must be to reinforce Jewish lies aimed at schoolkids, at least in English-speaking areas—my version has no non-English subtitles.

The screenplay is nominally by David Hare, described by Wiki as 'an English playwright, screenwriter and theatre and film director.' He appears to be a so-called Jew, and to have spent his life in gratitude to Britain by writing failed pro-Jew material. However, more Jews are listed on closer examination, perhaps a way for the BBC to hand out more handouts. Director Mick Jackson looks thuggish, a variant on the Hare type. The composed music (little of it) is by Howard Shore (of Lord of the Rings). Quite a number of producers are listed (including Jonathan King). It surprised me to find this DVD credited partly to the BBC, assuming 'BBC Films' is part of that 20th century Jewish complex. No doubt they supplied British public money.
Another surprise was what I take to be the low status of the performers; Michael Hoffman II described them as 'A list', but in fact only two were listed with the usual Jewish award organisations. Rachel Weisz had the good luck to be placed with Hugh Grant in 'About a Boy'. She is not at all a lookalike of Deborah Lipstadt, who was then a 'Professor at Emory University'. Just as 19th century academic outfits in Britain were largely reserved for mediocre Church of England types, so 20th/21st US academic places give first pick to mediocre Jews. Lipstadt is something like a Jewish (or 'Jewish' in quotes, for the fussy; or Judaic) version of a Sunday School teacher: she probably believes writing was invented by Enoch, and Noah had a big boat.
Hare provides absurd gap-filling stuff: she's 'American', in case viewers might suspect the truth. She's courageous—nonsense; she'd done nothing courageous. She arranged thoughts—perhaps the less said the better. She really really wanted to join the fray, and really really wanted survivors to take the stand. Hare I suppose tried his best to suppress the truths here.
The only reason anyone's heard of her is because of David Irving's action. He stated this was because publishers were dropping him; in particular 'St Martin's Press' broke their contract on his book on Goebbels. But I don't think anyone produced evidence that Lipstadt's book had any effect. Incidentally another issue is the 'Kol Nidre' oath, though nobody mentioned this until after the trial; it's nowhere in the trial transcripts. I think David hadn't heard of it until later.

Other actors were Tom Wilkinson, 20 years earlier in 'The Full Monty', and in (the first) Marigold Hotel, ending in a Hindu burning cremation. And a fuzzy-faced US marshal or something. The real Rampton was an average-height chain smoker, fingering his wig, and who hasn't aged well. The film version is tall, apparently in according with a Jewish casting principle—Irving, in real life tall, is played by a short ugly chap with fairly negligible presence. Anthony Julius in real life hasn't worn well either.
Jewish casting rules the extras: the inaccurately-small audience all scowl and frown; there's no suggestion of the truth, that the case attracted interest and visitors from around the world. The inaccurately-small group of courtroom lawyers and others, many of them supposedly historians, are not shown with their mobile phones and other devices; the more visually appealing ones are omitted. And the extras outside, shown incorrectly spilling out of their pen, mimicking paid demonstrators and career criminals, waving printed banners.

[... and more, moved or deleted]

• Questions Suggested by the Film 'Denial' Start of 'Denial' file
Michael Hoffman II's review (November 2016, soon after cinema release) accepts a connection between Lipstadt's book and Irving's publishers dropping him. But I don't think a link was proved. Penguin publish many rubbishy books. Why should other publishers, of a successful writer, care about a negligible writer like Lipstadt?
BBC Films' contribution is impossible to find (their website is infinitely depressing, with nothing of any value). But I'd suggest the Holohoax theme is becoming worn and threadbare. It's obvious the advertising/ propaganda/ censorship moves feel stronger than ever, with ever-more publicly-funded monuments and PR and legal carrots and sticks. But there may come a point where the deception has to be dropped, in which case this film, with its filmic lightweights, is available to be junked in Jewish 'scapegoat' fashion.
Another possibility is the film is intentionally feeble, making the topic seem uninteresting and unprofitable, to discourage intelligent films.
The BBC's function in the project is unclear, beyond supplying money from Britons. The DVD doesn't include BBC functionaries explaining what they did. I'd guess the BBC supports fake 'independent' companies and Jewish hangers-on. The (((BBC))) has been run by Jews since it existed as a radio station. NB quite a few trainees listed in the credits have Indian or similar names; for years it's been BBC policy to offer training to non-whites.

Some writers have suggested that Irving is himself a crypto-Jew or puppet of Jews, the best example known to me being Looks like David Irving is Jewish by Miles Mathis. (Dec 2015). Mathis in his detailed and flamboyant style claims this: I now think Irving is part of a long hoax of great depth and importance. I think he is a cloaked Zionist playing the controlled opposition in another one of their games. His job is to make anyone who questions mainstream history look like a disgusting sadistic sexist pig. Even more important is that he makes you think that if you don't believe the history you have been sold in every detail, you may end up in jail walking in a tight circle with dangerous criminals.
The 'sexist' part: Irving was often quoted as saying anti-women things. 'Racist' is a strange Jewish meme: Jews think of themselves as the most race-conscious people anywhere, with pre-scientific views on race, but try to soak 'racist' in horror, as some people still soak 'atheist' in horror. The film has at least one occasion when Spall's plastic persona is assumed to be 'racist', as though a 'racist' is a make of car.
[1963] Irving went to the police claiming he was burgled. Gerry Gable admitted he did it, and his lawyer admitted Gable was looking for papers to take to Special Branch. That's curious on the face of it. Why would the defense lawyer be admitting things like that? Because this was probably another set-up. Gerry Gable is Jewish, and it is now admitted on the Searchlight Wiki page that he had links to MI5. ... Gable was the long-time editor of Searchlight, a self-styled anti-fascist magazine that now look like another Intel front. For much more on that, you may go here. It looks to me like the burgling of Irving's flat may have been done either to give his book publicity or to give Gable publicity for his upcoming magazine, or both.

Mathis points out that Irving's father was a Naval Commander, and that 'Intelligence' in the information sense came out of the Navy. I looked in my copy of Who's Who of 1948, its 'hundredth year of annual issue', since, presumably, 1848. There are eight Irvings, but Irving's father is not among them.

Mathis quotes people about MI5, and Searchlight, and Larry O'Hara on (((Labour Party))) MPs Reg Freeson and Joan Lestor—both in fact 'Jews'.

Note the book by Docherty & Macgregor, Hidden History, on stashes of documents in Britain and in Washington State. See my review of Docherty & Macgregor. The point is that Irving may have had no access to these archives. He certainly had no access to Jewish internal archives, if indeed they exist.

A red flag might be that Irving offered to stop the case if holes in the morgue ceiling were found. But why drop his entire libel case?

It's clear, now, that eastern Europe after the war had supposedly ended was a nightmare of anti-German population expulsions, murders, rapes, and starvation. The Jewish version is the opposite of the truth: concentration camps (for Jews) were the safest places to be and bombing was late, in synchrony with Jewish aims. It may be that Irving was subtly directed to archives which supported the official western (i.e. Jewish) view. Or was unable to read Russian or Polish archives. Or was kept from Jewish archives. But he might have been part of an Intelligence project.
• Let me summarise a Mathis-style case against David Irving. It's clear, now, that the Allies carried out huge atrocities. The media, including the BBC, kept them quiet: a good example is the Jew Richard Dimbleby, who broadcast the official version of the camps on radio and newsreels. The whole of the media, and civil servants, and academics parroted the Jewish line. It's possible that Irving's role was to write books admitting a few atrocities, but generally support the official view, that Hitler was a solitary monster. In this way, an apparent opposition could be created, which always kept the Jewish aspect hidden.
Let's restart. After 1945 Jews across Europe co-operated to present a series of Jews-as-victims stories, while committing vast atrocities and taking over media, property, and legal systems. Irving in the early 1960s in German could have had stories on bombing, rape, starvation, murder. Such stories would have been easily within memory, though liable to police action. But surely he could have written an anonymised version of all this? Eisenhower's Death Camps has a handy map of POW camps, including 32 allied camps in Germany. Thyssen's Ironworks (stated to be Irving's workplace) are in the Ruhr area, not far east of the border with the Netherlands. Büderich is the nearest camp to the Ruhr, about 30 miles away—far, far closer than Dresden. It would seem that the Rhine camps would have been more notorious, and with a much higher death toll, than Dresden.

Others suspicious of Irving include Indrek Pringi who insists Irving's books though copiously end-noted, are almost impossible to verify. Pringi says: “I found the real reason for WW2 buried in David Irving's book: "Hitler's War" on pages 138-139. It concerns the repatriation of Jews back into Poland in 1939 and 4 years back earlier when he began to reclaim the lands lost to Germany which were stolen by the Versailles Treaty.”

One of Irving's conundrums is: what happened to Jews sent from (e.g.) Berlin to the east? Under the pan-Jewish hypothesis, no doubt USSR Jews would have taken over. But Irving assumes that Germany, Poland, and the USSR were more or less hermetically sealed. But of course if Jews are assumed to network between these and other countries, some sort of archive would be needed to trace them, and such an archive would not likely be allowed to Irving.

... and such people as this Youtube commenter fucya hoo @ rerevisionist: Dirty Irving will start by tearing down the incoherent and absurd claims of the Jews, including the 6 mil. figure, but just like clock work, Dirty Irving will then spin 180 degrees right in the middle of his sinister little act, and begin reconstructing the same exterminationist lies with so-called “newly found documents” that only he has been able to access. And by the time it was all said and done. Dirty Irving will have merely transferred the same Holocaust exterminationist lies from one leaking container to another.
I am sorry but that doesn’t mean anything when the facts have long been out in the open. Irving doesn’t need access to the Jewish archives to be able to handedly refute the existence of the homicidal gas chambers, the gas columns, the 6,000,000 figure etc. This man is not an ignorant either. He knows full well what he is trying to accomplish when he says that he never wrote a word about the gas chambers—until a trusted source convinced him that they actually existed. He knows full well how to say that the numbers of the Jews were wildly inflated—but only in Auschwitz. Irving knows full well what he’s doing when he takes what he subtracted from Auschwitz and adds it to other “homicidal operations,” This is a co-option of revisionism plain and simple. The Jews have been caught with their pants down one too many times in their holocaust charade, and it would be far too painful and embarrassing for them to come out and retract their absurd claims. It is much easier to get Irving to salvage them by having him carve out a new route to the gas chambers, the gas columns, the six millions and all the rest.. At that point all the holocaust historians have to do is latch on to what Irving has said in varying degrees a la Raul Hilberg, Yehuda Bauer etc..

My best guess is that Irving was patriotic and Christian in the 1930s UK sense, believing in the basic honesty of the British, and perhaps Americans, and their hierarchies. BUT whether by intent, or simply following others, he did not consider Jews as international, a network spread around the world. But as evidence grows, this outlook progressively clashes with Jews. Dresden (1963), Hitler's War—the 1977 and 1991 differed mainly in removal of 'Holocaust' references—Uprising (1981), and the Zündel trials in Canada (1985-88), then Lipstadt (2000) forced Jews onto his attention.
BUT in my view he may have had intelligence links, in Germany or Spain; he appears nuke naive—he has never investigated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Groves (who he met) and the Manhattan Project—and never mentions Jews acting together to provoke wars, and doesn't say much about huge wartime capital transfers between Jews. His research finds MAY have been fed to him in some way, for example by opening doors on Bletchley Park (but not its use by Jews) and German secrecy, in Das Reich Hört mit... (1985)—while keeping doors firmly closed on secret money and population transfers.
AGAIN, his extraordinary work output, including wearying driving, meetings, talks, is hard to reconcile with sharp practice. I don't believe Mathis' account, but he may be right, and I think Irving has missed many important things.

The World War 2 author, Dave Irving
Has work habits some find unnerving.
He won't ever say
“What a beautiful day!”
His devotion to work's too unswerving.

Slowly emerging from the mists and swamps is the possibility that Jews were in a strong enough position to orchestrate both World Wars between themselves. (This is my incomplete long article, collecting fragments pointing to 'Nazi' collusion with Jews).
But David Irving is sympathetic to the military school of history—violent clashes, tank battles, armies on the move, high explosives, strutting commanders, simple ignorant masses—and much less so the supposed war aims, payments, costs and long-term debts, planning of post-war assets and ownership and laws, and the deaths and secrecy and spies of the new Jew-awareness style of history.

“There's a reason why lying is bad. It totally screws up societies. They [Jews] are basically punishing us, as much as they can, for being honest. It's so bad, some would prefer a real jail to this open air prison. The point is, it's understandable why some would be backed into that position.
They lie too much folks. They're People Of The Lie. Nothing fails like their success. This is not over by a long shot.”
Richard B April 2019

• Let's Plod Through the Film ‘Denial’

Start of 'Denial' file

SOME VIGNETTES FROM THE FILM. (2-minute chunks; there are 16 unnamed scenes, but I thought it best to use time as a rough indicator of position)

NB there's more than one filmscript online, attributed to Hare, which may be useful in 'deconstructing' Denial. (Search for 'Denial Screenplay'). For example, you'll find no mention of 'Amalek', which according to Michael A Hoffman II is a Talmudic death sentence, though it is a part of Lipstadt's output. The script ends with a lie: SIX MONTHS AFTER THE VERDICT, A SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION AT AUSCHWITZ FOUND THREE OF THE FOUR HOLES IN THE GAS CHAMBER ROOF, not in the film

0:00 David Irving TV appearance in Calgary; 'tasteless' comments on Chappaquiddick and Auschwitz. All the scenes are with Mr Ugly; none with Irving. For clarity I'll mostly use Spall's name here. • Weisz [Lipstadt] unlogical four points on 'Holocaust Denial' (these may have been taken from Evans, page 019… whose views are similar to Lipstadt's) with classroom of passive Americans in a 'Community College' in Georgia • Feeble introduction, trying to establish Lipstadt: "Not one person has seen a photo of a Jew in a gas chamber." True ...

0:02 Implausible jogging by Weisz (at 47?) with collie dog [probably supplied by 'Action stunt dogs and animals'] to fetch mail • Emory University Nov 1994 and box of Penguin paperbacks entitled Denying the Holocaust which incidentally seems to be an early example of cheap laser print-on-demand technology. • Car interior, seen later to contain a camcorder and tripod with Spall and friends • Incomplete piece from Irving's website, outlining secret Jewish campaigns to keep Irving out. Ends with Lipstadt's talk. 1996 libel suit was intended to prevent the robbery of Irving's reputation. Denial of course hides this intent. • Kevin MacDonald was called by Irving as a witness, to explain Jewish networking as an evolutionary strategy, with special reference to activities against Irving. Lipstadt is mentioned; she's a minor part of Jewish networking. See pages 6-24, near the top in Trial day 12. (Not in the film).

0:04 'Black' woman in the US Jewish sense—mixed race—introduces the 'Professor of Holocaust Studies'. Jews only of course. • Irving has a written description online explaining what happened at Dekalb • Includes Weisz's false claim to have blueprints

Detailed info on Auschwitz, and debunking of Pressac, is here cwporter.com/bild2.htm

[Lipstadt meant Technique and Operations of the Gas Chambers by Jean-Claude Pressac 1989. A 2005 and 2016 reply was Holocaust Handbook 14 with 4 authors. It's worth mentioning the 1994 book edited by Germar Rudolf, Dissecting the Holocaust, published by Grabert-Verlag, Tübingen, with the first English edition published in 2000 by Theses & Dissertations Press, available at the time of the trial.]
Worth quoting a bit of Lipstadt's defensive cowardice, as purveyed by Hare: "You can have opinions about the Holocaust. You can argue about why it happened and how it happened. But what I won't do is meet with anyone - anyone - who says it didn't happen. The Holocaust happened. It happened. That isn't opinion. That's fact." Lipstadt is presented as unable to debate and without a clue about Jewish wars and Jewish frauds... or about Irving, who it seems was put into her book only when someone mentioned him, unless there was some long-term psyop.

0:06 Spall emerges trying to act Irving: "Today I've heard you telling lies to students. You want gullible students to believe that there are mounds of documents which prove a Holocaust. You even said that Hitler ordered it." Irving had discovered there was no order from Hitler; that was his point. He thought then that others, Himmler mainly, had acted without orders. What Irving thinks today isn't clear; Irving may in any case have been threatened. • Irving offered Lipstadt $1000 for evidence re Hitler (the amount is peanuts by Jewish standards). And also handed out signed Göring biographies free. Here is Irving's detailed online account of the Oct 11 1994 Community College encounter, including Lipstadt on child abuse. • The 90-minute video made by 'M' is I think not online; but this was ten before Youtube even started, and bandwidths were very low.) • Here is David Irving's Books download index page, including Göring.

0:08 Shots of returning car with its video cam. • Comments on 1996 Penguin book and a worldwide conspiracy. Weisz says "I wish", a standard Jewish evasion of the reality of Jewish networking. • Weisz is shown wondering whether to fight a libel action, absurdly, as she would not have decided independently of legal advice. • Computer search sequence, by Weisz of Irving's site. fpp.co.uk then, as now.
• WARNING the site (netsearch) "...is a browser hijacker." It resets the homepage. DON'T USE THIS! • Search engines at the time included Infoseek, Yahoo!, Webcrawler. • Another Jewish meme, which has been successful as an infection, is "extreme right wing groups", dating from the 1930s when the British Labour Party decided Hitler was Conservative and 'right wing', rather than Socialist and 'left wing'. The confusions are needed to hide Jewish manipulation of political parties, and to pretend Stalin was 'socialist'.

0:10 Emphasis shifts from libel etc to Auschwitz, as Hare's dim perceptions dictate. • Amusing scene of supposed alliance between Jews and blacks, as 'black' woman chats to Weisz, who is of course presented as her intellectual superior. "I've decided. I'm taking him on!" "Wut? Git yurself lawyered up!" • Then to Ponce de Leon Avenue, to meet the actor playing Anthony Julius. (Julius has had books on 'anti-semitic' Eng lit promoted heavily in Jew publications, but at the time he had a PhD dissertation—which presumably was accepted. Readers might like two reviews of the Jewish racist Anthony Julius (or whatever his real name is) by Andrew Joyce).

0:12 More tete-a-tete in Atlanta as Weisz attempts to grasp the English legal system, as presented by Hare. Weisz: "Wait. I have to prove what I say is true? But I'm the innocent party!" • A bystander says: Civil cases (as here) do not judge innocence or guilt. Hence the presumption of innocence is not relevant • We have a recycled joke from Hare, around Diana Spencer, based on an American World War 2 figure explaining to a propagandist film-maker he'd never fought a war before. • Weisz also says "I've read every word he's [Irving's] written"; believe that if you want to.

0:14 Julius: "He wants to be the maverick who reinvents the 2nd World War. He wants respect - England's a club - he's not in it." • This may be partly true; a libel lawsuit may be something of an exercise in egotism, on both sides. • There's a problem here related to Jewish networking. How credible is it that a lawyer would fly from Britain to visit a third-rate author for a snack with wine? With the prospect of a lot of money, and/or possible disastrous scandal, a large group of lawyers, publishers, and Emory University people would make more sense. Probably Hare picked this option to allow Lipstadt to appear as what she was—fanatical and stupid, or, more politely, ignorant of many aspects of the world. And it has the advantage of avoiding mention of 'chosen people'—Lipstadt? Chosen by God?? How absurd. And avoiding the clash of laws introduced by the 'Kol Nidre' yearly ceremony.

0:16 Documents delivered to Irving in his large Duke Street apartment near Selfridges. It was disappointingly inaccurate, incidentally, the view being totally wrong and the office/ library/ desk/ shelving/ diaries missing. The lawyers had been all around Irving's apartment, stealing things. But all in a day's work for hacks, no doubt. • There's a lot of emphasis on Irving's diaries—easier than reading his books, for one thing. Note that Irving (on day 018) says ‘My lord, there was no reluctance to hand over the diaries at all; quite the contrary.’ But the film implies he had to be forced. • Irving is shown praising the greatest historians, naming Cato, Thucydides, Gibbon, and Churchill. The point may have been to show unawareness of Jewish writings. I think every day of the trial had discussions on historians: reputable, media, German, pseudo-, honest, military, though all of this omits a key issue, which is history of Jews and their activities. • Anyway: a rainy drive past law courts in the Strand...

0:18 ... to Summit House, a listed building in Red Lion Square. A room holds about ten people. Here is Professor Richard Evans of Cambridge, played by John Sessions, an evening TV comic actor type. • This file has my impressions of Evans and his 'researchers' written at the time. '…the report is a confused mass of quotations of other peoples' quotations, not unlike Lipstadt's book. …' A lot of detail; too much to summarise. Scroll down to Nineteenth to Twenty-First Days
Evans "Professor of modern history at Cambridge" • I list here (from the trial transcripts) some of the numerous topics Evans said he didn't know about or wasn't expert on:

He had 'no previous experience' with 'holocaust denial' literature
Or with personal interviews in Irving's style
Hadn't looked at evidence of conspiracy
Didn't know Hitler's 'Testament' was forged
Wasn't familiar with a document on 40% of prisoners in France being Russians at the start
He said there's a large volume of documentation on the 'Holocaust'
Not informed on fake photos in an exhibition
Didn't seem aware that Churchill, de Gaulle, Roosevelt all wrote on second world war without special mention of killing Jews
Not an expert on Auschwitz (indeed, he seemed not to know about Birkenau)
No figures for Jews going to Palestine
No grasp of causes of typhus
Seemed unaware of Germar Rudolf, John Ball
Seemed unaware of documentation on Wannsee
Seemed not to know about wartime transcripts. (He said he'd 'read a few')
No knowledge of medical effects of malnutrition, maltreatment
Didn't know who Cavendish-Bentinck—head of intelligence—was
Didn't know Anne Frank is described as a 'novel'
Little awareness of Nuremberg procedures
Almost no knowledge of British propaganda about gas chambers
No idea of Internet
"I'm not an expert on moral philosophy"

0:20 • The tricky thing here (dishonesty of supposed eye-witnesses, as shown by Faurisson and Doug Christie in Canada, not of course in the film) is to argue against introduction of eye-witnesses, though it's unclear to me why Irving didn't insist, if necessary by subpoena. "There is absolutely no reason why we should produce eye witnesses to these horrors. … Because even to let survivors appear would be to legitimise his right to question them." Amusing stuff.

0:22 Switch to irrelevance: Irving plans to conduct his own case, i.e. no barristers. And they plan to read his diaries. "Looking for right-wing groups, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, skinheads, SS revival groups. All kinds of assorted riffraff."—but nobody making a serious case. "And, just as important, Professor Evans here." Who will examine Irving's writings. For a fee. Which might have improved Evans' writing style. • "We may need to revisit the question of charges"—followed by pretend stuff denying Jewish control of money.

0:24 Fascinating presentation of "the Jewish community" in London. There's nothing to suggest the facts about Jewish networking world-wide. And of course nothing on money, and such things as the Federal Reserve and private Jewish banking: and such consequences as Jewish ownership of media, including, now, Google, Youtube, and Facebook. • A rabbi is shown, apparently Rabbi Brenner played by Jacob Krichefski. Someone suggests Lipstadt could settle. The entire libel aspect is lost. But Weisz has the chance to say "What would you want me to settle for? Four million, three million dead?"

0:26 "Here in England you may like appeasement!"—in fact of course Jews swung Britain into war. I can imagine the few survivors of World War 2, 70 years ago, being a bit indignant at this Jewish slur. • Incidentally, the Lipstadt character seems to know nothing of Jews in the world; for example Cromwell or Napoleon or mass murder by Jews in what was Russia and its empire. I'd expect this is correctly observed. • People new to Jews must realise that violence is part of the Jewish MO. Examples: the ADL was founded on a murderous Jew, Leo Frank. Earlier, 'Jack the Ripper' was an active murderer of London women. The Krays, and Dr Harold Shipman, were other killers. Of course, these were nothing compared the USSR. • There was some odd comment on Julius, to the effect that he did these things for his own satisfaction. But this must have been accepted by Julius; maybe in exchange for flattering remarks. • Weisz also says "Maybe you could explain why the British find their pockets so hard to open". In view of the money soaked from Britain by Jews, this is a curiously disgusting comment. • Night at the Athenaeum Hotel, nearish the various Inns of Court. This may be a poke against the Church of England, as the Athenaeum Club was noted as a haunt of Bishops. • Anyway. Morning visit to Richard Rampton's rooms. He seems to have moved since then. It's worth a look online to see the cases he was part of.

0:28-0:38 Not quite clear where these things are filmed; credits say filmed on location in London and Krakóv • Rampton's room. I was amused at his modern German dictionary—just right for the 1930s!.. Evident intention to present someone unexpectedly competent—a subplot is that even ancient, obsolete-seeming justice works for Jews. • Long digression in Auschwitz. Simplified from Auschwitz-Birkenau. Well, you do meet people saying "Owswitch"

Auschwitz was behind the 'Iron Curtain' under Jewish control of Poland. So it's amusing to see 'Rampton' bemoaning the lack of forensic investigation, and not bemoaning the fake chimney or chimneys, there. The (((Polish))) authorities could have investigated at any time. But this might have needed competent people who wouldn't lie. In fact, it's fortunate the whole site wasn't deliberately ruined, as it became clear that Jewish reports of mass killings in camps further west were nonsense. Stories about those camps (for example Dachau) were disowned even by Jews. • The connections between Jews and Polish Catholics are worth a mention, as they add to the suggestion that Jews and Christians, despite vigorous remonstrances, had close secret links. • Note that Irving wrote Accident: the Death of General Sikorski, on the 1943 plane crash death of the Polish Prime Minister-in-exile, who may have been a Pole and not a Jew; I don't know..

Back to Denial. What looks like winter at Auschwitz, though it could be filters on cameras. I believe Jews now, by sampling and questioning, have found that vast numbers of people have no idea about the 'Holocaust'. So Jews seem to have decided to repeat a few selected memes, after the fashion of unpopular advertisers. We see, without comment, views of spectacles, shoes, wallets: Hare and Jackson seem to go for alternating images, a meme they want to push hard, then one of lesser importance to them, so as not to overdo things. We see Rampton pacing a perimeter fence. Someone says "…one of the largest and most efficient killing machines in the whole of history…"—aimed at people with a Jewish 'education' in 'history'. • For my taste, apart from Weisz and Spall, Mark Gatiss (as the fake 'architect' van Pelt living in Canada and paid by Jews) is the most disgusting of all the actors here, balding, ugly, happy to lie, with a ridiculous accent, the original Benny Hill persona cast out. "These steps led down to the undressing room." Someone mentions David Olère, described as an artist, and his amateurish sex-obsessed cartoons. "…cyanide crystals … poured through holes in the roof."
• Then we have discussion of lice with typhus, and Fred Leuchter. Leuchter report dated Feb 1988. Poor Leuchter (b. 1943) has now been a long-term victim of Jews. There is now at least one online video, an interview with Fred, though I can't give a URL as Youtube no doubt would ban him. (Here's a clear video of Leuchter explaining what he did in Poland, 5 mins, not on Youtube). • Rampton is shown indignantly complaining that 50 years since the fact there's been no investigation, by Polish Jews! • Final Auschwitz scene shows special effect visions going down steps. Gatiss and Weisz sing some mispronounced crap. Jews have a lot of faith in their ads, which at least distract from Kissinger's mass murders, Jew murders in Russia and the Ukraine, Libyan deaths… and from the deaths of whites in 20th century wars, possibly the largest component of all.

0:40-0:42 Krakóv with hand baggage. A café/bar with Tiffany-style table lamps and presumably slivovitz. • Weisz and Wilkinson. Wilkinson as Rampton muses on shame: "If I'd been ordered to do some of the things we saw today&helli;" They hadn't seen anything today of course. But—trust me—you'd do what you were told. • An unrealistic scene on legal procedure. Two decisions. 1. No jury. In fact, Irving had sound reasons for agreeing to a judge's decision, notably getting a written judgment, whereas juries don't—for all anyone knows they may toss a coin.. And 2. Rampton/Wilkinson says 'we think it would be better if you didn't testify'. Lipstadt/Weisz protests: "I teach! I order ideas!" and the best Rampton/Wilkinson comes up with is 'putting you in a witness box would feed him - it's the price you pay for winning.' They might be sacked if they said she's incompetent. Again the lack of comment on libel is noticeable. Maybe Hare and the other hacks thought this would do.

0:44 Street action outside the court. In fact the Jewish-hirelings were penned by metal barriers. Every day there are many cases at the Law Courts; the wrong impression given was of large numbers of interested people in the street outside.
• The courtroom action starts now, midway through the film. Hare, having failed to give a coherent view of the legal stuff, now fails to compress 31 days into about 40 minutes.

0:46 The assemblers of the film seem to have been undecided whether to go for Victorian and earlier obsolescence, or concealed depths. We see the Judge in red robes having his wig arranged. Gray is treated in an insulting way: it's obvious from the transcripts that he asked penetrating questions, often, and yet is shown as taciturn and unfriendly. • Weisz says "I'm American—no bowing." Part of the point of Denial is to avoid the issue of Jewish unAmerican disloyalty.

0:48-0:52 Longish bits by Spall, including pronunciation 'Hollycaust' for some reason. Very incoherent stuff, presumably intended to run through some phrases which Jews have spent years trying to implant. • Rampton/Wilkinson gets worked up, unable to grasp that Irving's pursuit of evidence, and Zündel's trials, left no trace of Jewish mythology; in day 32 or day 33 we get the simple shouted lies a la Lipstadt: '... falsifier of history. ... liar ... 1977 edition ... edition 1991 all traces of the holocaust had disappeared. Leuchter report is bunk... • Lipstadt/Weisz in the court buildings corridor is approached by a 'survivor'. She has to be shown to be sympathetic, but not willing or able to call witnesses, something of a difficult balancing act, of course. She says "I make you a promise. The voice of suffering will be heard." Of course it will. Hell, yes.

0:54 It's quite funny to see Weisz pretend to want to testify and listen to 'survivors'; Hare must have rigged this up as an attempt to weld the legal manoeuvres onto the insistence that Lipstadt mustn't talk. • Collapsed roof map and van Pelt, the fake architect. How easy it is to be an unqualified 'expert' when Jews are around! 'Architect' van Pelt and Faurisson's slogan: 'No holes, no holocaust'. Here are Irving and van Pelt in court.

Irving made an offer [see Day 11, p. 150] to drop his case, immediately, if the defendants would instigate an archaeological/forensic investigation of the supposed gas chamber, which van Pelt had claimed was the centre of the extermination machinery. No newspaper mentioned this offer.
Professor van Pelt evaded the issue. I will record here my disgust with van Pelt. Tens of millions of people died in the Second World War; van Pelt will not involve himself with investigations in what he claims to be a central issue in the entire war. It's a sad situation that post-war bickering includes this Mickey Mouse pseudo-academic who puts money before truth.

0:56 Gatiss/van Pelt on heavy wire mesh pillars in the morgue and through the roof. Nothing of course on logistics, use of coke, number, anything to do with the fraud. The court case had quite a bit on all this: see Transcripts page 9 from P-19, and pages 010 and 011. 0:58 ... there are no holes ...

1:00 Weisz/Lipstadt and others arguing in a room [to signal it was going badly and crank up the stress]. "No holes no holocaust": Lipstadt seems not to know that Robert Faurisson said that. She has noticed "Hitler was the Jews' best friend—he actually said that". She didn't know the evidence.

1:02 One of many scenes of Lipstadt/Weisz wanting to be insistent—obviously nonsense • 'Julius' on Zündel [not a single eye-witness to the putative holocaust had ever been cross-examined in court between 1945 & 1985] and Leon Uris's Exodus libel law case—see Miles Mathis on this, with 'Lord Gardiner' and promoted Jewish fake legal experts. Michael A Hoffman noted these very brief remarks too.

1:04 Wilkinson boozing over his very difficult work in his rooms/chambers • Day 032 if you're like to read the trial transcript. It includes van Pelt on peephole in door, Irving's contemporary book on air raid shelters, words such as Vergasungskeller, an absurd thing about fumigating cadavers • 1:06 Air raid shelter 2½ miles from SS barracks • 1:08 Denial Has Rampton/Wilkinson getting worked up over 'dual functions' on day 008

1:10-1:16 Six minutes or so of Weisz/Lipstadt and Wilkinson/Rampton developing a rapport. I suppose handbooks on playwriting recommend that. Roughly what happens is: Wilkinson turns up at Weisz' hotel. Red wine thing. She's noticed he never catches Irving's eye—in the transcript it's clear that Rampton salts his barristerial act with adverse comments; but since it's supposedly only aimed at the judge, one wonders why the judge didn't stop him. But Gray had no experience as a judge. Wilkinson explains "... I have to go to the scene of a crime... I did not know what to expect..." His previous brief was a libel case by MacDonald burgers, the so-called McLibel Case, in which the defendants were anti-multinational corporations, with no Jewish awareness.
1:12 Lipstadt: "I have to listen to my conscience." Rampton: "Stay seated, button your lip, and win." Lipstadt: "Do you have any idea how hard it is to hand over your conscience to somebody else? ... a fishing and wine drinking Scotsman • The 'conscience' comment is clearly nonsense. Emphasis on Scotsman . Scotland was (I'm told) a country that never expelled Jews; and in the 19th and 20th centuries many Jews immigrated to Britain e.g. from Russia, changing their names to something Scottish, Welsh, or whatever. Before the law to restrict this was finally passed. It's possible Rampton and/or Wilkinson are crypto-Jews.
1:14 Rampton is shown breakfasting on fried egg and bacon (I think) and black pudding—this latter may refer to a 'noahide law' on not consuming blood. There's a reference to a 'bagel', maybe to show a coarse goy befriending, or at least understanding, a 'jew'. Fleet Street Press coffee does exist, complete with gold lettering on glass, at 3 Fleet Street, but it seems to have been established in 2013, more than ten years after the trial. Maybe it was a favour for the caterers. Incidentally, Lipstadt is not from Queens or Brookyln, but Upper West Side NY, a rich area, says an Australian 'holocaust studies' site. • Rampton/Wilkinson explains that it's not enough to show mistakes (Hare switches 'as many as 25' to 'more than 25' alleged mistakes). You have to prove intention. Finally, Evans/Sessions appears; next to him is a display of unreadable German handwriting—a trademark of both Goebbels and Himmler. An example of the mistake supposedly found. (There's scope for conspiratorial speculation; were both parties going along with a charade? Why no questions on Jewish activities in Poland for example? Why was nobody asked if the think they're Jewish?)
1:16 To get the feel of Evans: David Irving's page on Evans. The main testimony starts in Day 18, P-18. Evans is very much the verbal equivalent of the BBC's rigging. (See e.g. this short video by Nick Griffin on the BBC).
• This is near the start of the testimony; the fluff is very typical. MR JUSTICE GRAY: ... the question is simply this, and perhaps you would be good enough to try and answer it. Have you seen evidence that those [statements about 'Nazis'] are inserted into Hitler's War for what you might call tactical reasons, in other words for Mr Irving to be able to draw attention to them and use them in disproof of any allegation that he is a Hitler partisan? EVANS: That is very speculative, I think. What I do do in my report is to go through some of the critical points that Mr Irving makes, and they do not, in my view, detract from the fact that he is in general someone who admires Hitler, put it like that. ... My concern is with Mr Irving's attitude toward Hitler in his historical writings. Of course, there are criticisms of Hitler there, I perfectly accept that. • Again there are irritating niggles about conspiracies. Everyone assumes Hitler is a solitary prime mover. No questions.
1:17 Caren Pistorius' partner/friend expresses irritation with "Holocaust, holocaust" without any intelligent comment, as she burns midnight oil. Pistorius says "I think it's rather more than a grievance". Part of Hare's evidence-free repetition. (See later on Pistorius). • Robert Harris is in the trial transcript. People might like my review of his film Fatherland.

1:18-1:22 Spall shown making jokes at a private dinner, on a dinner-jacketed BBC newsreader, a woman for the lesser news, and Trevor Macdonald reading news on stabbings and muggings. [Day 14]. NB Irving says nothing about BBC lies; this in my view is a red flag against him. Newsreaders only read what they're told. The BBC has a selection of Jewish writers; I see that Stephen Poliakoff, who writes or produces or something long pro-Jew propaganda pieces for TV, has an advertised piece called 'Summer of Rockets', I'd guess on the Jewish fake Cuba crisis. Jews from Poland have a long and complicated anti-white history, a rich tapestry including fake Catholics, and the present censor-in-chief of Jewish-owned Youtube is a Jewess from Poland. British TV had series of episodes called 'Blackadder', including among others Stephen Fry (homosexual Jew), Ben Elton (Jew writer), Tony Robinson (widely used to host programmes; no doubt being a Jew kept others out), Rowan Atkinson, son of a 'Russian Jew'. Benny Hill seem to have been a Jew. David Attenborough seems to have been a Jew, controlling BBC news at the time of US bombing in Vietnam. Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn seem Jewish. Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons, is a Jew. Kissinger, the hideous poison dwarf... Just a few examples. The chance of getting reliable reportage from them is zero. I can't guess if this anti-democratic secrecy will continue; why should it?
Wilkinson says: "Are you not appalled by that? You were talking to a bunch of racists!" Followed by the poem to Jessica, a baby Aryan.

You have to gasp at the consummate hypocrisy of shits like Wilkinson. In an era of mass murder, unprecedented in all history, Wilkinson synthesises outrage at a silly slogan, as though the point of the trial is to discuss 'racism'. Maybe he needs the money; who knows?

"Mr Irving. Look at the words on the page". "The man's an anti-semite and racist." Faked newsclips are part of Jewish routines. There's a sort of industry of Jewish-funded videos of 'antifa' thugs, blacks trying to read scripts supplied by Jews, screaming women, hireling holding up signs, usually in English, welcoming immigrants—rather obviously • There's an interview with Irving (not on court record) mentioning girls with very nice breasts [not in the court record]—Irving's name is not in the thank-you list of the credits. Surprise.

1:24 Wilkinson/Rampton: ".. at least 25 major falsifications of history • the waiter who always gives the wrong change .. prostitute his reputation .. in the exculpation of Adolf Hitler." This is in day 32.
I recommend a look at the summing-up speeches on day 32 in which Rampton starts, and Irving replies about a third of the way through. See if you can spot even one 'major falsification' found by Evans's 'experts'.
It's fascinating to watch the incompetence of the 'expert witnesses'. It's less fascinating to contemplate the lies, thuggery, media and academic corruption, and use of financial weaponry and bribery of collaborators to shore up this huge Jewish money-making scam.

1:26 Gray asks about an 'antisemitic and extremist'. Howard Shore's low budget music plays. It's amusing to see Rampton/Wilkinson not mention the possibility of historical justification for philo-semitism ... that is the point • This of course is the simple defeat-of-the-Monster archetype: Heroine and her trusty helpers become frustrated and scared of the monster's power, as Irving is coherent in court—even if Spall isn't.

1:28 Back in Atlanta • Gray going through papers ... Will he do the Right Thing? I.e. what Jews want. • TV actor. 'Ian Bartholomew TV historian', saying show me one historian who has not broken into a cold sweat at the thought of close examination

1:30 DL on difficult to standing up to the enemy ... but they had to do it .. • cellphone call when L jogging: verdict on Tuesday

1:32 Lipstadt waits in the Summit Building; goes upstairs at 10; pauses outside; goes in. • Outside, egg thrown at Spall (some sort of special effect) • Shouting in Jewish thug style
[From my notes: the courtroom is shown wrongly in the film. Court 36 is older than 37; it has a high roof, of baronial type, with coffered—or perhaps caissonned?—ceiling, and stone (or stone faced) walls with dark wood panelling below the half-way point, and deep green-blue drapes in some velvety stuff, probably dusty. It has tall plain glass windows. I counted 130 people in the audience, including the media people over at the left, and about 50 up in the public gallery. There must have been twelve in the legal teams, at the front, with a few hangers-on like Greville Janner. The court officials and stenographers who materialised were mostly the same as before. The benches creaked, the audience were restless, and Gray sat in his wig by a green-shaded desk lamp, reading into a couple of microphones. He wore his red sash and white collar with two vertical ribbons; no doubt there's a technical name for it. His judgment was scheduled for 10.30 a.m.]

1:34 300+ page document.. studiously.. withholds verdict... • Gray reads; "it appears to me distortion .. deliberate .. distortion and manipulation of historical evidence...". • falsification mentioned, but not Dresden death / disappearance figures [NB Irving exposed many documents as fakes, notably the supposed Hitler Diaries]
It's impossible to know what behind-the-scenes manipulation happened; serious law cases where the State is involved always fail, I'm told by students of the subject. • 1hr 35 Caren Pistorius looking worried • However, the court rises and we have filmic scenes of jubilation replacing worry.
1:36 "Well done" offer by 'Irving' to Wilkinson. • Some sort of supposed press conference Lipstadt, who had said nothing during the entire trial

1:38 Absurdity in speech by 'Lipstadt': "What you can't do is lie ... slavery happened. The black death happened. The world is round. The ice-caps are melting. Elvis is dead." In fact, Jews lie all the time. And the point here is the selection of topics, I'd guess by Hare. Slavery of course was an Arab process, an eastern Europe process, and a Jewish process: check on Jew-owned slave ships. The world is round is put in because flat earthism at present is Jewish BS; it wasn't at the time of the trial. The ice caps are melting is a nod to the long-term Jewish fake of 'global warming'.
What's more important is the list of omitted topics: the 'Holodomor' happened, Jewish war crimes happened, NASA defrauded, the endoplsamic reticulum was invented.

1:40 Jeremy Paxman [Jew newsreader in UK] to Spall: "Will you now stop denying the holocaust!" and other mock jubilation to pretend the issues were settled • Evening Substandard posters and Boadicea's statue, though Boadicea finally lost, to the Roman Empire, which has confused meanings to 'Jews' • 1:42 [Ends with Auschwitz roof; the end title lie was not used, at least in this version] 1:44

• Presumptions

Start of 'Denial' file
These are worth repeating, since at some time in the future they will be seen (probably) to be absurd lies. Stories include: human soap, human skin lampshades, shrunken heads, electric floors, steam chambers, pedal-operated brain bashing machines, and gas chambers. As to true stories, these are mostly lifted from Jew practices in the USSR.

• Titles

Start of 'Denial' file
BBC FILMS are be the leading credit; Participant Media, Entertainment One, Cornerstones films, Krasnoff/Foster Entertainment, and Shoebox Films are in there, too. Maybe they are just ways to tap into TV licence payers in Britain. Music is by Howard Shore, presumably the LOTR chap. Andrew Macalpine is stated to be production designer—his courtroom is small and too empty, like a jobbing design of bits of timber resembling panelled wood flats. How much of the scenery is computer-generated green screenery might (I suppose) be of some interest. Parts of the Royal Courts of Justice interior didn't seem right: no security staff, no half-tiled wall. It's unrealistic to expect any genuine treatment of legal issues in junk films.

• Making of

Start of 'Denial' file
3 mins 35 only. I wondered if the whole thing was fitted into two hours. Nothing in fact on making the film, just credits: Goldcrest Post Production was one of the players. 'Loop group' did 'voice actor' sound. 'Talent' is the word for performers. ADR is the replacement of voices by best available rerecordings. Somewhere I think Lipstadt said they used an industrial building—but green screens etc are not mentioned. • I was a bit disappointed not to find a hidden video, an 'easter egg'; a few whispered apologies would be amusing.

• Actors

Start of 'Denial' file
Most of the actors appear to be English actors—but only in the sense that J K Rowling asked for (((English))) actors.
The most obviously cast-with-intent character is Timothy Spall, absurd in his attempted impersonation of Irving, like a toby jug acting Churchill. Irving once compared himself with Churchill (and Thucydides, and Gibbon). I don't know if he still regards Churchill as a pattern of a historian. Spall may be one of chosen, on whom bullshit sits; I don't know, though an online soundalike Jewish surname site lists Shpal, Shpall, and Shpel as possibilities. I saw his Turner (based on Thornbury's book?) and disliked the film. Clued up by the trial transcript, I wondered if he can't pronounce "disparaging'.
Anthony Julius is played by a BBC actor, Andrew Scott, whose character compared Irving to dogshit. I'd say in a comparative assessment, Irving having studied for many years, and tried his best to be honest, Scott's character is more like dogshit. He is correctly shown as proud of a low-grade book on T S Eliot and 'anti-Semitism', which I think included other Eng Lit lights, and attracted a hostile review by Andrew Joyce. (2013 in the Occidental Observer).
Jewish films always have scenes to convey the 'correct' response to the audience, just as Trump, wanting war with Venezuela, has a backdrop of waving flags, whistles, whoops of approval, and age-selected actors applauding. Anthony Julius had a scene which struck me as amusing, in which many women were said to be attracted by his intellect. Including Diana Spencer.
Judge Gray was misplayed as sombre and serious—in fact he was talkative with both Irving and Rampton. This may have been conspiratorial, of course. Part of the plot was the shocking possibility that Gray might make the 'wrong' decision. I doubt if this was ever likely.
Rampton was played by Tom Wilkinson as deferential and thoughtful; the real Rampton was highly professional, permanently assessing anything he could do to damage Irving. Plus a little joke about junior counsel, and rather laboured yes-I-am-human stuff to Weisz. Wilkinson was in The Full Monty, had a part as a homosexual lover of an Indian boy, and a Wild West sheriff and must count as versatile. • There was a comic scene at Auschwitz, Wilkinson agonising over WHY has there not been a PROPER SCIENTIFIC review? Easy to answer.
Mark Gatiss as van Pelt. A BBC pet actor.
Caren Pistorius. Interesting Latinised Dutch, Boer, or Jewish surname, she appears to have moved to New Zealand. South Africa's black Jew-funded politicians are starting operations to seize white assets. For that matter, New Zealand has had a recent Jewish false flag. I noticed her filmography omits Denial. Perhaps she will make a difference.
Extras by the Casting Collective

Maybe actors will be allowed to add a message that their part in the film was distorted by Jews? At present Equity would not allow it
Do they really have 'negative checkers'?
The BBC trains many non-whites. They have of course expensive equipment and studios, and this must be an effective anti-white strategy of the BBC scum.
I was amused to see a section of barbed wire secured with inner hex bolts (Allen key/ IKEA style). An anachronism?
Quite a lot of legal advisors: Latham and Watkins, LLP, Sheridans, James Kay, Anwen Griffiths, Martin Humm of Micshcon [sic] de Reya
BBC Films 'senior business manager' given as Michael Wood

• Oxford and Cambridge Historians Start of 'Denial' file
Modern historians … like irradiated insects … emerge from their maggot stage, to flit about and fuck up their juniors into sterility.

Let's survey the academic world over the centuries, to remind ourselves how unintelligent it has been. So much so, that even Jewish Talmudism had more to say. Clearly, this has to change.

Wiki says 'George I established the Regius Professorship of Modern History at Cambridge in 1724. 'The only history studied dealt with ancient Greece and Rome.' This isn't quite correct: the Bible was regarded as 'history', and had huge—mostly damaging—influence when it was finally (after 1000 years) translated with state approval into English. Most people of the time believed in such things as Noah's Ark and The Flood. King George, who was German, reasonably enough wanted German history to be studied, and, as he was King, paid for the new Chair. 'History was for many years a branch of Moral Sciences. A fully autonomous Historical Tripos dates from 1875. Since then Cambridge has boasted a series of renowned historians such as Lord Acton, G.M. Trevelyan, Herbert Butterfield, Geoffrey Elton and J.H. Plumb.' All of those were Jew-unaware, excepting Elton. Subjects such as economic history and legal history (F W Maitland, 1888) were even later. No wonder English people were surprised by the Great War. H G Wells after about 1920 did his best to provide a world history, but never properly came to grips with the Jewish questions.
'The Cambridge Faculty of History is [today] one of the largest history departments in the world. The Faculty has consistently obtained the highest ratings in official evaluations for teaching and research.' You have to laugh at the 'official evaluations'.

On Richard Evans, his doctoral advisor was Anthony J. Nicholls at Oxford. 'Nicholls attempts to discover the reasons for the apparently disappointing relationship between the two countries, but also addresses the numerous areas of activity—for example, diplomacy, military cooperation, higher education and scientific research—in which friendly collaboration is the rule rather than the exception. He will try to assess what part resentments on both sides after the Second World War played in conditioning the atmosphere between the two countries, and to what extent the commercial media have caused frictions on both sides.'—says Wiki.
None of the biographies show concern over Jewish issues, astonishingly. Two examples: Regius Prof of History, Oxford, 1997—2011 was Robert John Weston Evans, who published about 50 items from 1971, none (I looked) about Jews. Regius Professor of History, Cambridge from 1996-2008 was Quentin Skinner 'regarded as one of the founders of the Cambridge School of the history of political thought'. It's unimaginable that he would for example have written anything useful on the NSDAP, Neocons, etc.

Obviously enough, there is huge scope for serious history; I cannot say whether good work will emerge—there is a huge deadweight of inertia and money power crushing it.

• Beginning of the Jewish Endgame? Start of 'Denial' file
What People Still Don't Understand The Second World War was "against National Socialist Germany" is a typical formulation which ignores Jews acting as a network in most countries in the world. "Jews came from Russia only 50 years ago, but every day they say how racist the USA is" is typical of people who haven't understood the worldwide networking system. Jews in fact largely ran the major countries as secretly as possible. Jews admit they hate other races, at present whites. "They've formed alliances with every other race..' and pay people to say what Jews want; many people think of 'new' speakers, such as Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela and Yiannopoulos and Jordan Peterson and 'Social Justice Warriors', as self-directed people, rather than puppets of money. Some Americans even think "the 1950s were a golden age of peace." It may be that times will change, as they have in the past; or it may be that truth can be buried.
'Revisionism' is not just a set of independent findings; there must be historical laws, repeating processes, and generalising ideas. Serious history must find these, but in my view the whole movement is rather new. I don't include people like Bertrand Russell as 'revisionists'; they didn't have a clue. There were revisionists who wrote—Belloc, Ramsay, Leese, Thorkelson—but their books and pamphlets had small circulations. Germany, Italy, and Japan had their authors, but the ease with which fakes were promoted engenders uncertainty.

The First Wave of Revisionism May be dated from 2000 and the widespread use of Internet. As in other times, many pioneers falter. Many people are aware of sensationalism and lies, false flags, staged deceptions, general fakery, and elaborate literary and media implants. The evidence of lying prolonged for years may redound against Abrahamic religions, which can be portrayed convincingly as yet another Judaic fraud (with bribery and violence). Roman Catholics and other Christians and Muslims on the world stage, hoping for revivals, combined with unmistakable evidence of dishonesty, may finally sink these unsatisfactory structures. Since Irving's legal action, 9/11 has been a defining event, forcing people who think about these things to take sides; most so far do not accept Jew lies. 9/11 and subsequent planned 'Neocon' wars make the Holohoax somewhat outdated, except financially, with tired nonentities backing it, and wasting the time of the revisionists.

• David Irving still hasn't identified the full possibilities of Jewish cohesion, notably in WW2. He announced at some point that he is now anti-Semitic. But many archives are still closed to him.
• Michael A Hoffman II has worked on Talmudic stuff (at personal risk). He is a staunch Roman Catholic, and seems to me to underestimate the interaction of Judaics with Christianity, which they more or less invented. And Jewish activity has expanded since Talmudic times, so modernised interpretations of Judaic aims, strategies and tactics are in my view essential.
• Kevin B MacDonald of the The Occidental Observer attended Irving's action to testify about his books. But since then he (in my view) has made little progress. Despite 9/11 and endless (((American))) wars, he shies away from serious topics, and seems unaware of the good reasons why many people justifiably hate Americans. He has finished a book on individualism and liberalism.
• Arthur R Butz as far as I know has confined himself to the 'Holocaust'. Youtubers include Ramzpaul, but Youtube is censoring frantically are presumably will be replaced by other video sites, if this remains possible.

There have been deaths: Robert Faurisson recently. And of long-term fraudsters such as Eli Weisel and Simon Weisenthal.

The Second Wave of Revisionism has a star in Miles Williams Mathis, with many writings, including many frauds perpetrated on Americans. His 2016 Beerhall Putsch and 2017 'Nazis' as Jews are just two examples. He has about ten guest writers. Here's my search engine to search Mathis' site (he doesn't have his own).
My own site has many topics which I count as 'revisionist'. The problems is that machine production now is so efficient that huge numbers of people of no great skill are supported, and can be pushed into harm, evil, and waste. The situation is analogous to the Middle Ages, with Archbishops, Bishops, church builders, endless priests and vicars, sermons and chapbooks, pardoners and summoners, church schools, abbeys and priories and what have you, replaced by people who think they are favourites of 'god'. Imagine the mental death of people 'working' in the BBC or New York Times, turning out lies day after day. There must be a serious possibility of widespread collapse into something like the Soviet Union, with poverty and hunger and incompetence, with such things as electric power and water not working, and a parasitic group unable to do anything useful. Or perhaps into something like parts of Africa, with food as rare as sewage is common.

• There are many topics needing workovers. Some are quite technical, though this may be appearance more than reality. Such as: • revision of world history, including Christianity, Islam, and provoking of wars; • Penetration of aristocracies; • War aims, including population destruction, assets and rents, control of laws; and calculations as to whether hosts benefit; • Money, including misdirections such as interest; • Language and media control, including big lies; • Direction of shares and percentages and payments from rich organisations, including the 'Fed'; • Legal adjustments to Jews; • Networking with collaborators.
An example of a repeating historical process is Jews using paper money to fund nuisances, thugs, etc. Good examples are Soros and his anti-white activities, lawyers and activists involved in the USA in 'Civil Rights' with busing and race mixing in schools, which have damaged whites' education and lives, Jews funding fake think tanks who then fund massive frauds, such as nuclear weapons, climate change fantasies, 'the Holocaust', AIDS, vaccines, even low salt diets. Jews fund scams to get uneducated blacks into Europe, with the deliberate intention of ruining or weakening their countries. Jews fund housing aid, so money is channeled to illegals who are likely to absorb resources forever. Jews fund legal hassles against anyone the choose. Jews fund fake activists: at the time of the Boer War, thugs would beat up people speaking against those Jewish wars. Jews fund universities, which are half full of worthless Jewish and other nonentities, doing nothing but promote absurd ideas. Particularly disastrous is Jew funding of weapons. There are continual payouts, ultimately from real goods made by whites, to projects which need to be stopped.

• Conclusions Start of 'Denial' file
The concept of intra-human parasitism offers a new solution to problems of war, violence, and otherwise unexpected events, which, to most people, seemed to come from nowhere. In my view it's the most important new Western way to interpret human history since Darwin. Some of the activity of parasites is concerned to weaken and invade.

The rage of 'Jews' against whites has been kept a close secret, as is necessary when a war has not been won. Many people today have no idea of the seething hatred of 'Jews', their planning, their pleasure in war deaths, and their instinctive drives in those directions. As long as huge moneys are extorted by the holohoax scam, presumably there will be more fake museums, fake books, fake historians, spurious survivors, fake witnesses, and (relevant here) scribblers, producers, directors, actors, distributors—all of them rented shit. Many people still have no idea about arrangements of the 'Federal Reserve' type, and the consequent ownership by Jews of modern media (for example) Google, Youtube, Facebook, probably EIG web hosts.

The shame of 'Jews'—the 'chosen'—is their habitual lying, which seems to them not even a choice. This has been remarkably 'successful' at a price to them of uncreative tedious repetition and journeying through deserts of narrowed fanatical word games. It's curious how parasitically dependent they are on the talents of others. The Jewish 20th century needed engines, flight, electricity, radio, TV, chemistry—giving easier transport, easier communication, monopolies of media to their rather sad sheep, and weaponry of unprecedented destructive power. New technology may alleviate these processes: DNA analysis may make it impossible to flee after committing crimes; if Internet retains some freedom of speech, or even increases it, Jewish lies on their traditional huge scale, will be more difficult; filing of personal details may prevent crypto-Jews remaining hidden.
Bottom line: of course Jews know of their frauds, though probably even they would be astonished at some of their tucked-away long-term lies. The general public, cowed and more or less impotent, are—perhaps—awakening. As an example, Trump's lies and his dependence on Jews, all with the same mindset, make the idea that Hitler was a small part of a large army of Jews very plausible.

Note that revisionism is, obviously to Jews, somewhat of an unimportant distraction: endless Jewish wars continue, while environments degrade, most of the near east is ruined, Palestinians are shot, weapons are supplied to puppet regimes. And nothing is done.

Counter-policies may develop, to counter the world-wide, distributed 'nation' of Jews and their semi-secret language. World-wide Jew-aware parties, civil servants, patriots, lawyers might unite in opposition. Religions may be able to throw off their antiquated tethers. Paper money seems too efficient to remove, but frauds and huge repayments might be chargeable to Jews. Anti-Jew measures need to be implemented; since Jew power is largely mediated by money, perhaps a percentage of bribes may be legally retained as commission wile Jews are prosecuted severely. The world needs new, effective, policies in place of specious slogans driving to long-term disaster. Wearying Judeo-BBC trash like Denial may yet be replaced by something better. Start of 'Denial' file Castle Hill Press

HTML Rae West. My Holocaust Revision piece dated 1997, plus later material, predates the trial. Research in big-lies.org and fpp.co.uk and Denial DVD EO52111D. Written c 13 Apr - 14 May 2019. Internal links 17 May 14:00
Found a typo? Let me know!

Guest Review, by Ffion Dougherty, of Denial 2016 film/ DVD Review 3rd November 2016
Ffion Dougherty has been banned by Amazon from about the start of May, 2017.
Screenwriters Max Borenstein, Russ Krasnoff, Jeff Skoll, BBC Films' Joe Oppenheimer, and Bleecker Street's Andrew Karpen.
Syrupy & Misleading Melodrama: A Non-Conformist Historian Is Filtered Through A Hollywood Lens

The message of Denial is simple...a flogging awaits any academic,historian or writer who has the temerity to question. Deconstructing customary models of reality and then challenging them (venturing into taboo lands) can be a very bad idea.

This is a pathos laden, syrupy melodramatic Hollywood film. The film's portrayal of the historian David Irving is highly distorted, he is depicted as a pompous, ranting & raving buffoon with a speech impediment. Exaggeration and crude simplification is employed in order to ignore the real nuances. Obviously Timothy Spall was under pressure to characterise Irving as a baddie but the spluttering caricature he offers up is of someone who barely resembles a functioning human being. Usually an actor becomes very sympathetic to their character during their research and preparation & that is what enables them to bring the character to life. Sadly with this role Spall is overly anxious to let the audience know 'I do not care for this stigmatised person' and because of this psychological need to distance himself from Irving, his acting is bad, it is uncharacteristically one dimensional.

Viewers need to bear in mind that this was a libel trial and it was not a test of historical truth as the movie is claiming. Irving, a famous best selling author, started having problems getting book contracts after the academic Deborah Lipstadt wrote about him giving him the Orwellian label of "denier". He began to be blacklisted and his income was suffering and his response was to seek some justice. Deborah Lipstadt had at her disposal a multi million dollar team of lawyers paid for by Steven Spielberg and his foundation, so this was not a 'fair fight'...from the outset there was never a realistic chance of lone litigant David Irving succeeding with his legal action.

There are two main objectives in Hollywood...to make $$ and to influence/mould the opinions of the viewing audience to the film makers preferred worldview. The corporations that run Hollywood do not want the world shown as it really is but how they (the controllers) want it to be seen. Hollywood films like this one are mind-numbingly boring and generic; all the plots are standard set pieces. The question we should be asking ourselves is: why do people still bother paying to see Hollywood films when the vast majority of them are predictable propaganda. The movie relies on strawman fallacy. Strawman or stickman is the term used when someone constructs a more easily defeated version of his opponent's position to attack, rather than addressing his real arguments. The fallacy itself is comparable to defeating a dummy version, then claiming you have defeated an actual opponent.

Hollywood is basically an outlet for the shadow government priming the public on a subconscious level in order to slowly engineer society. They also seek to reinforce the negative connotations associated with the term "conspiracy theorist", which is a term created by the government after Kennedy died in order to make anyone who questions the official narrative feel like a social outcast - reluctant and scared to speak out due to the fear of being publicly vilified like this man was. Zionist ideology predominates US popular culture. It was initiated to safeguard the sovereignty of Israel and to protect the interest of Jews. The accepted narrative currently holds social dominance because of our compulsive conformity. Irving offered up a different interpretation, a different frame of reference, an organisation of meaning that Zionists would prefer we ignored.

Irving is thoroughly demonised and the Zionist Deborah Lipstadt is portrayed as a heroine. This film is based on what is known as an 'overcoming the monster' theme - this is a common & predictable archetypal theme in storytelling.

(1) Heroine becomes aware of a monster (Irving is depicted as evil personified—an irrational beast)
(2) The ordeal begins (legal action initiated)
(3) She prepares to fight the monster (legal team assembled)
(4) Heroine and her trusty helpers become frustrated and scared of the monsters power (Irving is coherent in court)
(5) Monster is defeated and the treasure is won (Irving loses his case)

Please don't believe the Hollywood hype. David Irving is a politically incorrect, non-conformist who has refused to mimic the orthodoxy. Due to his uncompromising stance he has suffered several painful and costly attacks. There is nothing evil or sinister about him. That ridiculous scene where he is rabble raising a bunch of 'neo-nazis' in the style of Oswald Mosley, was not true to life at all, it was a gross misrepresentation of reality. After watching this film, buy his books, upload his lectures and make the effort to properly understand the complexities of this issue.

Notes by Rerevisionist: This film is obviously part of the Jewish big lie process, in the same mould as Judgment at Nuremberg, The Eichmann trial, Sophie's Choice, Schindler's List, and many others, mostly intended for naïve Americans. My detailed account, written at the time, between attendances at the trial of Lipstadt by Irving, is
https://www.big-lies.org/david-irving-libel-trial/irving-v-lipstadt.html

David Irving's site is www.fpp.co.uk. click the 'Action Report Online' button and if necessary search for 'Denial' (or 'Dental', possibly a little joke about Evans's overshot jaw).
It's of important psychological interest to form an opinion on Jewish lying. Jews seem unable to evaluate evidence; instead, like savages, they have a simple egocentric view. Or maybe there are complications. But whatever is true, ascendant Jews have harmful impacts.

Review by Michael A Hoffman II of Denial 2016 film/ DVD Review c. 3rd November 2016 from Hoffman's site https://www.inconvenienthistory.com
The Anti-Revisionist Hollywood Movie Attacking Historian David Irving Is a Flop

This reviewer was expecting that it would be a tedious ordeal to sit through Denial, Hollywood’s attempted canonization of the obnoxious thought cop Deborah Lipstadt, which was supposed to also serve as the final confirmation of the libel trial in London in 2000 that saw historian David Irving’s reputation supposedly shredded (cf. Revisionist History no. 86).

Actually, the imps of contrariness have seen to it that Denial rehabilitates Irving. While the film’s production values are high and the cast is A-list, the director, Mick Jackson, is no Steven Spielberg and his movie backfires. Denial gives new impetus to World War II revisionism, which heretofore was assumed by many to consist of a coterie of drooling crackpots. Even in a movie that detests Irving, he nonetheless comes off as a formidable advocate.

There are two challenging questions for any Hollywood director seeking to lens Prof. Lipstadt’s courtroom battle and maintain minimal credibility at the same time: why she never took the stand, and why no “Holocaust survivor” was brought to testify by her defense team. According to Denial, Lipstadt (played by Rachel Weisz), was forbidden to testify by her lawyers, who wanted to keep the focus on putting Irving (Timothy Spall) on the defensive, and not her. It makes sense, but whether it is true or not we can’t determine. After all, Lipstadt refused to speak to the news media during the long trial (a fact the movie omits). The latter refusal would seem to indicate a fear of exposure of her ignorance of World War II history. Meanwhile, Mr. Irving was extensively cross-examined in court and spoke volubly to the press on nearly every occasion.

The second daunting question turns on an even more-perilous and potentially highly damaging issue: why were there no “Holocaust survivors” on the witness stand? Here David Hare, the film’s scriptwriter, really goofs and apparently no one on the production team caught his blunder, though many in the audience will spot it. In the movie, Lipstadt is outraged that her lawyers will not call on “survivors” to testify. The head of her defense team, Anthony Julius, has a response. (Julius is rendered as an expressionless, one-dimensional, and in many respects unsympathetic character, played deadpan by actor Andrew Scott, known for roles as the villainous Moriarity [sic] in the BBC Sherlock TV series, and the traitorous head of the British Secret Service in the 007 film, Spectre). We first meet Julius while he is holding a copy of the book he authored which, we see from the cover, traduces the reputation of the esteemed Christian poet T.S. Eliot. Julius informs Prof. Lipstadt that he will not call the “survivors” because he wants to spare them the disrespect which Irving (who acted as his own attorney), would demonstrate toward them in cross-examination.

It’s a weak alibi. The honchos of Holocaustianity are painfully aware that putative “homicidal Auschwitz gas-chamber eyewitnesses” were eviscerated under cross-examination by lawyer Doug Christie during the 1985 trial in Canada of Ernst ZÃ¼ndel, for spreading “false news.” This was the actual reason there was no appearance by them at Lipstadt’s trial. At this point in the film, as I sat in the theater I jotted in my review notes, “Movie omits to mention ZÃ¼ndel trial’s discrediting cross-examinations of Judaic witnesses.”

Later in the movie however, Lipstadt demands once again that “Holocaust survivors” testify, and this time a more-candid Julius, albeit in rapid-fire dialogue, tells her that he can’t call on them because, “The survivors were torn apart at the ZÃ¼ndel trial.”

Exactly correct! When so-called “eyewitness Holocaust survivors” were cross-examined in the ZÃ¼ndel case, as detailed in this writer’s The Great Holocaust Trial, not one departed the witness stand with his credibility intactâ€”and it is Hollywood’s Denial movie that reminds the world of this shocking and embarrassing fact, which shatters the main pillar upon which Auschwitz execution-gas-chamber mythology depends: the “undeniable” testimony of “eyewitnesses.” (The statement about the ZÃ¼ndel trial is made in a stream of verbiage from the Anthony Julius character. It is not said slowly or with emphasis. One has to be alert to catch it in the film).

The movie is haunted by the specter of ZÃ¼ndel, whose two trials (1985 and 1988) are landmarks in revisionism. The film’s opening scene has Prof. Lipstadt in a classroom writing on a chalkboard the four main points of “Holocaust denial.” The last two are borrowed from Prof. Robert Faurisson, the ZÃ¼ndel defense team’s research head, as he stated them in an explosive essay in 1978 in France’s leading newspaper, Le Monde. Lipstadt’s point four is straight from Faurisson and rings true: The gas-chamber myth was concocted to “extort money from the Germans and gain sympathy for the state of Israel.” Bingo!

In another of Lipstadt’s classroom points she asserts that any allegation that Judaic casualty figures are exaggerated constitutes “denial.” But unknown to the movie audience, she is herself on record saying that the high casualty figure for German victims of the Allied firebombing of the city of Dresden is exaggerated. The Talmudic double standard makes it perfectly respectable for her to lay a charge of exaggeration against the history of the Dresden bombing. Ordinary mortals do so with regard to Auschwitz at the risk of forfeiting their employment and reputation.

Early in the movie the viewer is taken on an actual tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland, where Lipstadt and her defense team stumble around among the sacred relics. She admonishes her barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson) over his insufficient awe and reverence (he makes tearful amends later). The familiar propaganda about the camp is retailed, until the movie gets to a nearly intact old building. Before entering, it is unambiguously stated that to defeat the deniers’ position on Auschwitz homicidal gassings, one must defeat the Leuchter Report. By now I was wondering if my hearing was faulty, so welcome was this acknowledgement of that momentous study, which is usually demonized by media hacks and academics as a worthless trifle.

The Leuchter Report was commissioned by ZÃ¼ndel in the course of his 1988 trial. It reported a forensic, chemical analysis of physical material taken from the walls of buildings in Auschwitz. Revised by former Max Planck Institute chemist and historian Germar Rudolf, the Leuchter Report remains one of the most-devastating exposes of the hoax ever published, and here in a Hollywood movie its formidable potency is acknowledgedâ€”and never satisfactorily refuted in the course of the film! Although he is not mentioned, when the movie arrives at the courtroom proceedings themselves, the first day concludes with Dr. Faurisson’s signature aphorism concerning, “No Holesâ€”No Holocaust.”

On another day of the trial, Rampton holds aloft two different editions of Irving’s classic history, Hitler’s War, and points out that the 1977 first edition upholds the genocide of Judaics, while the reissued and revised 1991 edition does not. True, but the movie omits what made the difference. Between 1977 and 1991 the two ZÃ¼ndel trials took place with the demolition of “survivor” testimony in the first, and the Leuchter Report issued at the second, which impressed Irving so much that he revised his Hitler book to reflect the Leuchter revelations which ZÃ¼ndel had made possible.

On occasions after Irving has spoken in court, the camera turns to Lipstadt’s character, showing her in paroxysms of frustration and agony. Conversely, when her own lawyer scores a legal or historical point she casts a venomous glance at Irving, suffused with undisguised hatred. The filmmakers have done her image no favors with this less-than-nobleâ€”but quite possibly accurateâ€”depiction of her person and reactions.

Another fatal error in the movie’s goal of vindicating Lipstadt is that it fails to dispel the David vs. Goliath impression of a stacked legal battle. Irving is shown as a lone warrior up against a legal team that fills a room with solicitors, researchers, historians, archivists and the barrister. The audience watching the mustering of this throng must feel that they’ve been cheated: after having it shoved down their throats for decades that doubting homicidal gas chambers is the easiest thing in the world to discredit, it takes a host of lawyers, clerks and historians years of research and more than a month in court to refute one Doubting Thomas?

The unintended consequences become more obvious near the end of the movie, when, in a news conference, Lipstadt makes an analogy between revisionist historians and those who doubt that Elvis Presley is dead. Among the theater audience with whom I saw the film, her parallel went nowhere. It is too palpably jejune to gain traction in the face of the battle the viewer has just observed her multi-million-dollar team having undertaken, with several close shaves for them in the courtroom, and the verdict far from a foregone conclusion.

Denial is pompously self-righteous and foolishly bereft of the tedium-relieving humorous moments which clever directors use to leaven even the most serious cinema. Lipstadt is at first presented melodramatically as Destiny’s Heroine of the Jewish People From The Beginning of Time. After that gas bag is floated, the movie attempts to deflate it slightly with a few attempts at levity, which are aimed at showing her to be a good sport in spite of her carved-in-marble stature; but these fail. She comes off not as one of the guys but as a yenta with a foul mouth: “What the f**k just happened?” she demands to know when the judge states that anti-Semitism can be an honest belief; not necessarily a result of a desire to deceive. Meanwhile, in devastating contrast, Irving is depicted as always in form as an English gentleman, even if at times sarcastic and wounding.

Vile execration of Irving is on ample display: “Irving’s words are like s**t on your shoes,” says Anthony Julius. In a meeting in her hotel room between Lipstadt and her barrister Rampton, it is made clear that Irving is to be hated, “Look the devil in the eye and tell him what you feel,” Rampton advises. God help anyone who would dare to advise us to look upon Deborah Lipstadt as a devil.

The foul-mouthed banter and palpable hate are supposed to, on one hand endear us to the humanity of Lipstadt and her team, and on the other, to make sure we get the message that a doubter like Irving is to be hated, given the sacred subject which he has dared to question. But Timothy Spall, who plays Irving, despite the phony Etonian accent he adopts and perpetually high-pitched, straining voice (which little resembles Irving in real life), comes across as somewhat sympathetic. After the verdict is read we see Irving gallantly approach the barrister Rampton, congratulating him and offering to shake hands. Irving is rebuffed. There is a fundamental decency that permeates his underdog status and it is part of his appeal in Denial.

Lipstadt thinks it’s outrageous that Irving believes there are actually two points of view on World War II history. There is only one point of view, she hectors. But don’t the best parents and teachers convey to their youthful charges the truism that there at least two sides to every issue? Yet in Lipstadt’s inquisitorial, claustrophobic “Holocaust” world, there can only be one.

Yet another unintentionally exculpatory factor for Mr. Irving is the realization that a regiment of Lipstadt’s researchers pored over every extant speech he ever gave, and the several million words he wrote, in search of an error (about dozen or so were found). If any one of us had every word we wrote or spoke through most of our lives examined, there would be plenty of grist for any detractor’s mill. Only two Irving errors are submitted: a questionable interpretation of a morgue at Auschwitz, and misattributed words in a note by Heinrich Himmler; these are not exactly earth-shaking derogations of his historiography.

Meanwhile, the original grounds for Irving’s libel suit against Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Booksâ€”that they lied about his having stolen from the Moscow archives in Russia, and by claiming that he was associated with Hamas and other Arab terror organizationsâ€”are indeed found to be lies, just as David said. He was indeed libeled by Penguin and Lipstadt. Few who watch Denial will know that fact, or know of the intimidation tactic aimed at presiding Justice Charles Gray (Alex Jennings), when the Israeli ambassador with a full retinue of gun-toting guards, seated himself prominently in the courtroom during the trial. The message conveyed could not have been lost on the judge, nor the audience: a sovereign state, armed to the teeth, had a vested interest in an outcome of the trial favorable to their heroine, Dvora. (Lipstadt refers to herself by that Hebrew variant of her name when recalling her mother’s prophecy about her).

Other revelations from the makers of this movie:

Denial informs us there were never any photographs of any of the millions of “Jews” in any of the gas chambers because (wait for it): the Germans would not allow it; which doesn’t explain why no German personnel took photos surreptitiously, or were not bribed to do so, or why photos of an event that is said to have happened tens of thousands of times, were not otherwise leaked.
Denial informs us that Auschwitz was never designed as an extermination camp. From the beginning it was a labor camp and it only later changed its function.
During the trial, Irving’s “no holes no holocaust” challenge to Auschwitz “expert” Robert Jan van Pelt (Mark Gatiss) is never answered, even though an answer is promised in the next court session.
If we are listening carefully, we hear a reporter state, albeit as an audio voiceover on a scene of jostling media, that Justice Gray praised Irving’s skill as a military historian.
In London, a grim-faced woman with a cinematic aura of sanctity identifies herself privately to Lipstadt as a “Holocaust survivor.” Lipstadt informs her defense team that this woman is indeed a “Holocaust survivor” who is qualified to testify. What is the basis of “renowned historian” Lipstadt’s corroboration of the woman’s identity and credentials as a witness? She showed Lipstadt some faded numbers tattooed on her arm. This is proof? What a joke.

If you’re already a true believer, the film may further cement your belief, but for thinking individuals who are paying attention, Denial alerts curious minds to the existence of a substantial body of dissent, going so far as to feature Mr. Irving’s website on-camera, as well as the covers of his books. Viewers of the film who follow up with an Internet search for the Leuchter Report or the “ZÃ¼ndel trial” (few though these may be) are going to encounter a world of revisionist discovery and intellectual challenge.

As we often remind our readers, our enemies are not invincible, any more than they are infallible. Their victory is not inevitable. They make big mistakes and Denial is one of them: a 109-minute commercial of sorts for a valiant writer whose reputation is still very much intact.

We seldom have the occasion to write the following words, but it is delightful to do so now: Thank you, Hollywood!Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Top of Page

Review of Eight Days a Week the touring years 2016 film credited to Apple Corps Ltd and Studiocanal. 'A Ron Howard film'

The blurb says the 'band' formed in 1962, 'stormed Europe' in 1963, and, 'in 1964, conquered America'. It says Ron Howard won an award in 2010 for the ludicrous A Beautiful Mind. I suspect there must have been a 50-year lapsed copyright permitting this DVD to exist. (I don't know if it was ever shown in cinemas). It's a bit less than two hours.

The Beatles could make a fascinating story, though this isn't it. It relies to some extent on a Jewish journalist told to fly with them in the USA; he resembles, and has the charm of, Netanyahu. I wish I could tell how much truth there is behind the much-repeated cover story. We have the Cavern Club, and Epstein's family record shops in Liverpool. There's a bit about Cynthia Lennon. There's very little on the other family members, though presumably they had them. There are clips of screaming girls; this is genuine—I went to the Beatles Christmas Show in Finsbury Park Astoria, London, and the girls all screamed, loudly. We see film of their first short visit to the USA. We see shots (usually monochrome) of stadiums in the USA, ending with Shea Stadium, capacity 45,000 and now closed (half the capacity of Wembley Stadium, where I also saw Pink Floyd).

They were really extraordinarily young. The story of their tiny and derisive percentages, the copyright and sheet music deals, the 'merchandise', even their earnings, remains hidden. Probably they were ripped off. And probably they didn't care much. Tax dodges must have occurred, and get a mention in the Bahamas trip for the film Help!

What's subtly comical to Jew-aware people is the slanting of events throughout this film. The high taxes, designed by Jews to repay war loans, wipe out British aristocrats, and fund their news frauds such as the then-latent Holohoax, don't get any explicit mention, any more than the post-war wreckage of Liverpool, to support Jews, who even then were planning race replacement of the donkey-like British. The award-winning Mr Howard tries to make it look as though the Beatles were fully clued up on race in the USA, perhaps missing the Jew-promoted slave trade. They obviously had no idea about segregated theaters and facilities, of signs helpfully printed by Jews on things like 'decent housing'. There were a few interviews with selected Jew-promoted specimens, such as Eddie Izzard (Jews are pushing 'transexuals' etc at the time) and nappy-haired 'Whoopi' 'Goldberg', who mentioned whites but not Jew segregation, and even Elvis Costello. We also have the Kennedy murder, though Mr Howard is charmingly outdated in his appreciation. And the problems of the 'unfortunate' USA, committing genocide in Vietnam for the mass murdering Jew, Kissinger. The 'more popular than Jesus' incident was in there, but hard to appreciate: there were a few small bonfires, but whether genuine or not is hard to guess: Jews lie all the time, and didn't like 'Jesus' (though they collect royalties). George Harrison's presumably sitar-led ashramic adventures get a bit of a look. We see the queen in 1965 handing out MBEs in between honouring war criminals. There's no mention of Lennon's real or supposed murder; no wonder he made a dramatic exit. Sergeant Pepper made an appearance, though without the possible MI5 (or 6?) eponymous Pepper.

McCartney pointed out they didn't come from nowhere; they played, sometimes eight hours a day, in Germany, though the arrangements were left vague. There's more, including restored and/or colorized film segments. George Martin plays a part, but everything remotely technical or musical is edited out, or never existed. Unsatisfying. I wish the remaining Beatles would fund revisionists.

RW 2018-05-04

Top of Page

Review of David Wnendt's film 'Er ist wieder da' (Look Who's Back) by Rerevisionist 18 January 2018
https://www.constantin-film.de/kino/er-ist-wieder-da/
Germans are still subjected to this trash; will it ever change?

Released in October 2015; obviously a 70-year anniversary film of Hitler's official death. I watched this partly to see if there is any acknowledgement of the idea that Hitler was one of a group of Jew-promoted post-Great War rich men, drawing the teeth of the Versailles Treaty. I could see no sign of that; Hitler was presented as acting entirely alone, and using potential cruelty for 'world domination'. The one-man world conqueror and military aggression aficionado distracts from the obvious idea that domination needs many people, something Jews prefer to leave undiscussed.
The other reason was to muse over the chance that the image of Germany is being changed or at least modified. I could see no sign of that, either.

I missed the point that Jews are still pretending Hitler was found dead in his bunker, rather than being spirited away by his Jew comrades. Silly me.

For my taste the two best actors were Oliver Masucci, playing Hitler; and Franzeska Wulf, the satanist office receptionist—though Masucci is facially prosthetically changed—see the 'Extras'—and it occurs to me that 'Goth' might be a reference to the now-lost Gothic language. (The extras include a 'double' sequence ' und sein Double', but I'm uncertain how accurately the silicone mask was shown). Most of the rest of the cast participated in office and studio politics, in a low class—in the technical sense—TV station, represented by a partly computer-generated tower block model. Maybe the film company used their own studios; why not?

The whole script was cliché-filled—they seem to have worked through a Jewish rule-book for German TV. Here are a few:-

Blue-eyed whites, especially blondes, are sinister and gullible and easily influenced by non-Jewish oratory;
Whites are concerned more about pets than Jews or immigrant invaders;
Jews (undefined) are bracketed with all other minorities, all unfortunate, all deserving of handouts—just like Jews, in fact, though of course not part of that 'master race';
The mass media look for 'scoops' and are audience-driven;
You can't carry a pistol if you're white; it's of course a long-term aim of Jews to disarm whites;
The Jewish-promoted hate police are generous-minded and urbane. Of courser they are—ask Ursula Haverbeck!;
The Second World War was entirely about unreasonable whites being swayed by hateful oratory—nothing to do with Versailles, or Jews feeding weapons to Stalin, or Jew worship of Stalin, for example. I've explored this more in Was Hitler a Jew Agent? (audio)
The gas chamber myth runs in full force—I have a private theory that Jewish mentality runs entirely on perpetual repetition, so that most non-Jews end up in something like a trance caused by hearing the same note all the time. It worked with Christianity and Islam; so why not? I have another private theory that the growth in scientific evidence is in a battle against the older worldview, and may win—though who knows;
Thugs are described not very variously as right wing, neo-Nazis, extreme right etc, rather than Jew-funded thugs;
'Racism' is horrific, not of course in any reasoned sense; and,
the most important rule of all. No true statements may be made about any aspect of Jewish activity in real life.

Anyway, Er ist wieder da is 100% Jew-censored. Not of course surprising. Much of course is interwoven in the plot. Skin colouring is applied to a junk TV host, I think probably a reference to the Jewish idea that there is no race, just 'skin colour'. (Incidentally, I tried to Google the name of that famous US Jew TV host, who presents white trash types, but I couldn't find his name! Internet seems to be making inroads into junk, at last). Thus the Hitler actor, awakening in an anachronistic way in modern Germany, is shown checking the year, and stumbling into a newspaper outlet with a storeroom. In which Hitler is later shown reading, because of course you can find out what's happening by reading the press. That must have amused the scriptwriters. There's a bit on industrial pollution after 1945 vs so-called 'greens', an east Europe thing, where the Jew 'Chosen' ruined many areas with their Talmudic love of defacement and filth. The filmmakers didn't find a way to work the 'Cold War' in; probably they've decided the best way to deal with Jewish nuclear fraud is to ignore it, though there were two fake nuke clips—colour film, newish at the time, giving a bit of visual impact to the fakery.

The storyline has the usual format of a smallish group of people, who largely coincidentally get to know each other. The technical quality seems high, to me at least, and indeed the 'extras' show how some of it is done, and there's a green screen scene reinforcing the message. The extras allow English 'Untertiteln', and show some of the techniques. The studio stuff includes a team of joke-writing poker-faced word niggers: "What did the Jew paedophile say?"—"Come and buy a sweetie from me." "Jewish tourists went on holiday to Auschwitz. They all gave it one star." There's a scene where an aged mother screams at Hitler with surprising force. Perhaps she'd been raped by Jew forces? Perhaps her family had been wiped out? Maybe she was a Ukrainian driven mad by Jew-enforced starvation? Perhaps she was a Slav burnt alive inside a church?—Ha, just joking. Of course not. Probably she worried that fraudulent money from the Holohoax might be turned off at last. Or, even worse, that reparations would be due. Hitler's script's potential retorts proved non-existent.

The scenes of Hitler learning about computers and Internet are well-done, at least technically. Youtube (slight suggestion of Pewdiepie, I thought) and Wikipedia and Facebook are worked in. The bunker resurrection scenes are well done, though of course incredible. The outdoor scenes aren't completely successful, no doubt because the conditions aren't very well controlled. Hitler is shown as artistically incompetent; I'm not sure why.

The parts which (I expect) are most famous don't get started until midway—after Hitler is met and driven around and visits German towns—the scenes of studio audiences being sucked in, while the support cast are shown smiling—a tedious US device to signal that, look, it's funny. They did their best to make it credible, even mentioning a Jewish pressure group at one point. I thought of some insects, where huge numbers of alien males are bred and released to damage the gene pool.

'Democracy' doesn't come out of this film very well—"if you think I'm a monster—blame the voters!" says Masucci—and of course democracy is a problem for Jews, since of course if you're chosen by 'G-d', and believe you're a race, and the master race, your undemocratic bias is likely to show. Anyway, Jews declared war in (say) 1923; before that it seems to the west it was more concealed; and they are still at it. Four issues are mentioned: child poverty, old age poverty, unemployment, and low birthrates. Birthrates amongst whites, that is: there's no indication that German children are being flooded by aliens and burdened with long-term debt which is impossible to meet, and no indication that invaders get more money than Germans, and for nothing. Jew control of money, and worldwide US bases, and other aspects post-1945 of course are unmentioned; presumably the revived Hitler's new manuscript was to be one a small scale. Incidentally I was surprised that the TV company boardroom was shown as all-more-or-less white or Jew, without a token Somali, say; perhaps it was a touch of Jew realism.

Part of the end padding is a song about Hitler by Lead Belly (Huddie Ledbetter) remixed. It reminded me of Woodie Guthrie; and of the American inability to throw off Jewish memic saturation. Just more disgusting trash. But gives hints as to Jewish purposes now. Though information on collaborators is nil.

Top of Page

Review by Rerevisionist of Colin Firth - The King's Speech by Rerevisionist 17 June 2016
2010 film. Part of the intermittent Jewish promotion of the Second World War

This is, or is supposed to be, based on a book by Mark Logue, son I think of Geoffrey Rush, a home-taught speech therapist who learnt his trade trying to cure the shell-shocked Australians lucky enough to return from the 'Great War'. Edward VIII's short reign terminated on his abdication. The earliest formal biography of Edward VIII (Frances Donaldson's, published in 1974), gives some details, though not much of importance: she does convey the pomposity of the handlers and their careful control of incomes of the so-called 'royalty'. Edward VIII was certainly far more interesting than his brother, and was clearly forced out because he disliked poverty in Britain, disliked war, and liked Hitler, in some combination. The papers as far as I know are still secret. This film was clearly propagandist: like other Jewish baubles it was 'award-winning' in the more-or-less anonymous sense. It's amusing, and painful, to see actors recycled after lifetimes of work: Jacobi as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Lang I think. Anthony Andrews in there somewhere. The Ehle woman from Jane Austen. Bonham-Carter from the Harry Potter mines, with the actors specified by Rowling as English. Well, maybe not English exactly.

'Hollywood' films have a vein of pseudo-medical bullshit, as might be expected from people who think Freud is of value. Rainman illustrates part of this; come to think of it, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, all that time ago, does. And so do occasional films on 'geniuses'. Suffice it to say the exercises and activities are selected for entertainment value; one can imagine the producer trying to liven the thing up. There are still people alive who can remember the BBC radio broadcast of the speech. It seems to have been painfully embarrassing. The film is accurate in showing the new King relying on speechwriters. In fact, the speech was written before Poland provided an excuse: professional speechwriters seem a bit on the slow side. At the time, there was a so-called 'National Government', so nothing as silly as voting took place. The online digital versions of the recordings clearly show missing bits: Stammers? Hesitations? Who knows. The declaration of war speech was about three years after his accession to the throne.

One of the recycled actors is Timothy Spall, a short chap, not good looking, who plays Churchill in The King's Speech. The material relating to his bribery and corruption is not mentioned—surprise! Incredibly, I've read Spall has been drawn to act as David Irving in 'Denial', scheduled for 2016, and also scheduled for Jewish awards to try to get the punters in. The actress playing Deborah Lipstadt is also not an accurate visual match. Irving's website says: Facts warning: "Dental" was rewritten for the screen by screenwriter Max Borenstein, Russ Krasnoff, Jeff Skoll, BBC Films' Joe Oppenheimer, and Bleecker Street's Andrew Karpen. ('Dental' is Irving's little joke, though I'm not sure I understand the message). Do yourself a favour: don't watch these films—donate the cost of tickets, junk food, and travel to Irving.

Anyway, the new monarch, renamed George VI, was constructed, and the name GEORGIVS VI decorated the heads of British coins for many years. He fathered Elizabeth; I wonder if he stammered during the process. And her sister, Margaret. There was also a female child who was 'defective', who eventually died and was buried in a pauper's grave. Or something similar—there are people who spend time on this sort of thing. Seventy-five or so years later feeling for the monarchy seems almost non-existent. And to modify an Internet comment: one would never believe that London is now majority non-White. During televised royal celebrations, most onlookers of the passing royal entourage tend to be White. British Jews haven't drawn attention to this "lack of diversity" during royal events!

Out of curiosity, I checked the 'UK Film Council', funded by the National Lottery. There's no longer a live website link. Instead, there's a 'University of the Creative Arts', carrying on the same sort of work. Oh, joy.

Top of Page

Review by Rerevisionist of The Lady in the Van by Rerevisionist 28 July 2016
2015 film based on an Alan Bennett short story. Claims to be 'Mostly True'

Maggie Smith (aged about 80), with Alex Jennings, who looks and sounds and perhaps is very like Bennett in his younger years. And the actor who looks like Kingsley Amis. Curiously anti-British thing, rather saddening. It's yet another Jewish training piece (supplemented financially by the BBC's guaranteed income). It's anti-Catholic; observers of this sort of thing will notice the various signs. We're spared priests with erections, but there's (for example) an unused segment with Miss Shepherd preparing her election manifesto with a Roman Catholic theme. No chance of a Jewish loony screaming about ruling the world with holohoax fiction. Most of the action is in and around what is stated to be Bennett's corner house in London, made of characteristic dark umber variegated brickwork. We see Bennett's double, in 1971, shown the house by a cheery estate agent. He's a playwright, with something on somewhere in London. The scene must have been prepared—no cars, please; then a few contemporary, if suspiciously old, vehicles. And an old fire surround being chucked out, I suppose to suggest gentrification. Maggie Smith's character is entirely unconvincing; it's unlikely such a trampish woman existed, let alone could operate an unroadworthy vehicle, and be allowed to park in residential London; but it's possible someone vaguely similar occupied Bennett's driveway. For some reason, nobody mentioned Beyond the Fringe, with Bennett as the token non-Jew—I'm told Dudley Moore thought he was a Jew, as did Jonathan Miller—unless I missed it, despite the fact it was Bennett's supreme achievement to date. Jennings, I'd guess supported by green screen technology, appears twice in many scenes. In contrast to the pillorying of Catholicism, a previous and obsolete incursion of Jews, we have support for homosexuality, Bennett shown with a man who acted someone even more dull than Bennett. The film is bookended by a video piece designed to look like a black-and-white film (with digital quality sound, I think, and colours not quite faded out). This was Miss Shepherd as a concert pianist, between the wars. The main Jewish interests are absent from the film: money-making wars, promotion of the 'extermination' myth, money from the Fed, invasion of north London, and invasions by nonwhites, which began a generation of quick breeders before, with no democratic consultation.
I found it rather sad that Smith's only credits for the Spanish Civil War themed propagandist Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (similar Celts and Jews idea in Dancing at Lugnasa) and something called California Suite. Here's my review of Alan Bennett: Untold Stories, which has similar themes to The Lady in the Van: lower-class horrid people examined, but not very carefully, and media people with money, unexamined. The same team filmed The History Boys, which seems to be a 'retro' look by a pederast at boys wanting to go to Oxbridge. Agonisingly, Bennett has not the slightest interest in decoding media lies, decoding secrecy, and observing the influences of propaganda, which have had and are having vast effects on the world. History as career props from a small room of unimportant objects, not serious history. History as a series of Christmas cracker (or 'Hanukah') mottoes. The cluster of messages from Bennett—complete ignorance of genocidal wars organised by Jews, the use of social welfare schemes against whites, the wielding of propaganda and legal money powers, ignorance of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi—suggest that the true figure in a van, paper-shuffling, cloacally troubled, myopic, small-minded, self-obsessed, is Bennett himself.

Top of Page

Review of Nuclear frauds DVD: Atomic Testing (3pc)

Good value for studying supposed tests and related social films, June 26, 2010

These three DVDs, with interactive menus, total about thirteen hours. The images appear to be 720 x 480 mpgs, which is good quality (from old movie film). Technically they seem as good or better other DVDs of this type. There's no leaflet inside—these seem not to be produced now.

In addition to tests, there are civil defense films of the 'duck behind a tree' type though the information on e.g. fallout varies a bit as they tried to decide on the official story; supposed information films; a couple of full-length black and white films; and lots more including film of B-61 bombs being made.

NB—worth noting that some Hiroshima and Nagasaki footage is included on newsreel videos, typically presenting the official story of WW2, and aren't necessarily included with test films and public warnings,

As a result of watching 'Nuke Lies', a Youtube video, I decided to research this material, and I'd say these three are the best value—though for some reason none seem to include much H bomb footage. So if you'd like to go frame by frame through test film, these are as a good as any, though I'd avoid the full price. There are two other products on Amazon which I recommend avoiding because of their poor value. But remember, H Bombs aren't included.

They've been 'sanitized' which may mean that, like NASA, they're removing embarrassing mistakes.

Top of Page

Nativity!

2009. Martin Freeman and presumably other Jews on the 'nativity of Jesus'. 'A Debby Isitt film'.

I watched this to test the idea that the Jew-dominated media hate Jesus Christ. But since they invented him (or copied the invention from earlier civilisations) is that plausible?

November 2009; this film must have been made for a (or the) Christmas market, what would have been the pantomime season in years gone by, and the Christmas season at the Music Hall before that.

Backward, in the mists of time, there must have been similar events in houses, particularly Great ones, and in Churches. So there are the tattered remains of a long tradition, mostly gone the way of things like maypoles and yule logs and holly and mistletoe. The central event of the film in mostly in its future, and is arranged as a musical nativity, the songs, accompaniment, and vocal styles in the manner popularised in Strictly Come Dancing and This named country Has Talent and I suppose Eurovision Song Contest.

I didn't find much Jewish hatred in this film; perhaps a baby with a Jewish name, grown-up and boiled in shit was difficult to work in. I simply hadn't realised that the 'traditional' story (i.e. from the 1600s, and the new printed Bibles) is a simplified Jew narrative. And this was modified from Egyptian and Persian and what-have-you sources. 'Three wise men from the east' represent a Jewish incursion. They offer gold, though the financial arrangements are unspecified; Frankincense, as I suppose a symbol of exotic goodies; and Myrrh for the dead bodies. Symbolic entrance of parasites-to-be, disguising their aggression as friendship and generosity. The high point of the film, the barely-noticeable injection, was “King of the Jews” in a song.
I felt rather gut-tugging sorrow that children are still exposed to this rubbish.

This seems to be one of a series of films with similar titles. (I found another three on Wikipedia, which of course is useless for anything serious). I have no idea whether they were deemed successful. Perhaps by now 'Netflix' has absorbed them or replaced them with American stuff. For this was a BBC film, with several other organisations credit too, and credited as 'A Debby Isitt film' in a way that makes it look as though she produced it, though it would seem others—notably the taxpayers and repayers of future loans—supplied the dosh.

At that time, Martin Freeman as Bilbo was some years in the future; Sherlock Holmes was about to start. I remember Ashley Jensen in Extras which was few years earlier. Pam Ferris from Harry Potter was earlier still. She plays a rather terrifying head of a junior school in Coventry, in middle England; why there, I have no idea. Anything BBC-related must have uses for its rotas of actors and their publicity campaigns and agents, with strict demarcations and class lines and Equity rules to suit Jews.

There must by now surely be rules of thumb for assembling plots—main plots, subplots, number of conflict points, number of characters per minute, number of words per speaker, and so on. And I suppose for nibbling at boundaries. This one suggests pupils should visit childbirths and real animals. If they're called 'pupils': perhaps 'customers' now? There seemed to be only one coloured immigrant, a Jewish staple; but I think he was diluted by a few Chinese or Indians or other so-called 'minorities'.

The conventions seemed aimed at adult performers, not anyone else: singing in pop-music mimicry style, dances in something like pop video style, for example. And—and this was the fulcrum of the film—love of what they called 'Hollywood', though of course Shepperton and Australian equivalents and Chinese studios are close rivals. It's painful to me (as in Calendar Girls etc ad nauseam) to see these little kids trained to cheer mindlessly. I can recall from about 1970 seeing a script for a school play which included the phrase ‘Shoes of the Red Sea’, a typo which nobody else noticed.

Top of Page

Review of Jewish interest DVD—History of Nuclear Weapons—The Ultimate Weapons (2-DVD Set) [2007]

1 out of 5 stars—Only six b/w movies and nothing on H Bombs, 15 Jan 2010

The two DVDs only have three black and white films each, which are obtainable elsewhere anyway. (Bonica film, Bikini, 'Operation Cue', a casualty management thing which is of not much relevance, etc). There is nothing at all on H-bombs or the politics! It's not 'ultimate' in any way. And note it's not a 'history', unless you count half a dozen old films with no background information at all as 'history'. Also the insert seems to be laser printed then cut out with scissors; the colour cover design is entirely misleading—there's nothing in the old films like it; even the box was defective with mine. Try elsewhere. And dated 2004, not 2007.

Top of Page

Review of Jewish Film
Bruce Willis: Die Hard (with a Vengeance)

Includes Federal Reserve References, Jan 10, 2014

The film includes the Federal Reserve, shown as 'holding more gold than Fort Knox', possibly as a double joke: Fort Knox probably having been plundered, and the Fed having nothing. There's an amusing scene showing gold bars being shovelled up; they sound like gold-painted bricks—another joke? Jeremy Irons does his best to insult Germans as a horrid blond Nazi with dim associates. I'd guess a subliminal message is to pretend the dollar has solid backing.

Top of Page

Review of a Jewish film—Deliberate Deception About Jews in Hollywood The Big Short

Film Review by Andrea Ostrov Letania Copied here with permission. Reuploaded 26 April 2016

Have you guys seen THE BIG SHORT? Totally bogus movie.

The biggest Jew-Wash movie since SOCIAL NETWORK. Everyone heard something of the financial disaster of 2008. So, who were behind it? This movie pretends to name names and reveal who's who, but the overriding agenda is to hide the Jewish faces. The Jewish identity of those involved in the fraud are never mentioned, BUT we are explicitly made aware that one of the truth-hunters is JEWISH. You see, Jews have faces when they have conscience but are faceless when robbing the world blind. So, we see Mr. Jewish Conscience tackle with all these fraudsters. The face of Goldman Sachs is some Asian-Indian guy. Morgan Stanley is represented by a black woman. The face of CDO fraud is some grinning yellow Chinese guy.

Meanwhile, we see the Mr. Jewish Conscience feel outraged by all the dirty tricks pulled by banks and investors. Of course, the only reason he's hunting for the 'truth' is he wants to cash in big by betting on the right horse. But you see, this Jewish guy is all about conscience, so at the very end, when he decides to cash in on his loot, we see him filled with so much angst and doubt. Oh boo hoo hoo, because Jews care oh so very much of course and don't want to profit off the misery of others.

And we get the usual tripe about how the nation blames 'poor people' and 'immigrants' when times go bad. Okay, how about instead of blaming the poor and the immigrant community, we blamed the urban liberal community made up largely of rich Jews in places like NY and Harvard?

Let's attack the most powerful and most privileged people in America. Would that be better? But then, this is the very movie that obfuscated Jewish role in the financial disaster by using Asian-Indian, black woman, East Asian, and lower-end white peddlers of home loans for the disaster. Foul ugly movie. It should be called Big Snort. Cocaine for those who would be duped by Jews and their gentile cucks who worked on this trash.

Top of Page

Deliberate Deception About Second World War Tarantino -- Inglorious Basterds

Film Review by Andrea Ostrov Letania Copied here with permission. Reuploaded 26 April 2016

VERY LONG REVIEW WARNING!

Note on 'Leonardo di Caprio', considered for a part in this film. After quoting this long piece by A O Letania, Miles Mathis wrote a brilliant piece dated 23 July 2016 on di Caprio outing di Caprio as a likely Jew.

So, what's the big deal about this movie? It's lavishly and handsomely produced but that can be said about any big-budget Hollywood movie. It has action and violence aplenty, jokes and gore galore, and movie references for those in the know. But why do we need 2 Â½ hrs of glitzy trash when 90 minutes would have more than sufficed. (The saving grace of the movie's length is there won't be IB part II like there was Kill Bill pt 2.) Would this have garnered much attention if it was about WWI or any other war in which Jews didn't play a significant part? Probably not. INGLORIOUS BASTERDS has been praised in some corners as a Jewish Revenge Fantasy or even Jewish Porn, but I wonder if this is just a delusional fantasy of our corrupt elites and idiot masses. If kids weaned on videogames, pop music, comic books, and blockbuster movies think Tarantino is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that's understandable even if depressing. But just how does the 'cinephile' community that professes respect and admiration for great masters of cinema convince itself that Tarantino is a film artist to rank with the best? To be fair, there have been plenty of detractors, at least since PULP FICTION, the godawful that made his fortune as a filmmaker to be rushed into the cinematic hall of fame.

Personally, I belong to the crowd who thinks Tarantino made one good, indeed great, film, his very first, RESERVOIR DOGS. That was a powerful, almost perfect blend of violence, humor, nihilism, morality, clarity, and the absurd. Around the edge of every character and situation protruded a counter angle, perspective, reality. A sense of unease pervaded throughout the entire film, with opposing emotions gripping the viewer, foiling all possibilities of moral or dramatic resolution. Its cast of characters defined by a dizzying array of personalties, loyalties, objectives, intelligence, charisma, and levels of sanity. Though a story of a criminal gang, it was like a hall of mirrors reflecting back and forth, alternately and indefinitely, the angelic and devilish side of every character. It was like everyone was a child of an angel f***ed by the devil or vice versa, with the former perhaps being more bad than good while the other was a little more good than bad. The 'good guy' is the undercover cop, but he has to betray the gang, even the member who saves his life. The most pathological character--the ear cutter--proves to be the most loyal and trustworthy member of the crew. RESERVOIR DOGS doesn't just play but wrestles with our emotions. One could tell Tarantino is a pop culture junkie with an encyclopedic knowledge of movies, TV, and music trivia, but there is also the oppressive presence of reality--an awareness of consequences, no matter how imitative the film may be of collective pop fantasies . The psychotic character in RESERVOIR DOGS dances to a pop tune while slicing off someone's ear, and the emotional effect is eerie and unnerving for we simultaneously identify with the hipster nihilism and the horror-stricken agony. Tim Roth plays the undercover cop with a bullet wound to the gut. The ever-present reminder of pain keeps the movie rooted in stark realism even as it drifts into playful banter and amusing flashbacks. It was one of the most remarkable debuts in movie history.

So, like everyone else, I eagerly anticipated PULP FICTION. With near unanimous accolades, I was convinced it had to be a masterpiece. Yet it turned out to be one of the most putrid, inane, ridiculous, anti-human, vile, hideous, disgusting, repellent, sick, infantile, moronic, contemptuous, imbecile, and silly garbage ever made. I mean it was bad. Sure, there was some narrative inventiveness, witty lines, and good performances by Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis. But it was essentially pointless and mindless. Gone was the moral irony imbedded throughout RESERVOIR DOGS. It was as if Tarantino lost all interest in people and pain and just decided to throw in his lot with the sensibility of the psychotic character in RESERVOIR DOGS. PULP FICTION gives us nothing but bucketfuls of laughing violence. One feels no qualms or concern at all the murders, mayhem, and ugliness. Moral sense has been replaced wholly by the hipster code. There is a long sermon at the end by Samuel Jackson, but like so much of blackass rhetoric in pop culture, it's all style and charisma and no substance and truth. PULP FICTION was essentially bullshit manure varnished with gold. A typical scene has hillbillies in a basement buttfâ€”king a big fat 'nigger'. Soon after, the tables get turned and the big fat 'nigger' blows off the balls of the redneck hillbillies with a shotgun. Another scene has a gun go off accidentally, splattering a "nigger's" brain all over the back window of a car. Whether one likes 'niggers' or not, someone's brain getting splattered all over is no joking matter. But, the 'nigger brain all over the car' joke goes on and on.

Violence and gore can be funny if it's cartoonish or unreal enough but not when they are served with crude realism. It's one thing to laugh at Monty Python's ridiculous parody of Sam Peckinpah movies or the fight between King Arthur and the Black Knight in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL.

Humor becomes tasteless or psychotic if the violence is realistic. Indeed, Monty Python demonstrated this with a segment in THE MEANING OF LIFE, which has a realistic gory scene where a man's liver is torn out. The scene dares us to laugh, but we can't--if indeed we are to remain sane. There is a big difference between Tom & Jerry violence and the kind of violence one finds in movies like PLATOON or DEER HUNTER. It used to be that realistic violence needed to be justified by some moral or higher aesthetic purpose--most famously in Sam Peckinpah's THE WILD BUNCH. Not anymore. Now, we have realistic blood splattering in the dumbest movies, and all for mindless thrills and laughs.

Perhaps, the horror movie is one genre which is immune to this rule, but then it isn't one of my favorite genres, especially the slasher movie, 99% of which are disgustingly gorenographic.

For some reason, many on the White Right seem to love these gory movies as purveying conservative messages, spiritualist neo-paganism--especially if one identifies with the killer--, Christian salvation--if one identifies with the victims--, or a no-holds barred form of pitiless Social Darwinism where only the strong survive. It is not surprising that some neo-Nazi groups in Germany have held private screenings of SNUFF films. I've known some Extreme White Right lunatics who actually think images of dead bodies in concentration camps are a laugh riot and snicker at footage of smoldering or rotting war dead--that is unless the casualties happen to be 'Aryan', in which they get all moralistic, outraged, and 'spiritual'. The extreme White Rightist and extreme Zionist have one thing in common. They feel almost no sympathy for anyone outside the tribal core. To a Zionist, a single Jew is worth more than a million gentiles, and to Neo-Nazis, a single 'Aryan' is worth more than a million Slavs.

Humor can be tasteless but isn't necessarily immoral nor insane if it plays by the rules of comedy or spoof. The violence in Mel Brooks' tasteless THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD PT 1 is cartoonish, as when a dinosaur chomps on one of the cavemen.

There is also something called black humor, which deviously subverts the barrier between drama and comedy, between reality and fantasy, and requires genuine satirical wit and psycho-social insight to pull off. Otherwise, it's just ugly and demented sick shit.

Tarantino has been making one sick shit after another since PULP FICTION. Though I haven't seen all of JACKIE BROWN, I've seen enough to know that it's gratuitous and annoying. Brigit Fonda, for no reason, pesters Robert De Niro on the parking lot, whereupon De Niro just shoots her dead. We aren't allowed anything but smug laughter. Later, Jackson gets pissed about De Niro having killed his 'bitch', grumbles like a sitcom character, and then shoots De Niro. And so on and on like this. The only possible response for the viewer is stupid laughter or numbness. The violence just doesn't reverberate nor gain meaning except as an excuse to peddle cheap cool, indulge in trash talk, or snicker like a retard. Contrast that with the scene in RESERVOIR DOGS where Tim Roth the undercover cop is shot by a civilian and instinctively fires back. We hardly see the woman's face and it all happens in a flash, but we sense moral horror within this absurdity.

But what do we feel when we see people get beaten, cut up, or shot to pieces in PULP FICTION, JACKIE BROWN, KILL BILL 1 &2, and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS? Nothing but a numbing Beavis & Butthead 'haw-haw' or 'uhhhh, that's cool'. Even more pathetic are the educated/sophisticated types who pretend to detect more than fool-cool antics in Tarantino's movies. How embarrassing for a film community that pontificates about Griffith, Eisenstein, Lang, Kurosawa. Ford, Bresson, Dreyer, Bergman, Hitchcock, and Mizoguchi to speak of Tarantino in the same breath. Many film geek losers are so desperate to be considered hip and cool--as opposed to square and bourgeois--that they gladly embrace inhumanity if clever and badass enough.

But, the conceit isn't very difficult to understand, and it goes back to the 60s, especially with Susan Sontag's 'Notes on Camp'. There used to be an overly stuffy, snobby, elitist, or restrictive hierarchy separating art and entertainment, high culture and low culture, serious concerns and trivial concerns, cutting-edge culture and mainstream culture, an so forth and so on. Great popular filmmakers and musicians were underestimated because they weren't 'serious' enough. Avant-garde looked down on mass culture. The heady days of the 60s challenged many of these assumptions, and the impact was largely positive in the short-term. Andrew Sarris, the film critic at Village Voice, appreciated the vision of Sergio Leone when so many critics dismissed him as a bloody stylistic hack. Sarris even argued that the great masters of Hollywood were indeed superior artists to European and Japanese filmmakers if judged on the power of film language alone. Federico Fellini, who had been built up his reputation as an Art Director in the 50s and early 60s, embarked on something new with 8 Â½. He threw caution to the winds and declared his art would henceforth go with the free flow of dreams and imagination. He was thinking like more like a psychedelic rock star even before there was such a thing. He didn't want to be confined in the rut of 'serious art'. If serious artists and intellectuals loosened up, popular entertainers got increasingly serious. 50s rock and roll was without pretensions, but Bob Dylan changed the rules by fusing rock n roll with high culture sensibility borrowed from poets and intellectuals. Also, though rock n roll grew out of certain American musical traditions, it wasn't historically aware of or consciously concerned with those traditions. It was about the Here and Now. Guys like Elvis Presley used whatever they could get their hands on at the moment--country, pop, blues, rhythm and blues, gospel, etc--and molded it into hit records. These men were not ignorant of musical heritage, but their main focus was making fun music for young people. Dylan had a more intellectual and historical approach to American music. He wasn't just using whatever was around but rummaging for what had been lost and consciously molding something serious. To an extent, he picked up this sensibility from the folk music movement--whose idea was to discover, record, and preserve the music of little people, obscure people, marginalized people, and bygone people, and save it for posterity. If rock n roll was about here and now, folk music was largely about what-had-once-been. Ironically, it was also about what-should-be since the concept of the 'little people' and 'forgotten people' was idealized into the leftist agenda of 'social justice'.

But Dylan had other traditions to lean on for his serious approach to culture. Despite the image of the semi-literate hobo drifter folkie singing the music of 'little people', he was actually an intellectually minded hipster who devoured classical tomes in his spare time. Also, his naturally high Jewish intelligence and voracious personality were bound to make him restless about being pigeonholed into one thing. For many in the mid 60s, Dylan was everything rolled into one. He was pop culture, he was serious culture. He was folk, he was poetry. He was for adults, he was for kids. He was a prophet, he was for profit. He was a spokesman of his generation, he was a clown cynic. He was Jesus, he was Judas. Albums like Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde could be enjoyed as raucous rock or dense music labyrinths requiring careful study.

We may well ask if rock would have taken this serious turn without Dylan, but soon, a whole new Zeitgeist developed around rock. Bands like Dave Clark Five which only performed simple dance music faded while the more 'serious' rock artists gained ascendancy. Beatles' RUBBER SOUL was maturer than their earlier works, REVOLVER was consciously arty, and SGT. PEPPER verged on the pompous. The Rolling Stones got densely philosophical on some tracks on BEGGAR'S BANQUET and LET IT BLEED. Moody Blues developed a form of symphonic rock. The Who released TOMMY, a rock opera. Byrds got spacier and spacier. Perhaps the band that took art rock to its furthest limit was Pink Floyd. The career of the Beach Boys is interesting in this context. They came to fame with a wonderful series of pop tunes, but Brian Wilson too wanted to be part of the new Zeitgeist. Problem was the music defined the Beach Boys was limited in its aesthetic and 'philosophical' scope. Then, it is hardly surprising that PET SOUNDS is one of the most interesting albums in rock history, as both a great failure and great success. It betrays the limits to which this lush feel-good music could be stylistically and emotionally advanced, yet the result was ravishing just the same(not least because of the tension between innocence and ambition). Its cinematic equivalent is probably Jacques Demy's UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG or YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT--fusion of musical entertainment and high concept art.

Anyway, just as Sontag later came to regret what came out of the pandora's box--which she'd helped open--, Dylan boxed himself in from the world and hid out after BLONDE ON BLONDE while rock music grew ever more arty--and then to re-emerge with a simpler contrarian sound when rock had become defined by outlandish experimentation and grandiose mannerisms. This is a pattern we see again and again with Jews and gentiles in the modern world. The smarter and wilier Jews rebel against the status quo, come up with something new and daring, and then many less intelligent gentiles jump on the bandwagon and imitate and do as the Jew. But, the tireless Jew soon gets tired his new idea or act as it's been reduced to a mass formula copied and regurgitated by dimwit goyim. When this happens, the Jew either has two options. He or she can come up yet more 'radical' or 'esoteric' ideas and stay ahead of the game(like Sontag sought to do in the 70s and 80s) OR he or she can turn away from the chaos and complexity and return to the basics and recover the long, lost, and forgotten(like Dylan since the late 60s or Sontag in her final waning years when her obsession was not with the new but the forgotten European writers of the past.)

Anyway, these changes were happening as much in cinema as in music. Just as intellectuals began to take rock music seriously--a serious reevaluation of Jazz had already taken place in the 50s--, there were new ways of looking at movies in the 60s. Perhaps, this didn't really matter to the masses for whom movies were, well, movies. But, in the critical and creative community, it did matter because it determined what kinds of movies should be remembered and made. Most Tarantino fans may not be cinephiles, BUT the kind of movies Tarantino loves and makes would be inconceivable without the cultural developments that go back to the 60s.

Today, we think of 'guilty pleasure' as a BAD movie we enjoy. Prior to the changes in the 60s, it could have just as well referred to a good Hollywood movie. For the serious cinephiles in the 50s and early 60s, Hollywood movies were for entertainment or diversion, not for serious study or consideration. Though there had already been cultural tremors in the 50s, the changes came to fruition in the 60s.

Today, film culture is very inclusive. To be a serious cinephile means you can--even MUST--like everything from Bresson to Blaxploitation, from Carl Dreyer to Russ Meyer. Some may hail this as a good development, but others disagree. It's one thing to argue that directors working in entertainment genres can be highly original in their reworkings of formulas, but it's quite another to, Zelig-like, switch back and forth from total garbage to great art. This is especially problematic with Tarantino and his diehard fans whose love for cinema is like that of a mother to all her children, even retarded and ugly ones.

Look at the individual critical entries for 10 Best Films of All Time poll in Sight & Sound Magazine, and many of the choices are really beyond the pale. Many critics seem either willfully or stupidly unable to differentiate good entertainment to bad entertainment. It's one thing to admire the works of the singular Sergio Leone but quite another to go bat-shit crazy over 100s of third-rate spaghetti imitations. Watching KILL BILL was like watching a compendium of the 100 worst moments in Asian cinema.

It's hard enough to imitate the best, so why go out of one's way to imitate the very worst? There are indeed 'good bad movies' but there are far more 'bad bad movies' which aren't worth our memory cells nor shelf space in the archives.

In the 90s, some kid working inside the Swiss Banks purported to have found Holocaust Jewish money that hadn't been returned to its owners. Though the actual amount turned out to be far less than the hyped news initially suggested, it became part of the myth of the Holocaust Industry. Likewise, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS at times pretends to be a precious film recovered from a long forgotten vault of American and European cinema, but it's more like something concocted by Geraldo Rivera.

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS will surely be a delight for movie buffs for whom life simply means watching and discussing movies and more movies. I've seen enough movies to spot some reference in IB. The opening scene is a twist on Sergio Leone's ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. I also spotted references to PATTON--Brad Pitt's speech--, DIRTY DOZEN--training a lunatic squad to blow up Nazi officers--, and some others I forgot. But I'm not a movie geek who's seen everything and no expert at film-allusion-scrabble-and-trivial-pursuit. And I don't think a movie director ought to be a DJ, which is what Tarantino is.

Isn't it more admirable or nobler to come up with one's own stuff than mix and match the visions of other people? At least you can dance to DJ-made music. A DJ-made movie only services geeky gawking for the purpose of spot-the-reference game playing. Tarantino should really be a host of a movie trivia game show. Besides, it was a lot more fun and unpretentious when the Zucker brothers did it with AIRPLANE or when Stanley Donen did it with SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. The Zuckers and Donen were just having fun whereas Tarantino is staking a claim as one of the all-time greats.

Men take charge and create whereas boys only follow and imitate, and Tarantino is a perpetual boy. Akira Kurosawa took ideas from other directors--as all directors do--, but he created and held to his own vision. YOJIMBO may be modeled on the American western and may have taken some ideas from Hammett's RED HARVEST, but it is stamped with Kurosawa's powerful originality. Though Sergio Leone's FISTFUL OF DOLLARS is, in terms of plot, taken scene by scene from YOJIMBO, Leone created a unique and original style.

Other than RESERVOIR DOGS, Tarantino's films amount to little more than a pastiche of movie trivia crammed inside a stink bomb. Worse, Tarantino doesn't seem to really understand the directors he claims to admire. His brand of fan-worship is superficial. He's not interested in Godard the intellect but Godard the image. Tarantino picks the lice on the head than the thoughts inside. A celebrity hog, he is obsessed with the trappings of fame, glamour, and notoriety than meaning, depth, or truth. In many ways, he's the cinematic counterpart to Camille Paglia.

Like Tarantino with RESERVOIR DOGS, Paglia legitimately entered the cultural scene with an estimable work, SEXUAL PESONAE. But intoxicated by fame and fortune, she soon lost it and became a caricature of herself. Less a critic and thinker than a celebrity and personality. Both Tarantino and Paglia have Mussolini's blood running through them. Consider that Il Duce too started out as a genuine intellectual and writer but then morphed into an overblow egomaniac standing behind a cult-of-personality. If anything, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS can be seen as a kind of pop fascism--cult of personality erected for oneself--despite its anti-Nazi credentials. (But is it really anti-Nazi?)

Well, if spiritual sanctimony and iconography can shroud the materialist and rationalist ideology of Marxism, I suppose pop fascism could just as easily serve a Jewish-dominated democracy and vain liberal Hollywood celebrities? (After all, the powerful Jews behind the rise of Obama seem to have appropriated some of the key motifs and methods from fascism and employed them to make white people revere their boy-king as the new fuhrer-messiah.)

Tarantino and Paglia are different in this regard from Bob Dylan and Susan Sontag. Whatever their failings or dubiousness, it cannot be said Dylan or Sontag ever gave up thinking seriously about matters of substance whereas the spotlight of celebritydom seems to have transformed Tarantino and Paglia into media whores. They don't even realize that they've become self-parodies, and if they do, probably don't mind but rather enjoy the self-absorption. In a way, Tarantino and Paglia are demonstrations of what happens when relatively inferior minds get hold of serious art or ideas.

Jewish intelligence is something special, but high intelligence isn't synonymous with being smart or wise, and I'm afraid Jews miscalculated big time by financing and hyping this movie. Though many Jews seemed to have gotten a hardon from this movie, they might have come all over themselves.

Do Hollywood Jews have ANY IDEA what they've done to the sacred memory of Jewish suffering in WWII? If INGLORIOUS BASTERDS becomes a new template for WWII movies, the entire war will become just a song-and-dance routine--unreal, abstract, trashy, ridiculous, and profane. (How long before a Hollywood cartoon or musical?) Jews gained great moral traction as a result of WWII. The world came to see them as helpless victims, saints, martyrs, survivors, noble souls, etc. Much of the sympathy revolved around Jewish victimhood at the hands of the near-invincible cold-as-ice Nazi killer robots. There were also stories of Jewish resistance and heroism, but they were told with solemnity and respect. INGLORIOUS BASTERDS kicks all of that into a rat-infested sewer.

In the movie, Nazis are mostly a bunch of silly clods who can easily be wiped out, and Jews are badass invincible mofos who can ambush, torture, kill, and scalp any number of Nazis. In other words, it's almost as if Jews have been Nazified and Nazis have been Jewified.

Jews may feel haw-haw jolly good watching Jewish supermen kick Nazi ass, but for audiences around the world INGLORIOUS BASTERDS makes a mockery of the eternal image of the noble spiritual Jew. Instead, we get vile, disgusting, sadistic, and monstrous Jews. The Jews in this movie mock and laugh at their victims like Nazis did with Jews in SCHINDLER'S LIST--or like Ramon's henchmen in Leone's FISTFUL OF DOLLARS when the Man with No Name gets beaten up really bad.

Viewers may argue that the Jews are historically and morally justified in feeling murderous rage toward Germans, but such rationalization does little good for the Jewish image. If anything, we are likely to feel disgust at most of the Jews in this movie. They seem shallow, childish, insipid, and morally brain-dead. We don't even sense much in the way of righteous or vengeful rage. When the Bear Jew batters a Nazi officer to death, it only looks like a sadistic orgy. David Duke would have us believe that Tarantino and his Jewish backers are simply goading us to hate Nazis or Germans, but the emotional impact is likely to be something quite different. Tarantino could have made his Jewish characters nobler, more dignified, and justified, but he doesn't. They just come across as fearsome overgrown sewer rats of Goebbels' propaganda who delight in maiming and killing people for fun. It's as if Nazi crimes are a godsend to these sadistic freaks for the crimes serve as morally convenient opportunities for vile sadistic Jews to kill and maim as many Germans as possible. They seem psychotic or zombie-like than morally enraged.

Also, Tarantino could have emotionally justified the killing of German prisoners by making them monstrous and inhuman, as Spielberg did in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, in which every Nazi was so brutish or odious that we cheered Indiana Jones to kill more and more. But most of the Germans in IB are not particularly evil nor monstrous--other than Hitler and Goebbels, but even they are allowed a touching moment or two; they are also clownish enough to make their evil seem endearing at times, like Chaplin's Great Dictator. The most evil character in the movie is an SS officer, but then he is the most interesting and entertaining character in the movie--he ranks in the 'love to hate' category than in the 'hate and hate'. Also, he is allowed to live, though with a swastika carved into his head. (Brad Pitt's monologue prior to the carving was surely lifted from Lee Van Cleef's prior to his cold-blooded murders in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY.)

With such unappetizing, deranged, or downright dull Jewish characters and several engaging Nazi or German characters, IB is more than a simple anti-German or anti-Nazi movie offering a manichean view of history. Indeed, even unpleasant Nazis are presented as more interesting and even admirable--in their own way--than Brad Pitt and his Jewish henchmen thugs. In one scene in the basement, the mental duel between anti-Nazi plotters and a Gestapo agent presents the latter as a dashing, handsome, intelligent, and formidable opponent. And the Nazi regalia and imagery throughout the movie looks dazzling in Pop Art fashion--more cool and impressive than cold and menacing.

A young Nazi military hero(whose exploits have been made into a movie to be screened to Nazi bigwigs) is very like a German Audie Murphy--essentially a fresh-faced kid without guile, possessed of some basic conscience, and hopelessly in love with a blonde French movie theater owner, at whose venue the film commemorating his heroism is to be screened. The theater owner is actually the young Jewess who fled from the SS in the opening scene and hides under a false identity. She is prickly, distant, and cold toward the German hero-soldier who loves her. Even if we understand the reasons for her hostility, she comes across as a deranged character--like Lady Kaeda in Akira Kurosawa's RAN or the vengeful spirit in Fritz Lang's KRIEMHILD'S REVENGE. We can sympathize with her motives but not with her soul which has turned psychotic, destructive, and murderous. Especially because of her blond 'Aryan' looks, she registers as an ice-queen. Even her romantic attachment to a Negro has multiple meanings. It can be seen as a wonderfully progressive pro-miscegenationist message... or as confirmation of Nazi propaganda that Jews are a bunch of disgusting 'nigger-lovers'. Or maybe she chose a Negro mate to defile the Nazi ideal of blonde racial purity. She is a Jew who looks 'Aryan' and thus destroys the Aryan within her by pressing her lips and body against those of a black thug beast.

Admittedly, there is something odd about a blond Aryan-looking Jewess 'kissing a nigger'. It's long been the objective of Jews to marry or have children with blonde 'Aryans' while making white gentiles mix with the Negroes. Look at most Jews today and they marry hot blondes or other smart Jews. Most of Hollywood's pro-miscegenationist propaganda is aimed at unwashed masses of white goyim. It is a mean to pussify the once proud white males--who now imitate rappers if they're dumb and uneducated OR worship black Jazz and literature if they're bright and educated--and to jungle-feverize the vaginas of white women. Yet, the lover of the Negro in the movie is a Jewess, which is a case of ROTFLMAO. This can be read in many ways: as a symbolic and spiritual alliance of two 'oppressed' groups OR as a mischievous rebuke to the Jewish community, as if to say, "If you Jews love 'niggers' so much, YOU kiss and fâ€” them."

Also, the pop-culturalization of the Nazis as cool, hip, badass, witty, and charming has finally become mainstream with this film. Of course, there had been funny and entertaining Nazis before--Hogan's Heroes for instance. Or take the Nazi enemies in Indiana Jones movies. And there have been Nazi motifs and fetishism in the gay community and other subcultures. Even so, Nazi-ness tended to be culturally caricatured as only ONE of the following: 'funny', 'ridiculous', 'pure evil', 'brutish', 'psychotic', 'sexy', 'radical', or 'perverted'. Nazis were one thing or the other than multi-faceted creatures. It's only with INGLORIOUS BASTERDS that the Nazis take on a whole range of attributes to be found in POPULAR CULTURE. (Of course, there have been SERIOUS films which presented Nazis as something other than caricatures, but our concern is popular cinema.) IB presents caricatures of Nazis, but the Nazis fit into more than one category. We don't just get stupid funny Nazis or evil crazy Nazis but all sorts of iconic Nazis. If Lt. Aldo Raines and his Jewish soldiers seem something out of TV sitcoms like 'Welcome Back Carter'--American and stupid--, some of the Nazi characters have sparkle and charm. The only Nazis who come across as crudely simplistic are actual historical figures like Hitler and Goebbels who register as counterparts of Aldo and his cartoonish gang of Jewish henchmen. Perhaps, it's Tarantino's sly way of suggesting that Hitler, though a Jew-hater, was essentially a tyrannical Teutonic equivalent of ruthless, vulgar, power-mad, and uncouth Jews--like Weinsteins for example--who run Hollywood as a world empire. In a way, if you read between lines or see between the frames of IB, the movie really feels like a cinephile or film buff rebellion against the Nazi-like Jews who run Hollywood.

The story presents an alliance among Americans, British, good French, and Jews against the evil Germans, but the Nazi big wigs in the movie come across as so Hollywood-ish, so Jewishy in the manner of socially climbing rags-to-riches movie moguls. Indeed, the sight and sound of Hitler and his bigshots guffawing like kings of vulgarity at a movie screening evokes images of Jewish studio bosses who, for all their social pomposity and overreaching, cared for little but the lowest common denominator. In that sense, one could argue that IB's Nazi Germans are, to an extent, stand-ins for Hollywood and its cultural hegemony in the world.

And, Aldo Raines could well stand for the simple-mindedness of American 'neo-imperialist' thinking--God and Country and "Blow them up" mentality of Colonel Kilgore school--during the Bush yrs. Raines is a fun guy but an unthinking lout. He has less remorse or conscience than even some of the Germans in the movie. He hardly has any personal sense of 'right and wrong' beyond what his superiors tell him and order him to do. If he'd been a German, he would have just as mindlessly obeyed the orders of the Wehrmacht's officers. If he's told to go after evil Nazis, he does just that. If told to go after evil Iraqis and WMD, he would have done that too. (In this sense, IB may be a pointed more criticism of the Iraq War than HURT LOCKER or AVATAR.)

Many Europeans in the post-war era felt that German Occupation and military imperialism had been replaced by American Occupation and cultural imperialism. European cinema--especially French cinema--has mounted a valiant if losing battle against the blitzkrieg of Hollywood and Rock/Rap culture. And even though it's not politically permissible to blurt it out in public, much of anti-Americanism has been a kind of anti-Jewishism. After all, Jewish Wall Street controls world finance, Jewish AIPAC controls US foreign policy--especially in relation to the Middle East--, Jewish Hollywood floods the world with its movies, and Jewish-controlled music industry has disseminated rock and rap music all over the world. Over the yrs, Jewish power has become even more brazen, chutzpahstic, aggressive, self-righteous, and overbearing.

So, the big screen image of the goddess of "Jewish vengeance" near the end of the film has at least three meanings. On the most literal and obvious level, it is Jewish rage ravaging the Nazis. But it can also be seen as Jewish-American assault on ALL of Europe, as if to say "since you Europeans let the Holocaust happen, we Hollywood Jews will do everything to destroy your white European culture." (This Jewish hatred based on the Holocaust is targeted at American whites too. Even though countless white Americans died in WWII to defeat Hitler, many Jews still want to weaken and destroy White America. In a way, Hollywood movies can be seen as form of Jewish Vengeance against all of the white race. Take a movie like FRIED GREEN TOMATOES which says white women should side with gays--Mary Stuart Masterson's character is an ersatz-lesbian--and blacks to destroy and even kill the evil white males. It is a Jewish version of BIRTH OF A NATION. Hollywood movies don't merely try to examine and critique the past but disseminate murderous hatred against whites. One of the most effective ways is by vilifying and attacking white males than all whites. If all whites were attacked by Jews, white men and women would unite as targets of Jews. Instead, the clever Jews and Jewesses cooked up feminism whereby white women too could earn the status of 'noble victims' IF they sided with 'people-of-color', gays, and Jews AGAINST the white male. Indeed, when the majority of white women voted for Obama--a perverse and disgusting product of sex between a vile African communist tribalist and a shameless self-loathing mudshark--, liberal and even neocon Jews across America were giddy with joy. Jews now feel that the backbone of unity of white males and white females has been broken forever. Educated white females come under the influence of Jewish ideologues who run the colleges. As for lower class white females, they've lost respect for their men who have lost hope and pride as their jobs have been shipped overseas, who physically cower before tougher black males, and who are turning to alcohol, meth, and ass tattoos as escapism from reality. Majority of white women are now hooked to Oprah and Obama, both of whom are essentially creations of the Jewish media.

Europeans loathe the American White Right perceived to be ultra-religious, anti-rational, ignorant, and militarily aggressive in going anywhere around the world to 'fight terror'. But, there is also an important difference between the European Left and the American Left. Europe may be more 'progressive' than the US, but it is not, for the most part, dominated by Jewish power. Europe is not a puppet of AIPAC Zionism--even though Europeans are too fearful or guilt-ridden about Jews to mount an effective challenge against Zionist Imperialism. Most of all, Europeans know that Hollywood and American Popular Music are not the products of American conservatives but of American Jewish liberals. Some of these movies--Dark Knight, Iron Man, 300, etc--may pander to 'conservative' feelings, but they are made by liberal Jews to rake in more money with which to buy more political influence and make more movies to take over the world. Seen in this way, IB could be implying that Jews are even bigger Nazis than the Nazis. Hitler wanted to dominate the European continent whereas Jews want to dominate and own the entire world.) But, there is yet another way to interpret the goddess of "Jewish Vengeance". She could be seen as carrying the torch for film heritage and art against the idea of film as pure commercialism. Think of all the films that were butchered or lost forever by the neglect of Studios which put profit over all else. So, using reels of films as the weapon to destroy cultural tyranny could be seen as an artistic kamikaze--ghost of Carl Dreyer's PASSION OF JEANNE D'ARC--against the mindless commercialism of Hollywood. The one burning at the stake takes everyone with her.

In the opening scene, the SS colonel Hans Landa says he can sniff out the Jews because he, unlike other Germans, can think like a Jew. He's the ultimate subversive, a kind of self-conscious Zelig. For all we know, he might even be a closet gay, given his anger over the killing of his subordinate in the final scene.

If Zelig had no control over his transformations, Landa consciously and brilliantly wants to be anything and everything, depending on where his lust for privilege takes him. In this sense, he's both the best Nazi and not a Nazi at all. He's risen up the Nazi ranks because Nazism was the ticket to the biggest show in town, but he could have been just as happy serving the Soviets if that had been his chance at fame and fortune. If necessary, you can even imagine him masquerading as a Jew and rising up in Israeli society. Indeed, in his opportunism and many-faced-ness, he is more Jewish than Jews even if he is or plays at being a Nazi. When he finally betrays the Nazis, he seems utterly unperturbed and without remorse. He also speaks perfect Italian. In this sense, the swastika carved into his head is most unfortunate and unfair because he's less a Nazi than the ultimate weasel, the chameleon who could just as well serve the NKVD, SS, OSS, Mossad, or whatever. He would be at home working in Hollywood. He is utterly ruthless with no fixed ideology. For him, Nazism or any other -ism is just the latest historical or political fad to master, manipulate, and use. Power and privilege are his real ideology. If Aldo Raines' Jewish goon squad is like Nazi Jews in their brutal thuggery, Landa is like a Jewish Nazi in his weasel-ish nature. To mark him with a knife as the Eternal Nazi is to miss the point, but it's a mistake we seem to make all too often. It's like we've come to associate anything evil or bad as "Nazi". So, Hussein was a Nazi, Iran is the New Nazi state, Bush is a Nazi, Obama is a Nazi, Cheney is a Nazi, Pelosi is a Nazi, Chavez is a Nazi, Hamas are Nazis, and yes, Zionists are Nazis too.

I suppose one could argue that there was an element of cynical opportunism in Nazism, but then it's something present in ALL societies and cultures. If we mark ruthless hunger for power as 'Nazi', then US is filled with Nazis, many of them Jews on Wall Street and Hollywood. This brings us back to the question... 'what was Tarantino really up to?' He too must have had some difficult times dealing with Hollywood Jews. Is Tarantino a cunning character who, like Landa, can think like a Jew? Did he outjew the Hollywood Jews? Did he actually make an anti-Nazi movie that is subtextually anti-Jewish? If so, how did Jews fall for this? I thought they were supposed to be smart. Maybe, Jews do know what Tarantino is up to but also know that most people are TOO DUMB to pick up on this. If we go by the criticism of the movie by David Duke and white rightards, Jews may well be right.

Even if some of my suspicions may be correct, I don't much care for IB if only because cunning duplicity in art ultimately amounts to little. Tarantino may have made his most complex, multi-layered, ironic, and self-referential movie yet, but it is not to be confused or compared with the best of Jean-Luc Godard or real artists. Godard at his best was a poet and a maverick, not a smug smarmy punk. Godard had in spades what Tarantino doesn't have at all: conviction. IB can be seen as a movie about a movie, but there is little to take from it except film geekish self-flattery. Besides, like that other phony Todd Haynes, Tarantino tries to play it both ways or every which way. In the end, he's feels superior to both the dummies who take his films straight and to the smarties who stroke their precious cleverness for, wink-wink, 'getting it'. IB is less a Brechtian or Godardian musical than an expensive juvenile prank. Godard, for his all his faults and strangeness--and even lunacy--was deeply concerned, fascinated, and troubled by nature of cinema, the power of movies, and the relations movies have with reality, psychology, and politics as evinced by HISTOIRE DU CINEMA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRSQFVFILBI

What attracted Tarantino was Godard's iconic image as the cool cutting-edge fimmaker of the 60s. Tarantino, like Haynes, imitates Godard's games but has no real understanding of the rules or consequences. All said and done, what we really sense from Tarantino's movie is comfort, complacency, self-satisfaction, and privilege than a truly daring and courageous sensibility. However one may feel about D. W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION, Dziga Vertov's MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA, Gillo Pontecorvo's BATTLE OF ALGIERS, Melvin Van Peebles' SWEET SWEETBACK'S BADASS SONG, Sam Peckinpah's BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALDREDO GARCIA, George Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD, David Lynch's MULHOLLAND DR. or Mel Gibson's PASSION OF THE CHRIST, there is no mistaking that they are movies of real conviction. One can hate these movies but cannot deny that they were made with real vision and courage.

Tarantino is a many-masked weasel with no real artistic face. He is something-for-everyone. The remarks about 'niggers' in RESERVOIR DOGS or PULP FICTION will please people who don't much like Negroes. The black guy kissing a blond woman and other acts of miscegenation in his films will please Negroes and dorky white liberal men who pitifully jack-off to interracial porn. The sight of Jews bashing Nazis will please Jews with a vengeful vendetta. The anti-Jewish subtext will please white nationalists. Film geeks will love the artificiality of it all. Slobs will enjoy his films as popcorn movies. Intellectuals will take pride in being tuned into Tarantino's below-the-radar signals. And so on.

In truth, Tarantino the con artist is putting all of us on. In RESERVOIR DOGS, a black cop tells Tim Roth that "if you're not a great actor, you're a shitty actor". Tim Roth goes undercover and plays both sides. In IB, the Jewish girl goes 'undercover' to take down the Nazis. In PULP FICTION, the two hitmen change into dorky clothes after their car has been splattered with 'nigger brains'. KILL BILL is a revenge story with character going through various disguises. It's gotten to a point where Tarantino, like Peter Sellers, no longer seems to know what he really is or stands for. Perhaps being ugly and unpleasant in person, he found a way to hide behind the many masks of cinema and film theory.

Many of us came to cinematic consciousness through the films of Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman, Robert Bresson, Kenji Mizoguchi, Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, etc. All men of genuine conviction. Godard was perhaps the greatest oddball of cinema, but no one can deny his grappling with the world and cinema's role in it. Godard toyed around, but he was not the shameless opportunist that Tarantino is. If Tim Roth's troubled conscience in RESERVOIR DOGS infused that film with moral crisis and tension, we find much less that is compelling in Tarantino's subsequent movies. Something genuinely affecting could have been done with Bruce Willis's troubled conscience in PULP FICTION, but it degenerated into a kind of film geek/freak/beatnik exercise in putrid I'm-cooler-and-badasser-than-thou excessiveness.

Orson Welles made great films out of pulp material; he transformed muck into miracle whereas Tarantino turns trash into bigger trash. Essentially, IB is a combination of TEAM AMERICA and THE BLACK BOOK(by Paul Verhoeven). TEAM AMERICA is trash that can be enjoyed as trash. Paul Verhoeven's BLACK BOOK is a genuine work of art with layers of meaning and the full spectrum of human drama--love, hate, humor, absurdity, greed, honor, duplicity, etc. IB tries to be both but is actually neither. It has too many drawn-out dramatic moments to work as mere parodys. It has too many goofy references for it to work on the level of drama. Too much nihilism for moral instruction and too much sentimentality for fratboy antics. What's ultimately offensive is not so much Tarantino's cleverness or childishness but the pretension that he has something to say. Tarantino is Landa, Landa is Tarantino. Essentially a nihilistic soulless chameleon who will do and pretend anything to get ahead. He's the ultimate post-modernist, and this is why his use of WWII is dangerous. Everything becomes removed from its historical source and loses its moral bearing. It all becomes a game of signs, symbols, stereotypes, and cliches. We've seen a lot of this as Hollywood has been in the business of recycling old movies and even TV shows, but there is a difference between remaking fiction into junk and remaking history into junk. Of course, all movies are fiction no matter how serious or unserious, whether they are based on true events or merely fantasized. But, there was once a sense that a movie based on TRAGIC EVENTS should have some reverence for the material--or if not, at least drop the pretense of being serious or important art. Hogan's Heroes isn't offensive as it's clearly unreal. IB is offensive for its epic pretensions and proportions.

It would be bad enough to make something like the Holocaust Musical, but INGLORIOUS BASTERDS may be even worse. A Holocaust Musical done in Mel Brooks style could still be seen for what it is: a work of horribly bad taste made by a juvenile mind. But, what is a movie about the horrors of WWII that blurs the lines between history and fiction, tragedy and comedy, art and entertainment, seriousness and kidding around? Perhaps a great satirical mind could pull it off, but Tarantino is nothing of the sort. He is rather like Terry Gilliam, another director whose main concern is clever visual gizmos built from the junk heap of movie history.

There is something inhumanly and pervasively retarded about our culture. In one episode of SOUTH PARK, the Lincoln statue in the Memorial comes to life and then it is shot in the back of the head by a John Wilkes Booth statue. Fans of SOUTH PARK may defend it as funning around, pushing the envelope, or satire, but is it really? Satire of what? Of it's own stupidity and infantilism? And what is the purpose of pushing the envelope in that manner? Why turn a personal and national tragedy into something for idiot kids to guffaw about? I'm all for free speech, and I fully defend Parker and Stone to make their idiot cartoons, but what's the point of inhuman garbage? If Parker and Stone really believe that Lincoln was a horrible man and should have been shot, at least that would carry the weight of conviction. Wishing violence out of genuine hatred--justified or not in others' eyes--is at least based on some feeling or rationale. What we often get in SOUTH PARK or Tarantino films is violence as mindless pranks. If SOUTH PARK's cartoon-ness at least maintains the surfeit of unreality, this cannot be said for Tarantino who goes for realistic graphic violence. It's bad enough to see an historical event turned into a ridiculous circus, but it's worse when the circus is made to look real. What are to we take from this cleverness but the giggling idiocy of counter-cleverness of post-modern 'critical' thought?

Good art may or may not inspire good criticism, but bad art certainly inspires the worst if it dupes people of its cultural worth. Just think of what has happened to the art world since the rise of clever frauds such as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein. There's no longer any barrier between self-promotion, criticism, and commerce. Indeed, everyone seems to take pride in the fraud and corruption as long as they are flaunted as what art is all about. Or, take what has happened to film criticism since the rise of retards as Todd Haynes and Quentin Tarantino. Where is the opposition to such pretentiousness, crassness, fraudulence, indulgence, and pomposity? The critical community seems only happy to aid and abet this fraud. One reason could be that the critical community is so dominated by hideous liberal and leftist Jews--and their less intelligent and slavish and imitative goy girls and boys(generally second-rate WASP 'thinkers' who, as white bread dullards, need to leech off the thoughts of others).

There is also the prevailing PC, which people like Tarantino plays for and against. Liberals and leftists like to consider themselves as free spirits and as anti-establishmentarians, but Political Correctness was their creation. PC rose especially in the late 80s as a kind of McCarthyism of the Left. It has been far more insidious than McCarthyism since pro-PC forces now control many more institutions than McCarthyites ever did. Liberals and Leftists have used PC to destroy careers, suppress thought, criminalize speech, and etc. They've done so in the name of 'social justice' and other crap they've cooked up. But, the problem is PC has robbed liberals and leftists of their former image as mavericks and free spirits. Liberals have become a bunch of Oleannas. So, Tarantino is a perfect compromise for liberals to have it both ways since he serves up raucous doses of political incorrectness--'nigger' words, machismo on steroids, sexual and racial stereotypes, gun fetishism, etc--but within the perimeters of what passes for post-modern self-parody and ultimately 'progressive' values. So, even though lots of 'nigger' words are heard, Tarantino's films are very admiring of black coolness and toughness. He also seems to be pro-miscegenationist. In other words, 'nigger' isn't necessarily an insult in the Tarantino-ian universe; it is often a badge of honor. A 'nigger' is what a lame white boy wants to be. Sarah Silverman gets away with the same shit.

Quentin and Sarah function as momentary escape valves for liberals who've erected PC walls around themselves--and around us as well.

Whatever happened to the days of Lenny Bruce and Norman Mailer? Didn't the Left stand for outrage and freedom when the Right was all uptight and square? How does a liberal square his support for the PC police state with the conceit of himself being a free spirit? Well, he supports the PC agenda in real life and then laughs his clever head at Tarantino movies and Silverman standup comedy routines to show that he's libertine, hip, and cool.

The utter corruption and self-delusion of the crass liberal yuppie class are getting more and more apparent by the day. So, Don Imus gets fired and lambasted for 'nappy headed ho' remark while Silverman rakes in tens of millions of dollars a year. Liberals push for ever more 'hate speech' legislation while Tarantino fills up the screen with laughing inhumanity, murder, and mayhem. In other words, sincere 'hatred' is to be criminalized while inhumanity posing as postmodernist cleverness is to be lauded.

There was a recent squabble in the NY film critic community between the Angry Negro Armond White and a whole bunch of NY and Hollywood Jews--who, by the way, don't represent most white people. The movie in question GREENBERG is as kosher as anything by Woody Allen. If there is anything 'white' about it, it's only because so many dumb white gentiles have allowed American Jews to define the agenda and intellectual/social/cultural fashions for them.

Anyway, even though Armond White is a crazyass Negro and a truly deranged lunatic, there is some truth to what he said about Jewish power though even a big-ass Negro like him didn't have the balls to call it by its real name: JEW POWER. He just called it white power. He works in NY after all. NY liberal Jews are among the most cunning and devious in the world. NY has undergone what might be called Gentric Cleansing. Money rules and so many poor people--generally non-Jews--have been pushed out. NY liberal Jews preach 'social jusitce' while creating a privileged world around themselves. Much the same is true of cinema and TVs. So much of it's Jew, Jew, Jew in terms of characters, themes, values, agendas, biases, and style. A stupid Jewish neurosis is supposed to matter more to us than the stories of Americans spread out across 50 states.

Armond White's nemesis, J. Hoberman, though a knowledgeable and intelligent critic, is also an intellectually corrupt son-of-a-bitch whose preferred template for future cinema is stuff like I'M NOT THERE by Todd Haynes, a film so dull, sterile, and pretentious in its self-referential and self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectualism that it conveys little more than certain class privilege based on 'intellectual' status than substance. It is the favored cultural toy of yuppie liberals who lay all claim to privilege and progressivism. It's really all about them, their conceits, their delusions, and their narcissism. I'M NOT THERE is a spot-the-reference trivia game, a stale parlor room exercise for the products of elite universities who landed plush jobs--either in the private or public sector--in the name of truth and justice. (It is also for lower-status 'bohemian' and/or 'radical' people who hang around and economically leech off the privileged liberal urban class despite or precisely because of envious resentment and wanna-be complex. For all their anti-bourgeois mannerisms, the 'radical' or 'bohemian' types would like nothing more than to enjoy liberal yuppie lifestyles themselves or hang around those 'beautiful people'. It is a symbiotic relationship because rich yuppie liberals don't wanna be regarded as square, stuffy, whitebread, and bourgeois. So, rich yuppies patronize the arts & culture of 'radicals' and 'bohemians' while the 'radicals' and 'bohemians' cater and pander to the cultural and political pretensions of the liberal yuppie class.)

Obama is the biggest such fraud, a postmodernist president, manufactured by liberal Jews who control the media as a jumble of signifiers--1000 things to a 1000 people. Obama, Haynes, and Tarantino all share one quality: smugness, sense of entitlement, complacency, and the knowledge that the liberal Jewish power elite--in culture, business, or politics--is out to protect, promote, and take care of them. America is essentially a Jewish Empire, which is all the more dangerous since Jews cannot be criticized lest one's forehead be engraved with the swastika. Jews are often credited when they do good, but when they do bad or dubious things, their abuses are labeled generically as 'white'. So, the abuses of the Hollywood and intellectual community is said to represent 'white' privilege when, in fact, most whites Americans--middle class and working class gentiles--have very little stake in arts, culture, entertainment, media, and academia of this country. This is even truer if one happens to be a conservative white. The only kind of conservatives who've gained any leverage in the culture war are Neocons, most of whom happen to be Jewish and agree with liberal Jews on matters such as illegal immigration, Zionism, and Jewish power.

Though Tarantino hasn't yet made a zombie movie, the zombie is the best metaphor for what his movies are about. First, there is the brain-dead aspect to all his films following RESERVOIR DOGS. By 'brain-dead' I don't necessarily mean lack of wit or cleverness but lack of human emotions and soulfulness. One has to be an emotional zombie to giggle and guffaw through the pornographic hideousness of movies like PULP FICTION or KILL BILL. Or one has to be a repressed Orwellian PC idiot if he needs to suck on a Tarantino film to feel like a free spirit. In this sense, Tarantino's films are kinda like a drug to PC liberals. Though ever so politically correct in their thoughts and actions in real life, PC liberals seek escapism in the cool and badass Leone-Peckinpah-Lenny-Bruce-Blaxploitation land when they watch a Tarantino flick. PULP FICTION is to PC white liberals what heroin is to the Travolta character in the movie. It is a kind of fix. It makes them feel liberated, cutting edge, nihilistic, dangerous.

Of course, smug liberals--especially the Jews--have come up with a clever cover or rationalization for their schizophrenia. They'll tell us and convince themselves that when they wallow in 'nigger' words, violence, hateful emotions, vengeance, mayhem, and so forth through Tarantino's movies or Sarah Silverman's comedy routines, they are indulging in giggly irony and gaggly satire than in bigotry. Generally, Jewish liberals will cook up some brilliant-sounding excuses for their double standards and hypocrisies which will then be parroted by less intelligent, pussified, castrated, lobotomized, and metrosexualized white boys. Indeed, it always amuses me that white liberal men, who try so hard to suppress their own toughness and manhood for the sake of sensitivity and progress, are so eager to admire and revere black males for their uncompromised toughness, manhood, sensuality, power, and anger. A pussified white liberal boy is always telling his fellow white brothers that they should line up to be castrated but then goes to stand in line to suck the dick of some badass Negro. In other words, the liberal white believes that real manhood should be the domain only of Negroes. There are probably two reason for this: historical-moral and biological-sensual. Since white liberal boys come under the indoctrination of Jew-controlled media, they've been told over and over that white males have committed 99% of evil in the world. Thus, liberal and even some conservative white males now think in terms of: white manhood = evil. Thus, the ONLY way a white guy can be good is to become pussified. But, there is also the fact that blacks have tougher/rougher voices, bigger muscles, longer dicks, more groove and rhythm in music, etc. White males who are ideologically pussified cannot find any pleasure in their own manhood, so they seek pleasure in manhood by worshiping that of the Negro. Something similar operates between white liberal gentiles and Jews. The Jewish-run media and academia have brainwashed generations of kids that history of Western gentile amounts to little more than 'racism' that led to imperialism and the Holocaust. So, white gentiles are afraid to think for themselves since white ideas and values can only lead to evil. So, white males and females have shut their own minds off and depend on the Jews to think for them.

Another way in which Tarantino's movies are Zombiesque is that they represent a mindless cannibalization of culture. In the film DAWN OF THE DEAD, civilization as a forward moving entity is finished. Mindless/soulless zombies roam the land, devouring the dwindling number of humans still capable of thought and feeling. As for human survivors, they no longer have the opportunity to do anything productive or creative. They can only hope to live or leech off things produced in the past. So, the protagonists find refuge in an abandoned shopping mall and live off the supplies produced and stocked BEFORE the rise of the zombies. One can debate as to whether Tarantino is a mindless zombie devouring the last remnants of living/healthy culture OR an opportunistic survivor of the cultural calamity living off the riches of the past, but either way, but there is almost nothing new in his movies. It is either a cannibalization or a parasitic leeching off of film heritage and history. Tarantino is mindlessly zombiesque in utterly having no discerning taste. Just as a zombie will eat ANY human being, Tarantino will cannibalize anything put on film--from the highest or the lowest--without pride and prejudice. Cinema becomes in his hands what becomes of food inside the mouth of a glutton who stuffs his mouth with caviar, cookies, lobster tails, ice cream, green beans, french fries, burgers, and filet mignon all at the same time. It is the worst kind of mongrelization or miscegenation of art and culture. And, I'm not sure it's the oral orifice that Tarantino shoves the film heritage into since much of his output has the gay-ass foul odor of shit. Mind you, we are not talking of the uncompromised and chaotic cinematic visions of John Cassavetes, Lina Wertmuller, or Shohei Imamura, artists of real conviction. Rather, it is essentially the putrid and lame imagination of a dilettante who thinks he's badass because he loads his nerdy exercises with lots of blood, mayhem, and foul words. What Tarantino gives us is not true creativity but cleverity. We don't really sense anything bold, new, inspiring, or exciting. It is just a slick repackaging of what we've come to admire, enjoy, or may-have-forgotten-but-for-the-geeky-mondo-trasho-encyclopedic-knowledge-of-Tarantino.

Perhaps, many people feel that this is all inevitable and natural. There is not much new to be done in traditional cinema. Art cinema has become moribund and Hollywood recycles the same stuff over and over. It's as if we've reached the End of History for cinema and cinephilia, so what's left but to toy with the past in postmodern manner? The other option is the AVATAR way--expand the techno-frontiers of cinema. This is all very sad, and I'm certain that Tarantino, Cameron, and Haynes are not great blessings for cinema. Nothing is for certain in arts and culture. Andy Warhol was not inevitable but the creation of the corrupt decadent elites in NY who embraced celebrity and fortune over art and truth. There is a simple way to reinvigorate cinema and that is returning to or reinvigorating the ideal of poetic personal vision and/or to tell the stories of people, events, and things that are either ignored or turned into simple message movies by the film industry. But of course, that would require genuine originality and real courage, qualities that the film industry doesn't much care for. Instead, we've settled for the Coen Brothers, Tarantino, Haynes, and Cameron.

Films such as MULHOLLAND DR, TIME REGAINED, HURT LOCKER, A.I, AMELIE, and the ELECTION films of Johnny To should remind us that great and wonderful things can still be achieved through film.

Top of Page

Review by 'Rerevisionist' 19 May 2016 of The Wall (Vinyl LP 1979; other impressions and versions later). Film 1982

English Child's View of 'the Hitler War'

The vinyl appeared six years after 'Dark Side of the Moon' made them famous. This film was about three years later. Supposedly the music had the same four-man music line-up. In fact the list of supporting musicians and sound-makers is very long. Just as their LP benefited from technical improvements (e.g. stereo sound, electronics) and selected late insertions (Clare Torry, and the voices, notably the Abbey Road Irish doorman; I've heard the vocals were in fact by Roy Harper—maybe Floyd were just knob-twiddling technicians?), so the film has what I take to be green screen or equivalents (the singing classroom has internal repeats - check the token black face) and Gerald Scarfe. There are no full computer graphics: Scarfe's cartoon animations, no doubt helped by 'in-betweening', cannot fit into normal 'realistic' films. His 'wallflower' cartoon and then 'What Shall We Do Now? (' ... Take to drink? Go to shrinks? Give up meat? Rarely sleep? Keep people as pets? ...') are the most impressive sequences by Scarfe; he may well have been responsible for the scared-face masks. Scarfe's website has a short video sequence of BBC people saying nice, but absurdly exaggerated, things about him: Scarfe turns out to be rather empty. So does this whole escapade: it's memories from early post-war Britain, and to the 1960s, as filtered by intensive propaganda. The fatherless house with lino, the cartridge box, routine death communication, school dominie, fears of 'the Bomb', the CND meeting with a pickup, are uninformed memories. They seem to me well done: "if you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!" is just right for times of rationing. The later superstar material is grafted on and doesn't really work; maybe they had no images of Geldof playing a stadium somewhere.

As with many people famous in youth, there's a lack of substance here; as with both the Beatles and Rolling Stones, and Monty Python, they had no motive to grow up and learn. The whole history and war presentation (not really even 'Second World War'; just 'war') is childish or at any rate immature. Fortunately we're spared fake atrocities; but some hint of Dunkirk might have been interesting. But the really huge atrocities are simply ignored. Queen and 'everything I had to know/ I heard it on the radio' shows a similar attitude. Of course this is so common many people don't even know the are other versions. I commented on a Youtube somewhere that Japanese soldiers had probably heard their home town and family had been burnt out in US bombing raids; how would you expect them to feel?—and getting a puzzled silence. I have to feel some sympathy with the teachers (presumably something like extras) and their time-bell synchronised march to their classrooms, past the black dadoes with red walls, echoing the marching hammers (Nazzies, geddit) of Scarfe. They were victims, like soldiers, told what to do, just as they were told it was 'Hitler's War'.

As far as I know, Pink Floyd did nothing much subsequently. Unless you count 1990, Saturday 21st July, Potsdamerplatz, Berlin, with Roger Waters and the Bleeding Heart Band. It would be nice to think they might produce a mature work. But of course they never will. Alan Parker (director) may have been selected because he did Fame a couple of years before: music, and fantasy, presented chaotically, with what he thought of as a low class London background—he was a good choice. I wonder what happened to Kevin McKeon, the 'young Pink'. And whether 'black '44' and Royal Fusiliers Company C' was historically correct. Here's me on Mason on Pink Floyd.

Top of Page

Review of Britons as subservient trash Richard Grant: Withnail and I

Backhandedly realistic.

[1] Richard E Grant's autobiography shows his life was not entirely unlike this film, though he was luckier than Withnail—this film had the same effect LOTR had on Elijah Wood. Grant did the filmic version of dining out on it forever after.

The plot barely exists: 'resting' actor gets a part, his friend doesn't. Grant got the part presumably because of his ability to act a sort of decayed English aristocrat—actor's voice, piercing blue eyes, tall upright posture—with good manners if he wants to switch them on. His indignation on being slighted—"how DARE you!"—is made absurd by his lack of power. "I've only had a few ales!"—"Look here, my cousin's a QC!" Faced with a difficult situation, paralysing fear floods up inside him.

[2] The other characters are minor, and in their way reflect decline: his friend, 'I', seems to me utterly uninteresting as an actor. Richard Griffiths as the queer uncle—books, cat, stuffed settee, Schubert, token theatricals, and 'the Dane'—lives on money of unspecified source, possessor of capital with no aim in life—unless you count trying to bugger young men without checking whether they're interested. The Camberwell carrot chap reflects a part of that era—the silly business ideas, the weird UFO style ideas such as razor blades sharpened by pyramids, the drugs. The pointless rural types have lifestyles which are 'irrelevant' to everything—no wonder the word 'irrelevant' became intransitive. The absurd immigrant, black Jamaican I think, courtesy of Heathrow, makes inappropriate chants of "rama" (possibly to save money contractually). The alcoholic pub owner with no doubt fake quarter-century old second world war memories. All are at sea while the political and economic vultures circle. They have no interest in the external world. Angus Wilson's novels showed 1950s British intellectuals saying nothing much, and this was acute observation. Certainly it applies here.

[3] The film has a claustral feeling, of money saved by maximising interior shots. The built environment where it's shown is universally decrepit. The lincrusta in the hall below the dado rail looks absurd. A wrecking ball scene shows Victorian brick houses being demolished. (The same thing happened in the USA, under the Jew LBJ, and the 'Great Society' project involving demolition of distinctive housing, and forced race mixing). The pubs are seedy; the greasy spoon is seedy; the people if possible seedier. The 'Mother Red Cap' must presumably have been genuine, though I don't recall it, its IRA graffiti the only political reference in the entire film, unless you count the junk news headlines. Compendium Books isn't shown—pity. The Penrith tea room I think is genuine, though the staff in the film could not have been. Incidentally the more or less derelict farm is Sleddale Hall, near Shap, Cumbria; apparently it's still more or less derelict.

[4] I noticed George Harrison's mate Richard Starkey MBE had some input, as did Steadman—the Withnail logo, no doubt. I thought the sound track was surprisingly weak given the possibilities from 1969. I couldn't help noticing there's a footstep editor, and someone called 'Shaun, the wardrobe mistress'. I know nothing about Paul Heller. The film could be regarded as a vignette showing an American or perhaps Jewish view of an England laid low.

[5] The caricature element is the only way the film gets its effects. Drunk driving and variations on the theme of an almost unusable car with fake tyre squeals. Inability to make food. "Young people take drugs without understanding what harm they can do"—a doctor told me, commenting on the incredible stupidity of taking dangerous stuff. Non-stop drugs, booze, and lack of food are shown as having little physical effect. Withnail downs lighter fluid at one point—in fact, it was vinegar, secretly substituted by the filmmaker for water to elicit a realistic choking performance. Could this be a deliberate propaganda effort? Fascinating to watch this film and try to disinter the motives behind it. I don't regard it as a comedy. It's not a tragedy—the characters were living at a time of world upheaval, US genocides and so on—but they are entirely self-absorbed. They're not the stuff of tragedy, any more than guinea pigs running in their wheels can be.

Henrik Palmgren and Colin Robertson ('MillenniumWoes') had a rather weak talk on this film, on a video site called 'Kulchur', in 2021 I think.
Palmgren never impressed me much; he's like a rather slow lumberjack who only brightens up on piffling memories. 'Woes' is disappointing, in my view: he knows too little. The temporal setting on Withnail was in the late 1960s; the USA's Jews conducted, with the aid of simple Americans, genocidal campaigns of which Vietnam is the least unknown. The IRA campaign, another Jewish-funded thing, and African violence of all types, including the murder of Verwoerd, and moppings-up in China, made the film a sort of parody of silly actors' lives. 'Woes' always talks of such people as 'creative' and/or 'talented'—as though people reading scripts under direction are creative. Palmgren seems to think in media terms, as simple types do. Some people's lives are measured by football championships, others by films, others by some campaign or other.
The 'Kulchur' talks seem to be an unconscious revival of talks of the sort the BBC used as fillers; the subjects were serious, but the treatment was not. So Kulchur talks have rather dim comments, which have a dulling effect mimicking the highly-scripted media rubbish of times gone by.

Top of Page

Film poster The World is Not Enough—007—nuclear and pipeline themes

Review of Jewish interest in film DVD: The World is Not Enough

1999 nuclear-fraud exit strategy Bond film—Too difficult a film for most Amazon Reviewers!—9 Sept 2012

[1] Almost a tick-box check list of features of 1950-2000 mass braindead entertainment for the operational type ...
* Cars exploding with vast amounts of fuel
* Product placement of buildings—London waste of money dome, Bilbao?, Thames...—so the studio shots seem to be somewhere
* A chase or two to allow suspension of thought—amphibious, skiing, powered parachute, supposedly in a nuclear submarine...
* Fights (fists usually) between a few characters. At least they don't sword fight. Enlivened with a few planned kicks, and moves designed around props
* Exotic-ish locations
* Special effects; here we have a five-part circular-saw cutting device, designed quite well
* Has to be in English. All the characters speak accented Eeengleesh, Meest-air Bond. There's a filmic joke about 'Mummerset' rural English; here we have something like 'Mussian'
* Official views of history taken for granted; in practice this means Zionist. The ridiculous Judi Dench as head of something also illustrates the feminist thing. There are some embarrassingly sidelined black actors. 'Terrorism' of course is something 'they' do
* Big wads of paper money!
* Ritualistic casino/ hotel room sex—to be fair the film makers could hardly show anything less dismal
* No impact bullets so that people aren't upset by what bullets do. With lasers. But nothing more recent

[2] Interesting more up to date themes..
* Swiss banker shown with thuggish colleagues. This must be a reference to Jews extorting money from the Swiss by the 'Holocaust'™ fraud.
* Nuclear stuff even more stylised than usual, with obvious designoid artefacts. This is the fraud that ran and ran. Interestingly, here it's in phase-out mode. It allows the female nuclear physicist, always half-dressed, considered necessary so that the way 'nuclear weapons' work isn't too obvious, despite the Carlyle baddie character understanding all about it.
* Interesting references to oil pipelines (or possibly gas) with graphics showing pipes snaking over landscapes, which may or may not have been models or computer graphics. This is a bit puzzling, since the motives for killing Afghans and others were kept secret; how many people have heard of TAPI? I take it that before the Jewish 9/11 fraud a couple of years later the pipeline(s) were considered done deals.

[3] Amusing to speculate on villains. What about villains who plot to flood white countries with immigrants, to weaken or destroy them? Who plan to foment division and wars, to make fortunes for themselves? To publicise fake stories to (for example) poison and damage large numbers of people? To cause hyper-inflation? To arrange slave labour to the death? All well-documented Jewish activities. I don't know enough about Ian Fleming to know what the bases were for his choice of baddies. Who knows?

It seems a 'James Bond' film is being made with a black James Bond. It occurs to me a good spoof James Bond film would be a Jewish 'James Bond' with appropriate music, behaviour, and attitudes to villains...

[4] Just a few notes. The British Mensa magazine had a long article by a woman on James Bond films, showing a loner; she said it was all very sad, and he would eventually die alone. A response article looked at Fleming's actual books; these seem to have sold in large quantities, including to people with no other books. The male responder said that in fact the books had material on Bond's wife and her and their problems, developing through the series of Fleming's books.
How to Deconstruct James Bond Films by Miles Mathis (Nov 18, 2015) is a remarkable piece including Fleming himself, intelligence, private intelligence, Jewish banking families, and speculation on internal rucks between Jewish mafia groups, prostitution, industrialists, bankers. And the making (fairly) clear these rifts.

For no special reason; my search for 'James Bond' did not find Mensa, but found
PENTHOUSE 1977 James Bond: The Spy Who Loved Me. Article based around this, with nude photos of a girl who has nothing to do with the film interspersed with what look like film stills and shots the 007 stage, 'the largest in history'.
AIRCRAFT ILLUSTRATED Oct 1989 Shows: St Mawgan near Newquay, IWM Duxford exhibit of 'James Bond' Aston Martin Volante, Lawrence of Arabia air race as in 1920s between Bristol F2b fighter .. and Brough Superiors SS100 motorcycle/ Air Training Corps 500 anniversary at RAF Cardington, Beds. Inc VSTOL exhibition.
SAGA April 1990 [mag for old people] KEN WALLIS, STUNT MAN. ... 73 years of age, mildly eccentric, doubles for James Bond, hunts for Lord Lucan.. and defies the law of gravity
VOGUE Dec 89 'Dream machines' on 'magical moments' in James Bond films and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, leading onto 'people in the fast lane' and their fantasy cars

Top of Page

Review of New (2016) Jewspaper The New Day

Supposedly Neutral New Newspaper: Just the Same Old Jews News. Review by Rerevisionist. April 16 2016

The handy graph of fifteen years' circulation of newspapers in the UK, shows a decline to about half the 2000 levels. Note that the figures are not sales; 'circulation' is sales multiplied by some supposedly convincing factor. With figures for unsold, free, reduced, given-away and organisation copies, the true figures are hard to get. (Just as with Internet news sources). Not counting new magazines, of which there are many, I can remember five launches of general newspapers in the UK: the Sun in the early 1960s, a local Evening Post in about 1970, the so-called Independent, a handy 'politically correct' vehicle used as a fake 'independent' voice by the BBC. The two others were a supposed left-wing (i.e. Jewish) paper of the Paul Foot/John Pilger type, the title of which I can't now remember; and what may have been the Star, attributed to a non-white businessman. Several papers were rebranded: The Times in about 1970; The Guardian much later, given what would be called a 'makeover'—probably a tribute to computer typesetting, with lots of blank space and different typefaces. The B.N.P. had an occasional newspaper, which naturally would not be stocked by the Jewish distribution systems.

It's of some interest to look into the technology of print: rolls of paper, which I'd guess are more expensive than a few decades ago; the technologies of setting up type, with of course colour computer typesetting displacing all earlier techniques. And the suppliers of 'information': government leaks, Jewish propaganda, PR stuff, sundry agents and stringers. And the balances between cover prices, costs of advertising by rate cards and in actuality, and percentages charged by distributors.

Needless to say, the output as regards serious events is all trash: judging by my own chats, public awareness grew with 9/11, but many people now have some feeling for the Second World War, Kennedy's murder, the increase in 'Holocaust' propaganda, Gulf of Tonkin, NASA, 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', and so on. Donald Trump incorporates some of this material in his speeches, though mostly he's concerned with the collapse in newspapers' business standing. The New York Times, which at one time seemed an invulnerable factory of lies, may be tottering. I don't personally believe newspapers will be allowed to fail: Jews can print money freely, and of course have learned that lying is essential to them, so subsidies, and special funds, and money 'in the public interest' are likely to continue. The bosses are in a position analogous to large-scale brothel owners doing what they can to conceal their activities, though this is a polite analogy compared to the truth.

The B.N.P. had monthly articles by Giuseppe De Santis: Nationalists will be delighted to know that circulation of anti-BNP newspapers declined again this month ... The Guardian and The Observer are still losing plenty of readers and therefore bankrupting those papers is becoming easier by the day. However, any boycott should also include Auto Trader, the magazine that with its profits is propping up the two rags. Giuseppe attributed the decline to the refusal of 'British' papers to print facts on invaders and their crimes and costs.

Anyway: here's the New Day. My first awareness of this 'venture' (I don't believe it's entrepreneurial in any serious sense) was a TV ad. It showed a made-up-to-look-old white man (they don't try to sell to invaders, many of whom are illiterate) choosing his previous paper over the exciting, unbiased, new one. Somebody must have gone through the processes of market research and consumer opinion: an online source says the rag is aimed at women who don't buy papers, rather than men who do. Maybe I missed the ads with silly actresses saying how much they love not to have news. Appropriately, the new editor in her Canada Square office of the 'Trinity Mirror Group' would appear to be a silly uninformed woman. I bought a sample copy: Issue 34, cover date 14th April 2016, cost 50 pence. An online source says it has about 25 staff. I wonder if they'll last.

It's strange how tatty the thing looks: deep bright reds, yellows, and green seem unavailable; and blacks appear greyish. The appearance is pretty exactly similar to the Guardian. But it's cheaper than glossy art paper. They must have made an effort to distance themselves from the plebby 'red tops': the masthead (if they still call them that) is blue-green, at the opposite spectral position. They don't call its small format 'tabloid', either. Anyway; in no special order, here are some observations:-

• The cheery woman aspect is less prominent that I'd thought. There are quite a few recipes, cooking hints, slimming notes, fashion stuff, but the 'New Day' hasn't risked going the full way. The Daily Mail has 'celebrity' stuff: women with big tits, moneyed singers, footballers, and men who presumably were picked to appeal to women. This 'newspaper' has people 'fighting' cancer, an 11-year old who supposedly did some 'innovative fundraising', kidney donors, hospices.
• We have a few slogans, probably the subject of intensive lightweight brainwork: We don't tell our readers what to think. Life is short, let's live it well. The supposed neutrality of course is nonsense; for example, a small piece wonders if Britain leaving the EU might damage the 'live music industry'.
• We of course have the Jewish habit of going for pathological altruism in whites. A singer (male, so relatively safe) goes to Calais to see fake 'asylum seekers'. And '13 aid and refugee agencies accuse Britain and other EU states of "failing to live up to their moral responsibility"'. They don't say these 'agencies' are run by Jews. Nor do they say Israel never takes 'Asylum Seekers'—especially not Palestinians.
Someone called 'Humanist Mathew Hulbert' (Jews always side with anti-Christian groups, provided they say nothing about Jewish race supremacism). He is a 'trustee for a number of charities' and says 'volunteering is often challenging, rewarding and great fun.' An analogous scatty piece by 'psychologist and author' Linda Papadopoulos thinks 'people who volunteer tend to have higher levels of self-esteem, physical and psychological well-being and happiness.' I half-expected them to recommend joining the Jehovah's Witnesses.
• Jewish themes are always pushed in newspapers as they have been since about 1900: the shocking persecution of harmless Jews engaged in fraud, wars, getting governments in debt etc; the 'Holohoax'; 9/11; forced invasions of white countries; omission of the enormous money flowing to Israel. These are typical themes. I expected more 'Holocaust' lies, but instead, in this issue, we have a 1970 NASA fraud piece of astonishing outdatedness. Of course there's anti-Moslem material, but it's carefully selected—don't mention Jew wars in Moslem countries, and don't mention Jewish outfits (and Soros) pushing Moslem invaders into Europe. Here we have Fatima, who escaped Boko Haram—or so the claim goes, laced with a photo of Obongo's male wife.
• Another Jewish info plant, which needs some experience to spot, is the favourable mention of cryptic Jews of any sort; actresses, comedians, announcers. Here we have Steven Fry, perhaps wondering about 'arse gravy', his expression for 'anal leakage' of processed foods. And a Jew. We see amateur cartoons; I'm not sure how many are Jews—they don't advertise—but the repellent Hislop surely must be one. The principle is the same as Jewish stuff inserted into pub quizzes: "What is the substance put into water to prevent tooth decay?" - "Fluoride!".
• Someone called 'Flic Everett' has a piece in Guardian style, obviously aimed at thoughtless women, on vegetarianism. She fails to mention the horror of Muslim and Jewish slaughter.
• Advertising! The 25 staff don't seem to have time for small ads—it occurred to me that call-girl type adverts might bring them extra cash. But I think I'm right in saying they want large ads only: full page (Specsavers), half-page (Vodafone broadband, BT broadband) and 1/3 page (dfs sofas, Aldi, and a daring John Smedley knitwear. There's also a double-page photo of a swimmer, not easy to decipher, which looks suspiciously like a replacement for an ad that never appeared. There are of course the usual product placement things; some robots, for example, described in the usual absurdly uncritical style.
• Sport! There are four pages on footballers, including blacks pretending to represent e.g. i think Liverpool. Odd; are these eye candy for women who like a bit of rough? There was nothing (I think) on horse-racing; but maybe that's done online these days.

• The whole thing seems like a reversion to the early days of 'newspapers' of the amazingly popular Comic Cuts and Tit bits type, updated a bit with computer-generated number and word puzzles, and an 'astrologer' who at least makes some jokes. No need to know about dismembered South African farmers, or black rapes of white women, or cities ruined by wars.

Top of Page

Top of Page

David Attenborough: Life on Air

Autobiography. BBC Publications

asa briggs history of broadcasting google extract

Rerevisionist's Review of Asa Briggs History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom

Review 5 June 2015

A Simpleton Magpie Picking at Unimportant Things. Five Newish Volumes of Low-Grade Oxford University Rubble.

Born 1921; Asa Briggs (from Keighley, Yorks) is a similar type to Richard Hoggart ('The Uses of Literacy', characteristically Britain-only), Alan Bennett (also from Yorkshire, life in the conventional media); Alan Bullock (click for audio—a fellow 'historian'); and others, who were given refuge in post-1945 'New University' Britain. Somewhat different types include Clive James (Australian, desperate for a media career), Martin Gilbert (click for audio. Selected, as a supposed Jew, to write about Churchill).

Briggs' first-ish books were Victorian People (1954) and The Age of Improvement (1959) and Victorian Cities (1963), all I think published additionally in Penguin paperback form, aimed no doubt at people nostalgic for civic virtues and stories of hardworking ordinary people.

Briggs appears to have been commissioned as the official historian of broadcasting, I'd guess selected by a panel of some sort. His background must have made him seem exactly the right type: probably in awe of southern England, anxious to do the right thing for his career, some (but not much) experience of war (he was about 18 when Britain declared war), ignorant of science, and entirely but unknowingly dominated by conventional Anglo-Jewish attitudes. His first volume came out in 1961; the following three volumes dealt with the meaty periods of 1927-1939 ('II. The Golden Age of Wireless' 1965), 1939-1945 ('III. The War of Words' 1970 - just in time for Pink Floyd), and 1945-1955 ('IV. Sound and Vision' 1979). Then a 16-year gap to 1955-1974 'V. Competition' (1995), a reference to the intrusion into TV in Britain of Jewish paper money into Jewish propaganda, a significantly unimportant issue.

Briggs reminds me slightly of Patrick Moore (astronomer): a probably decent person, offered life income by the BBC, who had little idea of power in the real world, and did little in the way of original research work. Asa Briggs co-authored a book on Internet, with someone called Peter Burke, which seems to date originally from the supposedly epochal year 2000. The book claims to be a 'classic study', but it seems unlikely to be of any importance (very few Amazon reviews, of the 'arrived in good condition', 'some chapters are very good', type), so I won't consider it here. It seems to be a textbook as part of the pseudo-subject of media studies (see e.g. my review here of Media Law.

As far as I can be bothered to look, all five volumes seem to have been printed uniformly by O.U.P. in 2000, 3 inches thick, illustrated, at c. $200 each. They seem not to have sold out yet.

IV Sound and Vision (1945-1955)
Thanks to the wonders of Internet, extracts are available online. My picture (left) shows part of the result of googling Vol. IV; a few sample chapters are provided in this way from each book. In this way, I can report on the contents of Vol IV, 1945-1955, which is described thus: The ten years following the end of the Second World War were critical years in the history of British broadcasting. They witnessed the rise of television and the end of the BBC's monopoly. This fourth volume of Asa Briggs's detailed study is based on a mass of hitherto unexplored documentary evidence, much, but not all of it, from the BBC's own voluminous archives. It examines in detail how and why some of the key decisions affecting broadcasting policy - domestic and external - were reached and what were their effects. ... One long chapter deals with the changing arts and techniques of broadcasting news and views, politics, drama, features and variety, music, religion, education and sport. ... At every point the main contours of society and culture are explored...

Vol IV has seven chapters; I take it IV INQUIRY (about 120 pages) is typical - the subheadings are 1 Chairmen, members and Procedures/ 2 The BBC Evidence/ 3 Other Witnesses/ 4 The Report/ 5. The Aftermath. This looks at the 1949 Beveridge Broadcasting Committee, an inquiry into the BBC. Perhaps Briggs was overwhelmed by the mass of memos and notes; or perhaps nobody talked to him in any serious way; perhaps names like Reith retained a gloriousness he felt unable to examine; at any rate all serious questions—what should be censored? What points of view should be allowed? Should chairpersons have any power? Should the BBC run listening posts?—are submerged under people's accounts of each other, lists of names of then-eminent persons, and so on. At about this time, bear in mind, Eisenhower ran death camps in Germany; the Holocaust fraud was being started and supported (the Dimbleby brothers made a life career out of this sort of thing); important details of the Second World War were entirely secret; Israel was starting with vast atrocities; the Indian subcontinent was amid waves of slaughter; Jewish money and influence were (as they are now) unmentioned. Briggs' internal trivia obscures anything important.

So we have an account, as by an observer after a battle, making notes and observations, always confined to what the participants themselves claim ('left', 'right', 'appropriate', 'role as a critic', 'strong-willed'), but with no information on supplies or attitudes or backgrounds or alliances.

Probably the result was suited to the upper echelons with real power: an organisation of muddled but big-mouthed persons with little technical knowledge, willing to fight for trivia, after the fashion of Nuclear power? and airship?—Parkinson's committees arguing over the bike racks, but not arguing over the dubious nuclear power station. All its life the BBC was propaganda—not for the state, but the powers behind it. War crimes, incompetence, legal frauds, vulgarisms, indifference to normal people, medical incompetence, concealment of horrible crimes by immigrants—all in all, a career structure for establishment nobodies—how different the world might have been with an intelligent BBC.

III. The War of Words (1939-1945) asa briggs extract churchill

Some extracts from this book (vol. III) are online, though fewer than the other volumes, I'd guess because of the importance of the issues. (See right for a couple of example extracts).

The policy was to follow the Jewish lead: war against Germany was to be pursued at all costs, provided these were borne by non-Jews. There seems to have been no examination whatever of Jewish money, the bankrupting of Britain, and the final delivery of the USA to Jewish interests. All the big names of jewry were suppressed. The result was and is a proliferation of promotion of nonentities. Napoleon commented on baubles; here we have a world of honorary degrees from Eatanswill University, Commanders of Ruritanian Empires, grandiose titles for BBC office boys, adults tapped on the shoulder by an ignoramus.

"Tell lies, then die" might be Briggs' epitaph. I wonder if there might be some long term perspective: it's noticeable that these hacks ('Lord Hill of Luton' was another BBC title that amused me) form no dynasties, although on the face of it their wonderful expertise and life experience might be passed on. Jewish puppets are disposable.

Possibly it will be worth someone's time in the future to compare truths with BBC reports: Jewish declarations against Germany, misrepresentations against Hitler, Churchill's desperation to get the USA into war, the hidden names of Jews, the lies about Stalin and war crimes, about Churchill's bodyguard of liars: Sefton Delmer (Jew from Hungary; obsessive liar), Ian Jacob (must have hushed up atrocities, against whites, and made them up, about 'jews'), being typical of the broadcasters. Kent-Wolkoff seems not to be mentioned; even Dresden gave me nothing; Hitler's leaflet drop 'A Last Appeal to Reason' seems omitted. The Asa Briggs chronicles (not history) are just right for officials of the jewish empire with no interest in truth.

It is imperative that everyone interested in truth and the future shall climb out of this dismal swamp of psychopathy.

Top of Page

Review by Rerevisionist of John Cole As It Seemed to Me - Political Memoirs (published 1995). Memoirs of a BBC 'political editor'

Review by 'Rerevisionist' 6 May 2016

This book is about 450 pages; it has a one-page bibliography, mostly trade books by British politicians known to Cole, written or compiled or ghosted by political names in the book. Published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, with b/w photos, almost all from agencies, posed with (for example) artfully lit spectacles. Looking at these images, I feel some sympathy for black violence, understandably suspicious of these cunning and dishonest whites.

Cole was 'political editor of the BBC' from 1981-1992. He was on BBC TV 9 o'clock (the BBC 'news') but had little in the way of actorial charm: 'people often stopped me in the street to enquire what the weather was going to be like' he wrote (p 404); Cole resembled a northern Irish-voiced weather announcer, Ian McCaskill.

Cole had no interest at all in the development of British democracy. I could find nothing on the peculiarities of first-past-the-post elections, as opposed to Proportional Representation, though of course the effects are profound. Cole seems unaware of the careerist aspect of political parties: the tradition was to interview new aspiring candidates, and of course very many were men in suits following leaders. So that shady figures paying for parties, and shady figures selecting candidates, have had enormous unsung importance. Cole was naive about parties' policies: he seems, all his life, to have believed that the 'Labour Party' actually represented Labour, and that 'Conservatives' were genuinely conservative. These simplifying assumptions and omissions mark all his 'work'. Probably he was selected by the BBC mainly because of his obvious ignorances.
Cole's role was to make announcements without any analysis; and to personalise British politics with supposed big names, ignoring public school civil servants and Jewish junk money and militarism. As an illustration, the USSR collapsed in 1991, supposedly to everyone's surprise, though of course the Jewish plans to move ownership of USSR assets must have taken years of planning. John Pilger, the supposed radical journalist, wrote in 26 June 1992's New Statesman that social security increases might be paid for out of 'defence' cuts. John Cole commented in his absurd distracting Oirish voice on the BBC: "Despoite hopes after the ending of the Cold War, noy it seems there's to be noy peace dividund." Cole had no idea about Jewish finance's desire to run up huge deficits with governments. Cole had no idea about groups funded by Jews to cause damage: '... The theory that all union discontent and militancy derives from left-wing leaders at the top does not bear much examination. ...' (p. 177) is typical myopia.
Cole's personalisation shows up in his continual references to meetings, lunches (a favourite), confidential talks and the like with cabinet ministers and shadow government members. And in his utter inability to understand policies and their effects. I'll give examples later.

Before Cole (b. 1927) was 'appointed' by the BBC in 1981, in his 50s, he had been a print journalist for 36 years. He was given a reputation of being 'close to the unions and manufacturing industry' though this seems to me complete tosh. Cole seems to have wanted to edit the Guardian ('Britain's only serious newspaper of radical reform.' - p. 58 - but in fact just another Jew-agenda 'British' 'newspaper') where he'd been 'labour correspondent' since 1957, but Peter Preston was picked instead. Cole went to the Observer, bought by 'Tiny Rowland'. He left for the BBC (pp 220-1) when the Observer was 'soon to change to new technology after centuries of hot metal'; characteristically, Cole has nothing to say about the technology. He wasn't completely idle at the Observer: '... having settled into the measured pace of Sunday journalism, I found more time to dig deeper into politics. .. Three [ministers] Callaghan, Healey, Crosland came to dominate my thinking about the future direction of the Labour Party.' (p. 158)

Cole seemed to take seriously the Hollywood idea of journalism, with hard-working, inquisitive journalists coming up with world-changing 'scoops'. He discusses a few of his 'scoops' on (for example) page 3: one was that Reginald Maudling had written a memorandum 'dissenting from the whole thrust of Ted Heath's government'; another was how Geoffrey Howe was 'forcibly removed ... from the job he loved at the Foreign Office..' by Thatcher. Serious material—the Holohoax for example, or the fake casus belli to start Jewish-US genocide in Vietnam, or Edward Heath's paedophile crimes, or something on Rhodesia (the book has only one reference, p.74), or Vanunu's theatrical 1986 fraud—was permanently off Cole's low-performance radar's short range scans. An interesting example of censorship is Alan Clark, a minister, going to Irving's book launch at his Duke Street flat in 1991, and praising Hitler; after which, Clark was sacked by John Major. Not a whisper from Cole.
Here (p 434) is Cole trying to think:

'I set out my own ideas for a Big Idea in the New Statesman in February 1994. Despite the then fashionable preoccupation with non-economic subjects, I argued that no politician who expected to be taken seriously could wander on the periphery of public concerns, and dodge the obvious issue: the growth during recent recessions of a substantial underclass, and the consequences of this for the rest of us. [more extracts 434-5]'

Another example:
'The skill of politics, surely, is to discern what are the problems that people believe make their lives less comfortable. The skill of leadership is to work out policies for solving these. Not pandering to public opinion, but giving it a lead. Sometimes this may require the politician to tell the voters frankly why something is not possible- why there cannot be better public services without higher taxes, for example.'

Cole's ideas were obviously non-existent; the only interest in this book, apart from a repetition of top-down official views of the time, is in the personal material about politicians, now of course mostly dead. My notes on BBC TV show Cole saying on BBC's 9 o'clock news a taxi driver told him 'the Germans' wanted an admission that a goal in the 1968 World Cup should have been disallowed, as though that deserved to be part of the news. Another Cole talk was how the roof fell in on Conservative policy.. the Prime Minister's Advisers were in turmoil all day, casting the whole policy afresh, discussing the future of Europe

Here's Cole on Harold Wilson:
Rolls-Royce brain, and an 'engaging penchant for self-mockery' (p. 20). But (despite his 'Rolls-Royce brain') 'By the time he returned to office in 1974, Harold Wilson found the continuous search for new ideas an impossible burden. He sadly told his last private secretary at Number 10 that, while in the 1960s he had come down in the morning with about twenty ideas of what he wanted done, or at least investigated, now he had few fresh ideas. ...' (p. 142).
After this ridiculous character sketch, let's see Cole's summary of Wilson (p 156):

1976 assessment of Harold Wilson in the Observer:
When people judge Harold Wilson, they are really judging the style he imposed on his era. He has never been ashamed of his belief in politics as the art of the possible; but his critics say he has made the famous pragmatism into an art form, and a decadent art form at that, where style totally dominates content.
For this man in this period, events suggests that the style was the best. His most conspicuous failures - the British technologically fuelled miracle which did not happen; statutory trade union reform, which was aborted under his first government, and failed dismally when tried by the Conservatives (under Ted Heath); and his blurred vision of Ireland - have come when he deviated from his normal modest view of the limitations of political leadership, and succumbed to enthusiasm.
His successes - voluntary incomes policy, Europe, modest social reform, party unity, the explosion of the frightened and dangerous myth that Britain is, in some unique sense, ungovernable - have been the work of a master in his own art, that of political management ... Wilson's deepest instinct is to conciliate, rather than to confront. It was the underlying theme, personal ambitions aside, of the long quarrel with Gaitskell.

And John Cole on Margaret Thatcher:

Her populism [i.e. Thatcher's] showed through in her utterances about immigration. A year before the election, she demanded 'a clear end of immigration', because people feared that 'the fundamental British characteristics which have done so much for the world' would be 'rather swamped by people of a different culture'. The pronouncement horrified many [no names or information] in her own party, but produced an overnight leap in Conservative poll ratings. ... ... Just like Denis Healey with inflation, she might reduce the rate of increase in the immigrant population, but she would not substantially reverse the ethnic mix in Britain..' (p. 188)

Cole has absorbed—or been commanded to follow—the Jewish Coudenhove-Kalergi line. How this was conveyed to Cole is completely secret: Cole gives no information whatever on the BBC's internal structure, and how opinions are received from jews, and transmitted across and down the BBC's secret hierarchy. The only comment Cole makes on the BBC's structure is that he signed the Official Secrets Act (p. 4).

And John Cole on Denis Healey:

Typical background irrelevancy:
'When he [Denis Healey] had started in the Inland Revenue office in Maidstone as a young man, there had been only twelve officers, all engaged on middle-class incomes. Manual workers were dealt with by one man..' (p. 178).
'... Denis Healey did have his blacker moments. But he remained something of the Balliol man's 'effortless superiority', and much of the classicist's belief that 'humani nil a me alienum puto.' ...' (p. 179). Healey has an obsolete education—Greek and Latin classics, no science, no serious economics. Healey had, or affected to have, a rather absurd intellectual superiority, which he never tested on serious topics. In short, ideal as an unoriginal and unthreatening politician.

And John Cole on John Major:

As a candidate, John Major did not put a foot wrong. (p. 387)

[On TV]: Cole tries a comparison of John Major with Harold Wilson, some sort of attempt at 'reassessment'. Some trivial anecdotes: something like: "When I was walking with Harold Wilson, some way behind Jim Calligan, Oi asked him where Jim Calligan stood on Europe. Harold Wilson said "Can't you see the marks of the fence on his trousers?"". Both supported a feeble football team - Huddersfield Town [Wilson] and Chelsea [Major]. Wilson felt ill at ease amongst the Hampstead intellectuals.. And of course Major is probably uneasy etc etc.

Interlude: typically evasive timewasting BBC programme; this was Cole's world (Based on my notes. Note that the Jewish central bank, and its desire to lend junk money to governments, increase debt, and collect assets—Thatcher's main function—is never mentioned. They must have known: Peter Jay said the Prime Minister and the cabinet were going through 'an agonising reappraisal' following 'unprecedented foreign exchange dealings' the like of which had not 'happened in a generation'.)

Mayday Bank Holiday, Mon 4 May, 1992, BBC1, 11.00pm-11.40, PANORAMA. 'The Slide into Slump. Now that it is officially admitted that Britain's current economic recession is the longest since the Second World War, a bitter debate has broken out about its origins. Economists and politicians are divided over a question which lay behind the election campaign: what caused Britain's recession and was it avoidable?
Peter Jay, the BBC's Economics Editor, talks to those who have shaped Britain's recent policy [sic; in fact Lamont wasn't interviewed, or Thatcher or Major, whereas Bernard Ingham, a press officer, Nicholas Ridley, Jenkins, Healey of years gone by were] and asks was the slump inevitable?'
- Jay voiceover: "Some say Lawson took his eye off the ball ... he claimed the right to play his own hunches about the economy, coupled with the idea of keeping the value of the pound as close as possible to the German mark.. There were three theories about the ?process of inflation.. On Black Monday.. stock exchanges around the world crashed.. talk of the crash, of the 1930s all over again.."
- Lawson: ".. led to climate of optimism.. excessive borrowing and lending.. Breaking up of monopolies.. privatisation.. competition.. trade union reform.. improving productivity.. you can't expect them to bring results instantaneously.."
- Healey: ".. same mistakes.. throughout the world.. but excessive money supply.. everyone believes that causes inflation.. everyone believes that.. but the private sector borrowing ?counts too.. everyone in Britain was living on tick in the 80s.. As I've got older I've concluded most of the theories are bunkum.. economics is a behavioural science, and peoples' behaviour changes over decades.. unpredictability of people in the mass.."
- Jenkins: "The miracle in 1989 was exaggerated.. pilot ewwors were made.. if there hadn't been the economy wouldn't have responded as it did.. underlying problems remain.. I can't think of a single chancellor who weally influenced the course of events! .. Feeling .. we're not doing much more than making footpwints in the sands of time.."

Whose Orders Was Cole Following?

In every potentially contentious issue, Cole invariably takes what was later called the 'politically correct' opinion, with no suggestion there could be counter-arguments. On what he calls 'Europe', meaning the 'European Community', Harold Wilson 'achieved what he knew was right: to keep Britain inside Europe.' (p. 116). On Churchill—saviour? War criminal? Destroyer of Europe? Greatest Briton ever? Cole writes: Churchill supremely had it [a quality politicians needed] because he kept detecting lights at the end of tunnels. (p.148) On nonwhite invasions, see the quotation above. On things like the 'Exchange Rate Mechanism' Cole has nothing useful to say; he took shelter under the 'Economics Editor'. Cole seems to have had little grasp of statistical oddities and anomalies and changes over time: 'Unemployment rose more sharply during 1980 than at any time for half a century, ... Ministers acknowledged to me that only changes in the method of calculation kept it even as low as this;...' (p. 209). A perfect example of Cole's inability to think is the split of the 'Labour Party' by (for example) the 'gang of four', in 1981, of Shirley Williams, David Owen, Bill Rodgers, Roy Jenkins. What a chance to clearly identify their policies, assuming they had any. Needless to say, Cole couldn't begin to rise to the occasion. It's saddening to see his comment on Crosland, p. 164, that he grew indignant... rumours ... were again going the rounds among businessmen... political and economic illiteracy... was doing great damage to Britain abroad...'
Cole says nothing about the way the BBC is organised and how its mainline ideas are formed and transmitted. This is unfortunate, of course, but in the tradition of British secrecy. But in view of his unquestioning attitudes I expect he was given briefings as to what he must say.

Two Final Remarks
Jew-aware people will note that Jewish policy at the time was to increase paper-money debt to governments (so they could use interest to buy real assets) and the desire to get public assets such as nationalised utilities and housing into Jewish hands. Many normal members of the public must have been puzzled by Thatcher's insistence ('Conservative' Prime Minister 1975-1990) on narrow economic straitjacket policies, and the odd policy of hugely costly 'nuclear power' stations, at a time when cruise missiles were apparently threatening Europe. My own angle on this is that Jewish control over the financing of physics engineering kept hidden the frauds in the nuclear business, while they went for British assets, and at the same time were planning to get assets from the USSR before moving away in 1991.
No doubt if Jews had wanted war (Iraq started 1990) there would have been intensive Jewish propaganda in Thatcher's terms.

If the view that politicians are mere puppets is largely true, there must be scripts and actors. Thus for example Tony Benn (then) and George Galloway (now) stand as the apparently morally-driven types—though both of course are/were Jew-naive, gullible over the Holohoax and central banks and military profits. Another type is the colourful drunkard—George Brown provided this during the Vietnam genocide. Perhaps Boris Johnson might count, now. The supposed feminist, supposed actress, supposed activist is another type. Yet another is the supposedly distinguished writer-politician: here's an amusing account from The Occidental Observer of 'a repulsive British politician called Roy Hattersley, once deputy leader of the Labour party and Member of Parliament...: How are politicians to behave when, having listened, they find themselves in fundamental disagreement with what they have heard? Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted â€” the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants? [His answer: "Not in a million years."] .... Roy Hattersley has been richly rewarded for his part in this conspiracy. He now sits in the House of Lords ... and has made large sums of money as a writer, despite the shallowness of his intellect and the banality of his prose. In 2013, he married the woman who has fostered his golden mediocrity, his Jewish literary agent Maggie Pearlstine.'
About the end of 2022 a presumably obscure TV thing showed Alistair Campbell, once part of the entourage of Tony Blair, looking old and in a woolly hat, filming himself with some sort of 'selfie' device. In Yorkshire, feeling sorry for himself, wondering about his mental health–though this may have been just another Jewish line being spun. probably to try to deflect comment on deaths through 'vaccination' against 'COVID'. He muttered about genuine communities, here in his home county of Yorkshire, compact and time-honoured—I forget his wording, which was as compelling as his political work. Some of the truth about the Blair era was recorded by 'Luke O'Farrell' here.

Top of Page

Review of media shit Greg Dyke: Inside Story

Horrifyingly Shallow. Two stars because there is at least some content.

This book starts with an account of the publication and impact of the 'Hutton Inquiry'. Dyke's account is simply not credible. The BBC has plenty of lawyers—I think I saw a figure of 77—and it's impossible they would be unaware, especially in a world where unelected EU types impose bizarre unworkable laws, that reports ordered by governments will be slanted. They must have expected something of the sort. And made plans—but maybe they wanted Dyke out. He says resignation wouldn't matter to him anyway—the BBC still had to pay! There are similar ironies throughout this book, for example a woman called Salmond in 'Human Resources' had a better pension deal than Dyke (he may have meant a percentage, though)... fantastic job titles of these people—apparently selected by a military-minded megalomaniac propagandist ... the almost lunatic way Dyke discounts the few billion advantage the BBC has over almost everyone else.

Dyke has little interest in the BBC—there is no account of who selected the 'Governors', despite their obvious relevance. He has little interest in the world, either. He seems to have a chip on his shoulder about Hayes, Middx. He appears as a boy to have been the type to carefully note who has a car, who has a TV, who has this, who has that. As a student, he seems to have been happy just putting down a couple of conflicting views—I don't think he had any interest in trying to unravel mysteries. Ideal training, in fact, for the BBC! When he was born, the BBC was run by ex-military types—there are some amusing accounts, written by women. People would be informed by letter that they were, or weren't, hired, or fired. The policy was probably decided by the Foreign Office and Home Office, I would guess. As late as Dyke, the FO [Foreign Office] funded the 'World Service', and no doubt still does. Dyke doesn't comment on this, or the 'listening post' Cavendish Park stuff, and it's hard to believe he had any interest. Decisions on things like (in sequence) mass murders in eastern Europe, the JFK murder, mass murders in Vietnam and Biafra, immigration, industrial policy, who should control printed money, AIDS, 9/11 etc etc must have been simply handed down for the hacks to extrude. The policies are too monolithic to have been anything other than deliberately thought out. It must have been like a prestigious but horribly secretive civil service department. No wonder there is not one single well-written memo, biography, or essay collection by an employee—it would be like expecting amusing pieces about life in the Pravda buildings.

Anyway Dyke cut his teeth on lightweight stuff, though it's hard to know what he actually did. The script and camera work, and the money and the contracts and the sales, all seem to have been someone else's job. Maybe he simply talked to everyone, or did his best. A striking aspect of all this is the smallness of the 'industry'. When Thatcher introduced the idea of bids for companies, there were very very few. Probably the 'industry' was overweighted by overpaid people, and expensive equipment (digitised stuff started to come in over the whole period after about 1980). Dyke gives no figures for overall advertising revenue, needed by his rivals, though he says there was no room for others, and that it started to plummet after about 2000.

It's impossible to know what Dyke did. He states—and it seems highly likely—that one action was simply to collect suggestions, and act on them. There are some pathetic examples—a building's atrium, blocked off for a decade or two, or more, was at last opened up to employee lunch hours. A coffee machine (or something) was installed somewhere. Godawful buildings were made slightly less godawful.

The BBC is a state propaganda machine, and clearly Dyke was an ideal person to run it, as he had no ideas whatever on human progress or societal goals or whether truth should be allowed out occasionally. The book is mostly concerned with—first part—deals, including breakfast TV—there was of course a loan-backed pseudo-boom. And—second part—office politics. When a new 'Director-General' was being thought about, whole squadrons of office people started to back one or other from an amazingly short shortlist. Dyke's book is unanalytical, so it's impossible to know whether his descriptions are reliable, though I'd guess the people he liked, and didn't like, are recorded correctly. There are a few pages on a 'Dyke must stay' campaign—again, hard to deconstruct from the quoted emails and letters—it's hard to believe they could be serious about their 'creativity' for example. My best guess is that he was believed more likely to fork out more money than the others.

Top of Page

Clive James A Point of View. And too many other books

Review by 'Rerevisionist' 28 July 2015

Nonentity Fuelled by Money. Is Britain now really so decayed and worthless that nobody can review this crap?

Clive James is a model of one of the BBC's defects. His own description makes it clear he was ambitious—not for discovery or intellectual distinction, but for what the BBC provides, at least at present. Here's my overview review. It's a lament for missing works of criticism; something the BBC has lacked all its miserable life..

Is Britain now really so decayed and worthless that nobody can review this crap? James is a laughable nonentity, ignorant on all serious subjects, and ideal for the BBC. Someone please have a serious look and crush him (and preferably chunks of the BBC). Do it now.

Top of Page

Review of BBC junk attempt to survey Elizabeth II and Britain James Naughtie: The New Elizabethans

BBC TRASH SURVEY 9 April 2013

James Naughtie - 'The New Elizabethans - Sixty Portraits of Our Age'

Published 2012, to accompany 'the major BBC Radio 4 series'. The radio broadcasts spanned 12 weeks - five per week, from episode 1 (11 June 2012) to episode 60 (7 Sept 2012). They were, in BBC tradition, all scripted, so we needn't believe Naughtie's comment on the book being produced 'at lightning speed'.

Elizabeth's 'ascent' was in 1952 (after George V's death) and her coronation in Westminster Abbey was in 1953, coinciding pretty exactly with the spread of television, as it did in Japan with a similar event.

I see nobody has reviewed this book in any depth; how unutterably lazy millions of people are. However, let's try a revisionist review sparing nothing of this junk mass produced trash.

I'll start with the introduction: the 'panel' - could this word be an appropriately miniaturised 'board'? - of august thinkers, charged with selecting sixty influential, seminal, crucial and phenomenal British (or sort of British) people, from the second half of the last century. These are 'new Elizabethans'. Without bothering with the actual panellists' names, we have a woman interested in feminism, Freud, and 'social movements'; a war and peace writer, whose hack book has the 'Tsar bomb' fake as a cover design; a TV 'polymath'; a mass media editor; a woman lecturing in 'imperialism and colonialism'; and a BBC 'historian', making very proper references to pop singers and football. One of the episodes concerned George Best!

I remember Naughtie mainly as a voice for the BBC's radio 'World at One' series (i.e. 1 p.m.) where he'd read out the official version of unimportant news. This 'news' was followed for years by 'The Archers', the radio equivalent of a soap opera; I wonder if this was intended to imply the previous stuff was not intended seriously? Naughtie is Scottish, or at least has a Scottish voice - the BBC likes male voices from the regions, as they tend to be louder than women and have not easily classifiable accents. As far as I bothered to check, he seems to be a typical BBC career apparatchik hack, of breathtaking ignorance as befits 'arts' graduates.

Radio 4 is aimed at an insecure audience needing repetition of official BBC views, the sort who crave clues as to what to think. Here's an elegant summary: ' ... It's all done as a sort of pecking order, indeed just as a typical communist state is set up. If you listen to [BBC] Radio 4 they often have the liberal elite giving out advice to their underlings. First of all they don't tend to communicate in a logical manner, rather they are into the arts, but the arts are the transmission medium for the ideology. It works on the psychological level. For example, you will often get a member of the liberal elite saying this or that work is absolutely fantastic and wonderful, as in novels or plays of one sort or another, and this stuff is essentially mind control. ...' - Very well worded.

Of the sixty people, let's look first at technologists and scientists - easily done was there are hardly any. We have Tim Berners-Lee, officially credited as per the 2012 Olympic money show as the inventor of Internet. In fact the inventions were mostly hardware - chips, communications protocols, screens, keyboards - but Naughtie cranks out the BBC's corporate memory angle. I suppose it's just easier that way. We also have a woman astronomer credited with something Naughtie has been told was significant. And something on the supposed breakthrough of external fertilisation. David Attenborough appears, although he did no original work. Its amusing there's nothing on lead in petrol, about which the BBC did nothing to inform; AIDS, of course a huge 1984 funded exercise long ago debunked; or global warming - the BBC put fortunes into bogus schemes and technology. Any of these topics would have been worth an inquisitive peep. (As would Jimmy Savile - but naturally the perversions of such people go unmentioned).

It's interesting but saddening to see changes, not noticed by Naughtie, in types of popularisers: Patrick Moore, grave and apparently serious, but of course gullible; James Burke censoring out anything serious; Bronowski with his heavy accent and glib generalities; replaced these days by pop musicians trotting out much the same crap.

But don't be misled into think Naughtie has any understanding of 'arts'. It's ironic that Naughtie has no idea about Shakespeare (he thinks Germaine Greer is an authority). He manages to list his subjects' books, publication dates, plays, titles and so on - in fact his writing style resembles the computerised copyright-avoiding melange of official inputs which some websites try to offer as 'news'. The final voice portrait is the modern Elizabeth, no doubt intended as an apex or capstone of the radio series.

All the media performers must have been chosen for media impact - what other criterion could there be? Roald Dahl's life is described, and his books and plays listed, but with a rather complete failure to account for their popularity, if indeed it wasn't purely a promotional outcome. David Bowie's clothes, name, acting, sex and movements are described or quoted, but there's little on his music or how it took shape. There's some mildly amusing stuff on Harold Pinter and his one-man claque, and Antonia Fraser, though Longford's curious interests are omitted, as of course are Edward Heath's and Jimmy Savile's (how the hell did Savile ever...? Naughtie omits all references to paedophile gangs and secret circles, rapes and murders, but it's possible this issue will help bring down the BBC). Pinter, like George Galloway, made fun of Britain's poverty after 1945 in some of his tape-recording based plays, showing gratitude in the usual way.
Note that Pinter in (for example) The Servant has a plot based on a replacement theme, on 'grand replacement' lines, but of course smaller.

Political material is shallow, packaged in BBC fashion with apparent seriousness: Roy Jenkins was an 'intellectual powerhouse' and left an 'indelible mark'; in fact, historians laughed at his books. Heath, Healey, and Wilson are praised without the faintest grasp of what they did. Thatcher is described as a 'byword for individual enterprise'; the story of her ejection when her work of selling chunks of Britain (courtesy Saatchis, Keith Joseph, Goldman Sachs, Lawson, the 'Big Bang' and so on) was done is undescribed and no doubt unknown to Naughtie. Alex Salmond of Scotland is 'a successful nationalist' despite converting chunks of Scottish cities into third world slums. On Blair, there's a rich feast of omissions: Straw and other Jews forcing mass immigration; 9/11, in which the BBC played an unrecoverable part with the WTC7 time zone mistake; lies about weapons of mass destruction - the BBC has never had serious programmes on nuclear matters, or of course on the 'Holocaust' hoax, let alone Iraq and the murders there.

Naughtie gives a simpleton's accounts in passing of the 'Cold War', Malaya etc. There is of course nothing much on Vietnam - the BBC's record of lies is disgusting. There's an unspoken invitation to a shared assumption about wars: they just happen, no point investigating, we are always right, so what if some people make a fortune.

Naturally his economics is simple, too. On labour. We're told of Jack Jones: 'his members knew he would fight for the best deal.' He 'led the left in opposition'. He was some sort of USSR/Jewish spy, like Jimmy Reid of Clydeside and 'leaders' in the other now-dead shipbuilding sites. Probably it was Jewish policy to move ship, car, and bike building to cheap labour countries. Continual strikes therefore were useful. On Scargill and coal-miners, it's amazing, I hope, that news programmes never dealt with practicalities - how much coal is there, where is it, how much does it cost. The multiple costs, and few benefits, of immigration are not ever discussed by the BBC: Green of Migration Watch is missing! There's a chapter on a film developing company, now obsolete technology, and an immigrant woman who allegedly led a futile strike. This of course is just Naughtie fishing around and pretending to find some genuine immigrant contribution. (Stuart Hall, some sort of Marxist writer and member of the 'Runnymede Trust fake think-tank with mock-British name, and a south African cricketer d'Oliveira have an episode each. We also have Doreen Lawrence who reportedly netted at least £300,000 - in rather stark contrast to white victims, male and female, young and old, of racial attacks in Britain; such as Kriss Donald, 15, kidnapped, tortured, castrated, and burned to death by Muslims; who is not granted any mention by Naughtie).

On productivity, or at least money, we have Conran and Habitat; Sainsbury; Anita Roddick; Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch. Naughtie says nothing about Jewish paper money and the control it gives.

Amartya Sen, interestingly, appears; the Bengal Famine of the Second World War (we had to fight - Churchill said Hitler wanted to invade) had an effect on him; he survived, presumably by being in some higher plane than the starving peasants, and supposedly has made economic breakthroughs - Naughtie quotes from some official thing or other with nil interest.

Let me try to indicate what is NOT in this book, to see if there's some thread. Reith's dehydrated liar style, plus with military command structure, oddly doesn't make it. Possibly because it might seem a little impious. There is no bishop or archbishops; the appointment from a short-list might be memorable, for example of Rowan Williams. There's no mention of propagandists, such as A J P Taylor, despite their unquestioned pseudo-eminence; nor is there any account of the BBC's anonymous news writers - BBC news is never credited - despite the fact that Naughtie must know many of them personally. Naughtie avoids all mention of the actual documented beliefs of Islam and Judaism, an outrageous omission. The chapter on Rushdie flatly indicates something of Rushdie's style but not the Jewish publicity angle - no Palestinian material in Rushdie!

'The new Elizabethans' is a preposterously bad book. The final chapter, supposedly on Elizabeth, is of course hedged in with censorship: it's simply impossible to be sure of anything about her. A few stories - insane relatives tucked away as in some sinister novel; addiction to horse racing; permanent entourage feeding material to be read out. I wonder if, when she meets Rothschild, to explicate her nominal money (she never passed beyond the simplest of mathematics, or some such quote), there's a slight hesitation over the cucumber sandwiches: didn't his co-religionists murder her remote relative, a Romanov, somewhere in Russia? And no doubt rape and smash up his kids? - Before returning to the Corgis and the heating bills. I'd say probably she's the worst monarch Britain has ever had.

Let's hope for a Reformation or, preferably, a Renaissance.

Top of Page

Review of BBC Media Trash Ian McIntyre: The Expense of Glory - A Life of John Reith

The Case Against the BBC - Part 1. Reith

Ian McIntyre: The Expense of Glory - A life of John Reith (1993)

Here's the myth of the BBC (2012; forum comment): '... the saddening part of this farce [BBC resignations, as paedophile cover-ups including Jimmy Savile are partly exposed; while Muslim rapes of little white girls are ignored, as are murders of whites in South Africa, the views of victims of wars in the Middle East, and so on, and on, and on is that an organisation that was set up with all the good intentions to bring unbiased news and entertainment, world wide in some areas, has under the regime of successive governments since its inception, been allowed to be infiltrated and controlled by Marxist idealism without anybody questioning it. ... in its day the BBC was the closest anyone could get to know what was going on world wide...'

McIntyre's book (large, many monochrome photos, endnotes) is the outcome of his access to 'millions of words of Reith's diaries in the BBC archives'. The endnotes show a lot of information from these; a previous version exists, but 'heavily edited'. In addition, Reith wrote a couple of supposedly autobiographical books (McIntyre says these were flavoured with nautical expressions, and with Old Testament Bible stories). Newspapers and the 'Radio Times' and ten or so other books make up almost all the source material. And Asa Brigg's History of Broadcasting in the UK - decades old now - and as with Alan Bullock and other establishment-joiners of that time one can almost taste the northernness, the Oxbridge connection, the self-censored smug prose...

'The Expense of Glory' is a phrase taken from a comment by Sydney Smith - McIntyre studied English Lit or 'Greats', and likes such quotations, even of slender relevance. Wiki says he was born in '1930-31'. He joined BBC radio in 1957 and I think had an all-radio career. His book is dedicated to 'George Fischer friend and comrade' who appears to be (or have been) a Hungarian Jew. Fischer worked on or started a weekly radio half-hour called 'Analysis' in 1970; McIntyre wrote a book on Israel in 1968, and whether by coincidence or not, also started work with 'Analysis' in 1970. 'Analysis' was supposed to air alternative and unusual and different from ordinary viewpoints; it is hardly necessary to point out that, of course, it didn't. After a bit less than ten years he became 'controller' of Radio 3 (supposedly cultural stuff with tiny audiences) and later of Radio 4 (supposedly intellectual and news stuff). He seems to have retired to write several biographies, some of Scots, including his Life of Reith. With thirty years and more at the BBC, one must assume censorship 'for the good of the people' is a reflex with him.

Anyway Reith (born 1889) was the son of severe Scottish parents - there's a rather stern photo! - his father a clergyman, a background somewhat similar to Gordon Brown's. He had no secondary education, but was forced to work in 'engineering', locomotive stuff, which he hated. Then the First World War 'broke out' and he fought. After that, he looked for work. It's a mystery to me why he was appointed to manage the newly-formed BBC, and McIntyre doesn't begin to answer this question. Surely there were ex-brass left over from the War who were a more obvious choice? Was the organisation so embryonic that nobody thought it would amount to anything? Maybe his tallness and severe demeanour impressed someone? Conceivably Reith's apparent religiosity is the explanation: the BBC has some similarities to the Church of England, including lifetime careers from about 21, unfair state financial support, and the task of spreading official doctrines, the BBC being technically more advanced, and centralised, but otherwise analogous; perhaps Reith's sermonising style of speech seemed appropriate? Maybe official BBC clothing, dog-collar style, was discussed? At any event, he was selected, and immediately made his mark: his secretary was to be a man in a top hat, who was immediately sacked and replaced by a female secretary. (This was a time before employment legislation - later, Churchill would do the same to Reith).

I'd suggest the BBC was set up all along with an eye on the control of opinion. Radio was new at the time (Marconi's uncertain successes to the founding of the BBC was about 20 years). There was a good deal of disenchantment after the holocaust of the First World War. There was a fear of 'communism', after the so-called 'Russian Revolution', most people of course not knowing this was a Jewish movement. I'd suggest the Jewish roots were planned to be kept hidden in the usual control-both-sides way. 'The 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904 vested the power to license all transmitters and receivers [in Britain] in the Post Office..' In 1922, the main interest of radio manufacturers was to get into a promising new market, irrespective of content. The sets used thermionic valves and were big, hot, expensive pieces of furniture. By 1923, Reith was hard at work on the legal details of rights, patents, writers and composers and publishers. The Charter emerged a few years later, debated and accepted after the 1926 General Strike. Characteristically, McIntyre has nothing to say on the deeper meanings and purposes of this event; he takes the conventional view of 'Labour' and 'Conservative' parties. Or on the Charter's 'public interest' aspects, which of course resulted in full-blown censorship after 1939.

Everyone says Reith did a wonderful job, but this seems likely to be a huge exaggeration. The 'control board' seems to have had eight members, including Reith, so there must have been plenty of expertise. Radio 'skyrocketed' - the number of licences, a handy measure of market penetration, rose to about nine million by 1939. The manufacturers of course were happy to push their products - factories appeared on the roads outside London; retail outlets specialising in radio opened; all no doubt independently of Reith. 'His' phrase - radio was to 'educate, inform and entertain' was copied from Sarnoff in the USA, with the word order changed. Reith started the 'Radio Times' - an obvious title - and since the BBC had inside knowledge of their programmes, it was a 'money spinner' and indeed the guaranteed licence income, plus the possibility of revenue, opened questions of public-sector and private-sector conflicts of interest. Reith's biggest fear was commercial competition and some of his most carefully-wrought speeches were on that subject.

There's a certain fascination in boardroom struggles. What terrific television they would make! There's a background in the book of BBC officials, shadowy detectives, government functionaries, High Court judgments, Times journalists, interspersed with such events as visiting Ascot, dining at the Carlton Grill, being driven to Downing Street, telephoning Ministers. He was a philanderer, and also probably a homosexual, illegal then, suggesting there may have been opportunities for blackmail. But clearly the background manoeuvrings in the BBC are unlikely to be documented. Reith felt insulted by the offer of just an ordinary knighthood, and generally had a high opinion of himself, not as far as I can see supported by much evidence. Reith must have lasted partly because he understood, or grovelled, maybe by instinct rather than reason, establishment power and (for example) took the BBC down the road of foreign language broadcasts which he pretended were not quite propaganda. He was dropped before 1939, and later sacked by Churchill from the Ministry of Information. He was considered for, but didn't get, various jobs reorganising this or that company or branch of government.

People who think the BBC was 'captured' by cultural Marxism seem offbeam. The BBC has ALWAYS, ever since its beginning, been purely establishment, in the pragmatic sense of including Jewish influence as 'establishment'. In the 1920s, it permitted no debate on whether WW1 was a mistake - there were no inquiries; in the 1930s it had nothing on Stalin or on Jews or for that matter the Royals; the Spanish Civil War was not reported honestly; in the 1940s it was pure Churchilliana with unsparing anti-German propaganda; in the 1950s it never deviated from pro-American views on Korea, supposed nuclear weapons; the Nuremberg Trials were never queried. In the 1960s there was no honest comment on the Vietnam War. I could go on, including science fraud too. But the simple point is: the BBC has never, ever, been honest.

One star seems harsh, as there's evidence of a great deal of effort by McIntyre. In its way this book duplicates the BBC's ethos: a well-packaged product, solemn, properly proof-read but also discreetly censored, internally consistent with the establishment world-view, lavish, perked up with a few titillating scandals which aren't important. But the real importance of the BBC remains outside the package.

Just five books from thousands:
Review of ex-BBC boss Greg Dyke's horrifyingly shallow Inside Story
Review of an execrable and evasive book by a BBC employee. Robert Peston: Who Runs Britain?
Tenth-rate book by Robin Aitken of unimportant criticisms of the BBC
Laurence Rees has been turning out junk programmes for the BBC for years
James Naughtie of BBC Radio 4's 'major series' on people in Britain who have endured Elizabeth's 'reign'

Endnote 15 Mar 2016

Alice Cribbins says: Hard to know whether ReRev is a mere mischief maker or a krank. Either way, the ravings of whatever shade of lunatic he or she is, it is appalling to me that Amazon can tolerate the existence of anti-Semitism on its website, and indeed, publish same.

Noting the importance of freedom of speech and the fact that - presumably - some academics will be interested in the extent of racism in the world and the nature of its substance, and given the Holocaust & other racist crimes, Amazon's failure to prevent such muck from being available to its users represents a moral failure of very serious proportions.

Rerevisionist says: I have to laugh at your hired stupidity. The BBC has deliberately lied for the whole of its life. I won't say more.

Alice Cribbins says: You can say as much as you like. You're a laughable fraud, trying to pass yourself off as an intelligent human being. Let me repeat: I've been doing university research on the history of the BBC for the past four years. What actual effort have you put into the subject over the same time period. Go get a blank piece of paper and draw a donut on it. There's your answer.

Interested by this stupid piece of trolling, I followed up links, and it does seem that an Alice Cribbins, of northern England, has taught A-level [pre-university] history for 20 years. And works, or at least reads, in the British Library in London. Her main interest seems to be pop music from her youth, and foreign but translated into English detective stories. The Jewish surname index gives CHRABENSZ as the nearest sound equivalent; I visualise, perhaps wrongly, Alice Cribbins as a middle aged fanatical woman from Manchester or Leeds, with a genetic scream reflex when asked to investigate hypotheses, narrow-minded and unintellectual. And probably ugly. I think that Jewish fanaticism is evolved, after the event of the invention of cities. Once expertise has formed, a parasitic existence based on secrecy and lies can emerge. If this is a new idea to you, read this link. Imagine the amount of trash her pupils must have endured. How outrageous that a primitive simpleton, mentally something like a taboo worshipper and believer in human sacrifice, should actually be paid, and be allowed to exploit whites!

Top of Page

Review by Rerevisionist of Ben Thompson (Ed) Ban This Filth!

Whitehouse never understood the world. But neither does the author of 'Ban This Filth!' This review August 29, 2014

Mary Whitehouse (1910-2001) started her career of protest in 1963, when she wrote to the BBC's chairman. In January 1964, the 'Clean up TV' (CUTV) group booked Birmingham Town Hall, where she spoke, nervously, to a large audience.

CUTV had five million signatures in 1965 for a petition. There was therefore a lot of support for that movement, much of it from housewives. She managed to keep in the public eye with autobiographies: 1971 Who does she think she is?/ 1977 Whatever happened to sex?/ 1982 A most dangerous woman? / 1985 Mightier than the sword / 1993 Quite contrary. She seems to have had several publishers. I can't find evidence of how popular these books were. (Surely this must be some sort of taboo; the book trade must have some idea of these figures).

Her last letter seems to have been in 1990. Her archives were given to Essex University, noted then and now for low grade social science research, including the climate scam.

The title 'Ban This Filth!' of this 2012 book ('Edited by Ben Thompson', published by faber and faber) is misleading. Page 66 helpfully lists 'objectionable programmed features':

Sexy innuendoes, suggestive clothing and behavior
Cruelty, sadism and unnecessary violence
No regret for wrong-doing
Blasphemy and the presentation of religion in a poor light
Excessive drinking and foul language
Undermining respect for law and order
Unduly harrowing and depressing themes.

Other themes included promotion of abortion, sterilization, premarital sex, promotion of pornography, and homosexuality.

At this distance, it's obvious enough that contraception had a lot of effect on morals at the time. Much of the rest is conventional and unthought-out attitudes: Whitehouse was in her thirties during the Second World War, and probably never understood anything about it. She wrote a laudatory piece when Elizabeth was crowned. She supported Christianity, and hated blasphemy. She supported the armed forces in a naive way. She taught art; as far as I know, none of her works appeared anywhere. The emphasis on swearing was very characteristic of respectable people: when G B Shaw put the word 'bloody' on stage in 1914 it caused a 'sensation'. Ludovic Kennedy stated that the chief complaint to the BBC was the use of swear words.

It's clear she was harmless opposition: not controlled opposition, but opposition that emerged from nowhere and was soon perceived to be unthreatening. Hence the toleration, the publicity, the books. The slow working of the agenda baffled Whitehouse; she had no idea of the point behind 'Till Death Us Do Part' and its US incarnation as 'All in the Family'. There's some talk of threats and harassment, though no details that I could find of that; or of police reaction, if any.

Looking a bit deeper: cruelty and violence of course was progressively introduced into TV and cinema. There's an instructive letter (p 154. 1974, from Jeremy Isaacs) on the 'grim detail of Nazi murders'. Whitehouse disliked an episode of 'The World at War' entitled 'Genocide'. She had no answer to Isaacs, knowing nothing of Jewish mass murder in the USSR. She disliked the few news items showing violence: she of course had no idea that the BBC routinely covered up mass murders: violence and cruelty on a scale completely outside her conception. I doubt if she ever wondered why the BBC has such a lot of people with odd names: Winogradsky (p 134) explaining why some Christians are racially prejudiced, and therefore he wasn't 'making a mockery of the Christian faith'. I doubt if Whitehouse knew anything about Talmudic tribal racism; and was therefore a safe mild critic. In her last activist decade, Richard Desmond published pornography; he went on to buy up Express papers (allegedly removing an archive front page showing British soldiers hanged by 'Jews'). There's a brief dismissive (1979) letter (p. 156) from Richard Eyre. 'Law and order' is perhaps a preoccupation of some people who've known dangerous times; in those naive times, the words were automatically coupled. It was assumed the police will be on the side of the citizenry. It's mentally worlds away from the Jewish and Muslim preoccupation with sex with little girls and boys, promotion of anal sex, voting fraud, fake liberated women, and officially-encouraged anti-free speech thugs.

A side-aspect of this book is the resurfacing of technologies, familiar to some of us, which seem terrifyingly primitive: letters written on typewriters, carefully worked-over with double-spacing, crossings-out, printer-style markups, retypings, and so on. I don't know whether the Whitehouses switched to (e.g.) Alan Sugar's word processor. There were no DVDs, or even VCRs for much of this time. There were no consumer mobile phones yet. There was what now seems elaborate planning between members of the NVALA (National Viewers and Listeners Association) to watch such-and-such, on such-and-such an evening, since otherwise it may never be seen again. Much of the book quotes letters describing violence in programmes, and, in particular, swear words, listed isolated from their plots.

Intermittent puzzles about the mid-1960s to 1990 suggest themselves: Dennis Potter thought flying ducks on living room walls marked the Whitehouse type; I couldn't help wondering if bold types covered their walls with ceramic duck flocks.

The BBC permits and encourages one-way communication in the most insultingly undemocratic way. Tony Benn, as Postmaster-General, refused any public access to programme planners. By 1980, the BBC seem to have decided to change Whitehouse's lines of communication: instead of writing to 'The Chairman of the BBC', instead her missives had to be addressed to 'The Secretary'.

Looking back, it's striking how the BBC had absolutely no interest in serious information. They might have had grisly, but effective, programmes on what are now called STDs. They might have explained how the Fed and Bank of England work. They might have had serious debates on immigration (never happened to this day in Parliament). They might have had programmes on the EU. They might have had programmes on how programmes are made. They might even have had programmes of child abuse—but it's fairly obvious to everyone that in each case they were concerned to conceal these things.

The book has no index; if you're interested in a censored history of pornography, blasphemy, or whatever, I doubt this book is any more use than a typical headline summary. It has a few black and white photos, presumably from standard sources; letters are reproduced in a non-proportional typeface (oddly, including f digraphs) which is agonising skinny, without typewriter-ribbon blurred realism. There are oddities: Jimmie Hendricks?? The paper is thick.

As an interesting contrast, Whitehouse's contemporary Lady Birdwood was (for a time) chair of the London branch of NVALA. She campaigned on Oh! Calcutta, trade unions, immigration control, and the expulsion of Jews. Here's my version of her booklet The Longest Hatred. The contrast in official treatment between these two campaigning women tells a story.

Top of Page

Top of Page

Website YouPorn Review by Rerevisionist: 18 April 2016

Porn Spin-Off From Youtube. Watch But Don't Pay!

Youtube was the first to anticipate the multiple growth of cheap video cameras and phones, cheap broadband, cheap video editing software, cheap electronic payments, cheap online ad systems, and cheap digital storage of high volumes of data. Youtube was (the story goes) started by PayPal employees presumably using cheap Jewish paper and e-money to get going. They must have suffered from Jew Shock, as insistent videographers uploaded Holohoax material, which I'd guess they had never seen before. On balance, they (in my view) behaved with what must count as rare integrity.

youporn logo

Youporn's name seems to be based on Youtube's. Like Youtube, they thrived on vast numbers of uploads, but, in their case, of fairly precisely defined pornography, mostly from 'amateurs'. The economics of free uploads supposedly caused consternation among the 'professionals', largely, of course, Jewish Americans. I haven't made any attempt to assess the business importance, downloads, percentage of Internet traffic, takeovers, revenue etc etc of this 'industry'.

Their pink-on-black logo lists genres, which seem to have stabilised by now. 'Hairy' means pubic hair:- most of their 'stars' shave. 'MILF' ('Mature I'd Like to Fu ck') is a newish word, presented to the world by Internet. 'Interracial' of course is a special Jewish interest. There are 'cuck' (cuckold) videos—another Jewish interest, of course. There are 'gay' videos, both male and female, though the 'ass gravy' aspect seems to be played down, fortunately. There are masturbation videos, often of course quite long. There are 'outdoor' videos: typically a white woman, completely naked, except for shoes, walking through streets which have some crowds, but not many: German small towns, rather than 5th Avenue or Detroit.

'Casting' videos are usually faked with porn models: they at least have some narrative structure, an interview style, for young women (sometimes men) who want to get into the 'industry'. Some are Eastern European, part of the wash from Jews exploiting the 'Soviet Union' and Europe. I haven't noticed any with Moslems; this may be related to the phenomenon that black women and Asian women do their best to mimic white women's looks. They are perceived as better looking, or just better. As with detective stories, theft or injury is not enough: all of them seem to have real or staged intercourse.

Sex needs penetration, and is difficult to show; hence I suppose the emphasis on penises and 'blow jobs' (the word 'suck' seems to have been used up before), and odd postures, and close-ups to show females.

Story lines in libraries, private houses, car garages, schoolrooms etc etc occur but seem rare; possibly longer porn films of the 'Debbie Does Dallas' type no longer exist. The shorter videos have couples sorted by size and shape and, presumably, willingness, usually with no special script. Longer films may have been wiped out by 'Porn Models' or 'Cam Girls' or 'Webcam Models', who (I'm told) live in quite large buildings with each other, spending 8 hours a day greeting the punters with a weary smile. Their role is to get people to sign up to their club. Contracts include permanent direct payments from banks, not stoppable without their permission. Unless you're expert in interpreting contracts of this sort, I advise you not to join.

Other genres include sneaky shots of e.g. women in baths, or men surprised as they try sex devices. You might expect prostitutes to advertise online, but this doesn't seem to happen; a breed of electronic pimps hires them out, I think.

There must be material that's censored out: no wartime rapes, for example, despite the U.S. and Jewish policy of rape as 'standard operating procedure'. There must be many snaps by G.I.s in Europe, Vietnam, Iraq, and wherever. Come to think of it, 'rabbis' in Israel having sex with Slav women unable to get away might make an interesting but censored subgenre: imagine the hideous faces, beards, and spittle. Or of children, despite the Jewish and Moslem explicit acceptance, and the cover-ups in (for example) Britain.

Top of Page

Review of Actor's autobiography Dirk Bogarde: A Postillion Struck by Lightning/ For the Time Being

Luvvies like bubbles on a river, June 28, 2010

A Postillion Struck by Lightning A gayish review online of the slight figure leads me to wonder if the book's title is an in-joke, tossed off like Prick Up Your Ears. I'm writing this without checking anything; so I don't know. Much of this 1977 book is charming. The earliest years (Bogarde was born in 1921) seem bucolic and idyllic, perhaps more suited to the times before the Great War. I have no idea how accurate his recollections are; the detail seems a bit too precise—but who knows. The impression left with me is partly the backwash caused by the Great War: many of his family members lived in, or were from, Belgium, the Netherlands, Scotland, and parts of Europe—his father worked for The Times though I don't recall Bogarde saying what he did there, or remarked on the propaganda. A relative of his painted dashing pieces which sold in pubs and other non-upmarket places. When Bogarde was (I think) two, he found for the first time the house he loved, wreckage and all, was rented, not owned. They had to move. There follows detail on a technical college in Glasgow, which left little intellectual impression, though I find it hard to believe he was quite as uncomprehending as he writes. And detail on a meeting in a cinema, picked up by a man obsessed with a bandagy form of bondage. And detail on an attack by Glaswegian pupils in which his head was dunked in a toilet, some time after which he fought back hard, proving he wasn't one of the engineers. He was rescued from this on account of his poor progress. All that and what follows is interwoven with descriptions of nature (and its reverse), descriptions of family styles (natural functions and hugs vs the reverse), and descriptions of his fumblings with art—his ventures into French, his many drawings, his feelings about life drawings, his experiments with theatrical conventions and clothes and speeches. He stumbled into a menial job at the 'Q' theatre in Richmond (I think) as scenes painter, very minor actor, and less minor actor. 'Q' liked 'intellectual' plays, meaning no doubt Jewish 'socialism' and what not. The theatre had problems with the local authority, who'd have preferred something more entertaining. I'd guess 'Q' fell at the far end of a long trail starting with dollars from the Fed. I fear Bogarde was either a useful idiot or a fellow traveller. The quoted conversations, probably reconstructed, show people with no idea of the forces behind the 'Great War', or the terrible fragility of Europe as Jewish money secretly assembled vast armed forces, although by today's standards these fortunately seem a bit feeble, like clockwork toy armaments and fireworks. He could not or would not challenge this; he stuck to the soon-to-be-manufactured Jewish lies for all of his life. In one of his books he makes it clear that ne of his films showing Germans as dissolute animals, as requested by Jews, was fine by him, as a money-maker. Sad stuff. But at least he was shielded by fame.

For the Time Being This book is about half biographical fragments arranged loosely by topic—the Second World War and his films naturally loom largest. And about half reviews. There is also—something I hadn't noticed until Amazon pointed this out—an introductory piece on the horrors of a severe stroke. It's well-written, but in my view—I hate to take a dissenting view—reveals a man who understandably is both narcissistic and superficial. His reviews are luvvy material—Russell Harty, well-known as a TV presenter a long time ago, to whom he owed his publishing career, after being allowed to reminisce for forty minutes on TV; Brigitte Bardot; Charlotte Rampling; Peter Ustinov. Antony Sher. And related material—Peter Mayle on Provence; Joseph Losey; how to record an audiobook; Swiss Family Robinson; Visconti's wheelchair bound life after a stroke; the Times Lit Supplement. His wartime experience was, he says, interpreting aerial photographs—judging by an advert in this (Penguin) edition his other books deal with this theme in greater detail. He reviewed seven World War 2 related books (reviews dated 1988 and 1991 in the Daily Telegraph) and is innocently free from any trace of revisionism, though he made a couple more articles on the theme of 200 hostile letters about his reviews. What would he have done if he hadn't been good looking in his youth? He reminds me of many women who describe themselves as 'artistic' as a default position to hide something of a chasm of their awareness, in the way kittens whose eyelids are sewn up were found to never develop full sight.
Seven years later: I'm pretty sure that a TV programme reviewing his life led him to write his memoirs. His writing in effect was a second career. Worth a mention.

Top of Page

Review of autobiography Michael Caine: What's It All About

Interesting though not perfect, August 3, 2010

One of the reviewers here criticises Caine (not his real name!) for name-dropping. This seems unreasonable—firstly, there's in fact a lot of material about his early life; secondly, what, in addition, would he write about, but film stars, producers, Cannes, Harold Pinter, Robert Graves, Ben Gurion being an East End Royal Fusiliers sergeant who called himself Benny Green and fourteen members of the first Israeli cabinet being ex-Royal Fusiliers?

The engaging quality of this book is the way Caine describes his learning experiences—acting tricks, such as the way to act drunk, and the command not to break the 'fourth wall', and wearing heavy specs so in future films he could change his image; adaptation of his eyes to bright lights—it takes a minute; script problems, issues with friends, starry-eyed awe of famous people, Hollywood studios. One other acting trick was not to enter a room which was supposed to be new to the character, to give the authentic appearance of groping for light switches and watching for trip hazards. His writing style seems to reproduce something of the same feeling. He reveals the slow dawning on him of his family's poverty not being anything like as bad as some others, of comparative misfortunes, of homosexuals being polite and civilised to him,

His early life and the Micklethwaite's Cockney existence includes accounts of bomb damage, orphans, and sudden deaths in London, and of his school's evacuation—he was moved with his brother to a huge house, then split up and redirected to somewhere deemed more befitting their lowly status, and Caine was locked under the stairs in Harry Potter style. They were rescued by their mum and somehow moved to Norfolk. Caine was encouraged at the little school there—and was the only pupil ever to get a scholarship.

Back in south London, Caine writes of spivs (backslang for VIPs) and teddy boys: he says both were dangerous, and that petrol bombs were thrown as a protection racket incentive. This sounds like a child's exaggeration to me. For one thing, some were friends of his father. He says his mother was tough as nails, but this can't quite have been true, as she seems not to have been able to prevent him gambling all their little spare money away, or renting radios at great cost.

In his teens he did National Service: Korea, with accounts of Seoul destroyed by American bombs, with human 'night soil' on fields, Chinese across the hill, minefields and twigs. Caine mentions Dien Bien Phu, and Chinese 'communism', which I've always thought dissimilar to Russian. Caine isn't very precise on politics—he says he was tempted in London by women trying to sign him up to the CP, offering him wealth and free love—which he found wasn't entirely an accurate prospectus. Joan Littlewood didn't like him—she didn't want stars. She chatted to Baron Philippe de Rothschild, suggesting an ideological propaganda link which Caine didn't follow up.

In the late 1950s new types of informal London clubs developed, prefiguring the 1960s; it couldn't have been that bad. Hitchcock, Chaplin (earlier) and Coward (Clapham—more upmarket) were also south Londoners.

Caine went into rep after being told about 'The Stage' and being told where he could buy it. He was hired by a homosexual in Horsham—years later this man died impoverished, but pleased because he was acknowledged to have discovered Michael Caine. The stage name was taken from the film 'The Caine Mutiny'—as with 'Pink Floyd', made up because a name was needed then and there. There are anecdotes, including of course sexual stuff. And actors' lodgings. Apparently the sign was: 'no blacks, irish, dogs, or actors'. Quite a few committed suicide; I can't help wondering if they did this in a theatrical manner.

Fascinating to see how limited is the part played (pun intended) by actors. Most films start with a script—but the locations, ambience, general feeling, final form of the plot and practically everything else are jointly assembled to such an extent it's quite surprising the process works at all. And maybe it doesn't—this book was written as Hollywood was starting to decline, if I've understood the figures; and Caine lashes out at a chap called Lennard who had a rota of permanently employed studio film actors, none now famous, when he might have employed O'Toole, Connery, Frank Finlay, Terry Stamp, and of course Caine. Quite a few directors are (of course) discussed, and their quirks. Producers less so, and contractual details and such things as dubbing and foreign rights and videos and repeat fees and the general life-cycle of films hardly appear at all. He has a lot of amusing detail about the quirks of directors, which felt overdone to me—it's after all largely a technical job, and screaming and shouting seem inconsistent with worrying over the details of continuity and lighting and emotion.

I have a theory that some performers have a slight oddity which makes them stand out: Stallone has some sort of facial muscle inertia, Mitchum looked slightly red Indian, and so on. Caine has light blue eyes with what he calls a disease of the eyelids, making his eyes look a bit menacing. He says he practised staring, as he'd read somewhere that actors don't blink—probably good advice with films.

Caine's early films, and the 1960s of which there's a very colour supplementy description, made the greatest impression on him. In retrospect they're a bit small-scale compared with those of Sean Connery, for example. 'The Ipcress File' is a rather small-scale spy thing, as is 'Get Carter' (with the the multistorey car park, still talked of in Newcastle until its demolition). 'Alfie' had an abortion sub-plot—Caine's early films all had the element of violence which I think was helped by technological improvements—cameras were smaller and film faster, so places like rail stations and hotel foyers and views through car windows were easier to film. Caine however turned down Hitchcock's unpleasant Frenzy—he had a lifelong dislike of paid sex and related issues, which he dates to being shown a tit in exchange for a chocolate bar.

Judging by this book Caine had little interest in the technical details, confining his comments to the angles of shots and smog. There's stuff on such topics as dried camel dung in Sahara windstorms, Filipino poverty with sad young women used as prostitutes, Almeira and spaghetti westerns, Hollywood (the actual place) and its seediness, the new 'independence' of Nigeria and Uganda.

He seems to have had little idea of which films would be successful, and doesn't seem to have cared, since in the short term he was paid about the same amount. However he's a bit scathing about 'The Magus' and its author, and about his killer bees film (which incidentally must be one of the earliest uses of blue screens)—the one that wrecked his name in the USA. In the days before digital editing, film cutting was literally that; it must have taken forever.

The later parts of the book deal with Labour and high taxation—many people of 'talent' emigrated. And his Windsor house and departure to Los Angeles. And with his identifying his wife, a Kashmiri who appeared in a coffee TV advert and whom he tracked down—his write-up makes this sound quite an adventure, which, surely, can't have been the case, as he must have known how to locate actresses. Incidentally she is (or was) a Muslim and this may be related to Camoron's adoption of Caine for political purposes. And his connection with Langan's Brasserie. There's an account of 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' as the theme for 2001, the music borrowed by Stanley Kubrick from Elstree library, perhaps with 'The Blue Danube'. It occurs to me that some of the footage for the moon landings must have been Kubrick's work. Caine mentions nuclear weapons, the Vietnam War and other public events.

I have to be honest and say I didn't finish the book, as I regard many films as propagandist and/or silly and catchpenny, aimed at the proles. However it does appear to be authentic autobiographical work; there are a few minor errors suggesting no ghosting and light editing.

Top of Page

Review of Jewish interest music Bob Dylan: Dylan on Dylan

Promo material with minimal info, July 15, 2010

Bob Dylan recorded, by my count, about 400 songs from, say, 1962 to 2008. Say one in six weeks. For my taste there are about 4 types—what might be called 'tales' (various people and the Jack of Hearts etc), a few perfunctory social comment, the intimate occasions type, both unaffectionate (Thin Man) and affectionate (Lay Lady Lay), and the meaningless but effective songs (Gates of Eden -'The motorcycle black madonna/ Two-wheeled gypsy queen).

Most or all of these thirty-one interviews coincide with tours, films, records; recently Dylan had an art exhibition but this postdates the final 2004 interview. They are all very polite- nobody says he's a disappointing ghastly little man, for example, to see what happens. All the background work—agents, contracts—is missing and it's impossible to know what information has been suppressed. The largest amount of data is about other musicians—notably early influences, and then musicians who accreted to him as became or was made famous—and studio work, which he compared to working in a coal mine. He seems very generous about influences—there's quite a huge list of people he listened to. There's also quite a bit on poetry and writers—but whether deliberately or not it's a bit of a shambles—it's hard to believe Rimbaud, Byron, Shakespeare etc has any serious effect. It seemed possible to me he might have read Dylan Thomas—'petrol blind face to the wind', 'Bible black night' seem Bob Dylanesque. At any rate the words are the thing here and there's very little on his writing technique, if he has/had one. The impression given is he used a portable typewriter and because this is an effort left most of the words the way they emerged. He doesn't seem to have ever designed songs in the sense of selecting some emotion or reaction or outlook, and trying to embody it in works, reworking it to make it more or less subtle.

I'm sure Dylan fans will buy this book and similar ones, and they are I suppose right to do so, but the nutritional content isn't very satisfactory—whether he has unrevealed depths, or basically is just another entertainer, who knows?

Top of Page

Review of Media: BBC interest Carla Lane: Someday I'll Find Me: Carla Lane's Autobiography

Disappointingly thin: romantic haze plus umbilical link with the BBC desert, 21 Sep 2010

Published 2006. Quite a short book for an autobiography. Born in 1937 as (I think) Carla Barrack; I think her dad (Da?) was Italian. Her life was scriptwriting, plus her animal welfare work. Only two of 36 chapters consider her childhood and life up to about 30: her earlier life is almost entirely omitted. It must have been a bit of a mixture; she has a love for Liverpool and its people and its—arguably—decayed scruffiness, but preferred to spend her life in rather more upmarket surroundings.

Her main writing achievements were the Liver Birds (1969-79—jointly written), Butterflies (78-82) and Bread (86-91). If I've read the book correctly, for most of this time she had a 'relationship' with a BBC producer, who is kept entirely anonymous (and unphotographed) throughout the book. It's impossible to guess whether there was an effect analogous to the casting couch. I suspect the episodic approach has affected her entire writing style; typical chapters are about six pages, and one feels they are designed for careful reading, taking about five minutes per page (or four, allowing for advertising in overseas sales). There is almost nothing on her writing techniques and ideas and approaches, which is disappointing, nor on fan mail, reviews, or other feedback.

She got into scriptwriting with a female friend (there are a few photos of them both, with top-heavy late 1960s hairstyles) when they wrote from Liverpool to the Head of Comedy (with capitals) in London, submitting a Monty Pythonesque bit of writing. This could not have been earlier than about 1970, when she was about 33. They took a train to London, and were commissioned to write about girls sharing a flat. This sounds very much like a female version of the 'Likely Lads' (64-66), one character being essentially risk-taking and slightly adventurous and assertive, the other more plodding and respectably middle-class. So the viewers can admire the bold one, but be mentally reassured by the other. It must have been felt to be a sound formula—it lasted ten years. (Americans and others might like to know the 'Liver Bird' is a sculpture on top of a Liverpool building, famous locally for having been removed the day before German bombs dropped. It's now known Churchill was aware the bombing was about to happen). The woman singer of the Eurythmics (from Durham I think) discovered from this series that it was possible to share a flat in London—so maybe it had a powerful effect, in the same way that travel programmes on Spain had influence.

Butterflies was for my taste an agonisingly prolonged will-they-do-it series, then will-they-do-it-again, with romanticised off-screen once-off adultery. Bread, for my taste, was also an agonisingly prolonged series about Liverpudlians who were meant to be witty, characterful, wise in their own way, quirky, and all the rest of it. They seemed stupid, grasping, dishonest, ordinary in most senses, repetitive, and without many redeeming features. But, hey, the BBC liked them. Probably they fell in with the BBC's ideas of provincials: the BBC archives have insulting 'documentary' films from the 50s and 60s—black and white and filmed with orange filters to make the brickwork stand out, blokes in flat caps on bikes, women scrubbing their front steps, and casual BBC acceptance of their unemployment.

Carla Lane was flown out to Los Angeles, in about 1980 I suppose, and like others—Billy Connolly, Johnny Speight (see my Private Eye review), Rowan Atkinson I think, and for that matter Aldous Huxley—found the godawful conveyor belt of garbage not to her taste, though she can't convincingly explain why not.

Carla Lane seems—as one imagines a great many media people regarded as creative or talented—entirely oblivious or ignorant of one main point of the mass media, its brainwashing or propaganda function.

Quite a bit of this book concerns animals and animal suffering. Bertie Russell commented once that film stars had glory, but the House Un-American Activities Committee had power. It's striking how little influence people like the McCartneys and sundry animal rights people have (Brigitte Bardot isn't mentioned, but could have been). I wonder if Carla Lane is involved with anti-Halal and anti-kosher activity, if there is any? Almost certainly not. There must be limits to heartache. I'll give the last words to an evolutionary biologist: '.. it is reasonable to suppose that people who are prone to developing close relationships are more likely than average to be exploitable in this manner. [I.e. 'manipulation by pets of evolved systems designed to underlie close human relationships (Archer 1997)'. This] .. fits well with the proposal that romantic love and attachments are more typical of western societies..'

Top of Page

Review of Pop Culture? Nick Mason: Inside Out - A Personal History of Pink Floyd

Well-written and partially informative 2007

Mason's book is well-written (and in effect co-written by other band members objecting to this or that) but a bit bloodless. Mason omits a lot of things—how much money they made, sexual shenanigans, security problems, fallings-out, his motor racing, and just day-to-day life when they were famous. So in response I'll miss out quite a bit of his book, and concentrate on the early years and The Dark Side of the Moon which made them—without that LP I doubt they'd have achieved much.

There's an almost complete absence of any suggestion they were influenced by world events: lots of photos of the holiday snap type, nothing on nukes or the Vietnam War. They conform to the idea that surrealism is a by-product of censorship during dangerous times; if serious discussion is taboo or threatened, artistic oddities may emerge. Later, their Second World War material (in The Wall ) is entirely conventional. There's a song about mercenaries (The Dogs of War). And that's about it.

'Underground London' suddenly appeared (pp 55, 56) in the 1960s, when they met, or some of them met, when training to be architects—useful background for elaborate sound (and film) set construction. They decided to try to form a 'group' as these were called at the time. Being all-male and hairy and writing their own music, mostly songs, may have been taken for granted. Mason was voted, or selected, or tossed a coin, and appointed drummer. He writes that a drum-kit is one of the few acoustic instruments left in recorded pop, complete with rattles and vibrations (surely this must be wrong?) As they got into their stride, we hear of Syd Barrett, and making money from 'gigs', and recording studios—West Hampstead, and Abbey Road in north London, where the Beatles turned up to work; and privately-owned studios, such as Roger Waters', where presumably they could work all hours without having to book. And, with luck, buy equipment to write off some tax. There's an account (144-6) of Ron Geesin's Notting Hill basement, which sounds an incredibly organised subterranean chaos of 8-track tape machines and tape segments, hard-to-manage session players, accompanied by banjo and harmonium. Queen's members in London grew up with post-war do-it-yourself gadgetry—valve amplifiers, parts assembled with aid of circuit diagrams, and so on—and I think something like this happened with Pink Floyd. They experimented with pre-laser lighting and projection effects, some with dangerously wobbly spinning mirrors. The university circuit 'mushroomed'; Mason doesn't speculate on such topics as paper money booms and inflation. I remember seeing them: their projected slide, with coloured oils, was too cold to work properly.

Page 125 has an interesting account of musical structure; we might perhaps compare Klee taking a line for a walk, the composition evolving by erasing some bits, emphasising others; or the use of blots or sponges loaded with pigment as a basis for landscape pictures: '.. Instead of the standard song structure .. verses, choruses, middle eight and bridge.. and in contrast to.. the more improvised pieces, it was carefully constructed. .. classical music convention of three movements. .. With no knowledge of scoring, .. we invented our own hieroglyphics.' Mason doesn't discuss (for example) what a 'note' is, or what a 'tune' is, as distinct from random notes—something to do with short-term memory, and the ear's structure, maybe? I can't help wondering whether most auditors notice a 'structure'; what makes some structures successful? Could a supreme artist invent a new structure with each piece?

As to the modern problem of mixing sounds and instruments: '.. Some prefer an.. ensemble feel ... At other times it may benefit a piece to have one clear solo voice, instrument or sound riding above everything else. .. David and Rick felt more comfortable with a purely musical solution. Roger and I were drawn towards experimenting with the balances.. Chris Thomas.. did it the way he thought sounded right. ..' (178). Some of their effects depended on the then-new stereo sound and other recording artefacts: an 'azimuth co-ordinator' rather like modern software-controlled sound motion; quietness and loudness in Careful with that Axe; 'weird fluxing tape loops'; wine glasses. Mason has amusing accounts of sound effects libraries ('The Overstuffed Closet.. opening a cupboard from which all kinds of paraphernalia could be heard falling out') and hardware (Bell pianos, Hammond organs, clavinets, timpani, gongs, triangles, temple bells and wind machines).

The Dark Side of the Moon was years in gestation. At the end of 1968, their third single failed. They 'ordained themselves' an albums-only concern. Meddle perhaps kept them going, until The Dark Side of the Moon was 'released' in 1973 in the UK and USA. In (I think) 1972 the band members got together: Waters had an outline, and fragments on tape. But no coherent theme. 'As we talked, the subject of stress emerged as a common thread, although.. it was, in fact, one of the most stable periods in our domestic lives. ... we assembled a list of the difficulties and pressures of modern life... Deadlines, travel, the stress of flying, the lure of money, a fear of dying, .. the problems of mental stability... Armed with this list Roger went off to continue working on the lyrics. .. this felt like a considerably more constructive way of working' [than the previous 'rather piecemeal approach'].

The music 'evolved', around the words. (Or 'lyrics'—I suppose the expression helps define which words). ... 'This gave Roger the opportunity to see any musical or lyrical gaps...' An early version written and was recorded throughout 1972. Mason describes, over a few pages, each of the tracks. Incidentally the main vocals seem to have been sung by Roy Harper. SPEAK TO ME '.. an overture.. A taster.. Constructed from cross fades.' The 'heartbeat' effect was from a very soft beater on a padded bass drum. The increasing chord was a piano chord held for more than a minute, played backwards. BREATHE 'represented the first half of an experiment in reusing the same melody for two songs...' ON THE RUN '... an instrumental bridge.. with an EMS SynthiA' for the bubbling sound. And 'we also ran riot in the EMI sound effects library..' TIME The introduction was recorded in an antique shop ... chimes, ticks and alarms'. And tunable roto-toms. THE GREAT GIG IN THE SKY Rick Wright's keyboard with vocals by Clair Torry. MONEY Dick Parry on tenor sax. With one (or more?) tape loops, including pennies jingling on a string, coins in a bowl, and sound effect cash registers. The drink being slurped to illustrate consumerism was in fact paper being torn. And so on. Page 175 discusses the snippets of speech, added just before the final assembly. ‘Roger drafted a series of questions about madness, violence and mortality.. We invited.. the crew, the engineers, other musicians.. to read each card and then simply give their answers into a microphone. .. Gerry O'Driscoll, the Irish doorman, was the undoubted star. ...’

It's curious how little idea Mason and the others had of its sales potential (35 million, says Mason; one in twenty of all English speakers, allowing for new generations??) His list of reasons includes 'strong, powerful songs' with clear, simple words; the idea of pressures of modern life; guitar and keyboard work; session players; state of the art quality stereo; packaging—they didn't bother to look at cover designs after the prism-on-black; and he says it was great to make love to, without saying why. He underplays the wailing, scared-sounding woman—perhaps for legal reasons, as she sued them. And doesn't say anything about the melancholy feel, which must have filled many a dismal bedsit.

Top of Page

Review of Fascinating Inbuilt Assumptions of Simple Advocates Geoffrey Robertson QC & Andrew Nicol, QC: Media Law (4th edn; Penguin Books; 1984-2002)

** Amazon removed this from their reviews after a few days ** approx. 12th April 2014
This review was banned by Amazon UK!! Read it here!
How to Get Away with Things ... BUT only if you're politically correct 5th April 2014

Read between the lines to understand the Jewish menace within a corrupt legal system.

Media Law exams for journalists exist; perhaps surprisingly—one would have imagined the hacks simply get their stuff 'legalled' on a more or less ad hoc basis. Judging by Amazon reviews, some books on this ill-defined subject are legally-based, and dry; this one is slanted to how to get away with things, claims an Amazon quotation, though the writer of that phrase seems to have no idea of the conventions now in place to ensure, mostly, that the Jewish world-view is barely mentioned and never criticised. Robertson & Nichol include jokes and commentaries partly as relief, partly to insert PC comments. These remarks remind me slightly of explanatory books pointing out puzzling features of the Building Regulations.

My 2002 copy (30p from a market; the newer edition should include e.g. Leverson's 'Inquiry', and presumably the birth of Youtube and advent of RT) shows that both Robertson and Nichol are or were in Doughty Street Chambers; see my highly unimpressed review of Robertson as a joint author in the Putney Debates (above). Nicol for three years was 'chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association'. I would guess that one of Penguin's motives for publication was to continue the secret Jewish policy of (among other things) flooding Europe with immigrants; I wonder what the legal status of this book is: it's perfectly possible it's laughed at or disregarded by other lawyers, something I noticed happened to another Penguin law book. The competence of the two authors is difficult to assess.

The contents list is: 1 Freedom of Expression/ 2 The Human Rights Act/ 3 Defamation/ 4 Obscenity; Blasphemy and Race Hatred/ 5 Privacy and Confidence/ 6 Copyright/ 7 Contempt of Court/ 8 Reporting the Courts/ 9 Reporting Lesser Courts and Tribunals/ 10 Reporting Parliaments, Assemblies and Elections/ 11 Reporting Whitehall [this seems to have been updated to 'Reporting Executive Government']/ 12 Reporting Local Government/ 13 Reporting Business/ 14 Media Self-Regulation/ 15 Censorship of Films, Video [DVDs added later]/ 16 Broadcasting Law. There's an alphabetical-by-plaintiff list of cases which of course provides much of the amusing material. Also statutes, and statutory instruments (the latter are more or less made up by governments, and as far as I know are undebated in Parliament: Planning Law has bookshelves of these). And an index, collected under relevant rubrics: 'Defamation' has the longest list of index entries, I think. There's an entire page of references to the 'European Convention on Human Rights', which is regarded as a sort of keystone or central focus. The processes by which events to be judged are categorised are unclear, as I suppose must be the case in rather simple-minded law books. Experienced legal practitioners decide which law(s) to pick on, which categories to include or exclude, and where the money flows go: a murder of a white by a black (for example) at present leads to intensive secret discussion on how to exclude the race element, how to minimise publicity, how to intimidate whites, and how to maximise money for lawyers. The entire process of agitation for legislation is omitted, as in (four examples), the extension of public handouts to immigrants, the promotion of anal sex, the long-drawn out farce around Stephen Lawrence, and the censorship of statistics on race.

Media students who aren't very computer-familiar might investigate desk-top search computer programs, which are good at plucking keywords from vast amounts of legislation stored as computer files..

Examination shows (as expected) that the book accepts, or in fact assumes without any discussion, all the PC-Frankfurt school nonsense. There's the 'democracy' mythology: "The European Convention on Human Rights has now been ratified by all 41 Member States of the Council of Europe" (p 36) as though that was a democratic action. (Human Rights legislation, a notorious money-making scheme for lawyers, plays a large part in this book). Blasphemy (p 215) has 'a law that protects only Christian sensibilities..' which of course is nonsense, as laws supposedly about race are designed in practice to exclude comment on the Talmud. The authors approve entirely of NUJ censorship of e.g. race violence, and Muslim sex with underage white girls: 'race is not to be reported 'unless directly relevant' is the mantra. The authors seem to have no objection to anti-French and anti-German and anti-white headlines in for example the 'Sun'. (For US readers, this is a cheap junk publication with a Jewish policy of censoring war atrocities, war results and motives, truths about immigration, and for that matter truths about the Third World. Recently (early 2014) an ex-editor, Kelvin Mackenzie, said, with exquisite hypocrisy, that editors who suppressed such information should "hang their heads in shame"). There are statements which are simple lies: 'right to trial by jury' (in fact this did not exist in WW1 etc, 'section 18' in WW2. 'The open justice system is now firmly embedded ... [in the US and Canada]' Really? Some statements are gaspingly absurd: (p 599, on international law) 'The international Covenant for Civil and Political Rights provides that: "(1) 'Any propaganda for war should be prohibited by law' ..."

Page 605 hates MI5 for investigating 'youthful idealists' Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw, Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt, all I think Jewish communists with an interest in buggering children and increasing immigration except into Israel. Idealists? Maybe. An item that interested me on p. 217 was this comment: Dowager Lady Birdwood .. 'old and rabid racist ... convicted for distributing anti-Semitic propaganda'. Her main publication Anti-Gentilism: The Longest Hatred has an account of the Bank of England as Jewish, which may or may not be true, but Robertson and Nicol aren't interested. Jewish media ownership is not mentioned or discussed anywhere in this book. Another of my interests, censorship of American atrocities during the Vietnam War, which of course were censored by all the Jewish media, gets no mention. In fact, there is no reason to believe any serious issue in this book is factually true. This is in accordance with Jewish 'ethics' of course.

Looking at this book from the viewpoint of someone with a practical decision to take, I wondered how useful this book is to a creative and inquisitive writer or video maker. Without pretending to go into immense detail I made a list of fairly serious real-world examples to see how helpful this book might be:–
• Example 1: Economics: how much does it cost to sue and be sued? At what point are people likely to take such a risk? What are the facts about damages, costs, 'disbursements', fines?
• Example 2: Charities: if a charity is obviously a fraud in any normal sense, is it legal to say so?
• Example 3: Scientific Doubt: How much can be said about such things as fluoridation, accusations about diesel exhaust and other particulates produced during combustion?
• Example 4: The BBC: if the BBC for example systematically suppressed all mention of atrocities during a war, can they be forced to remake programmes seriously?
• Example 5: Religion: Can the BBC be made to take seriously the vicious race and outgroup written comments in the Torah and Quran and other writings?
• Example 6: Pederasty: Can suspicions (where there have been cover-ups) be reported?
• Example 7: Is it legal to (for example) display images of rectal damage and disease caused by anal sex, in anti-homosexual works?
• Example 8: In BBC and other film in about 2005, a couple was shown throwing darts at a political open-air interview. Is it legal to try to identify them publically?
• Example 9: Doubts have been cast on nuclear power stations: is there any way to legally obtain measurements of actual power outputs of the supposed power stations?
• Example 10: In view of the intensive spying by Jews, can evidence be forced of commercial spying?

1 Economics: The chapter on defamation has most of the meat on costs, described as 'enormous'. The section on 'Who Can Sue?' emphasises that the important question is Who Can Sue? with comments on unions, the very rich, and large organisations. In fact, presumably, the well-known cases must be far less frequent than relatively minor cases. There's a bit on tactics ('Paying in' on page 79 can be good) but the facts about damages, costs, 'disbursements', fines and their timing are not clear. A problem here is the obvious bias of Robertson and Nicol: they see themselves as promoting Jewish causes, and refuse to take an honest view. Thus we have 'exemplary damages': Captain Broome's 'wartime convoy' against David Irving; Tolstoy's war crime accusations about Yugoslavs sent to their deaths. A 'media studies' student will find little help on these rather important issues. It's generally difficult to find out legal costs in cases from family law to awards to prisoners etc; Media Law does not help with this issue.
2 Charities: Robertson & Nicol make some good points here, but only as regards well-known information on their sheer numbers, and their tax advantages and poor regulation. (Private Hospital in Britain on this website has material on educational and hospital charities with large assets). As far as I know charities now are exempt from Freedom of Information enquiries; they can keep their secrets. They appear to be legally permitted to pay out only from interest, not from donations—unsurprisngly, this fact goes unmentioned. Many 'charities' are Jewish propaganda organisations. They say 'the entire field is a fertile one for exposure journalism' which perhaps ought to be true, but isn't; the situation has been scandalous for decades. Media Law has only three pages on the subject.
3 & 9 Scientific Doubts: How does a reporter go about reporting fluoridation, climate change, AIDS, nuclear radiation? Robertson & Nichols show an amusing absence of helpful comment here. In the same way that advertisers wrestle with such issues as nudity or swearing, but are hopelessly ignorant about factual matters, this book has vast commentaries on issues apart from scientific and factual material. The 'AIDS virus', 'nuclear weapons' and the Atomic Energy Act, in Media Law make it obvious that, as regards windfarms and pollution and climate change and space rockets, "My learned friend" and similar phrases are something of a bad joke. The appointment of judges to chair inquiries, with a range of 'expert witnesses', goes comfortably with Jewish/establishment wishes. I can see no useful material in Media Law helpful to reporters of programme-makers.
4 The BBC: My question on BBC lies as institutional memory - i.e. something that has gone on for decades - is of course part of establishment policy. However, as the Holohoax lies continue to unfold, there will be moves to reform the BBC. Media Law says nothing helpful about the present BBC hierarchy and whether its workings can be elucidated, or about the BBC's charter and the way it has been ignored. Another example: the BBC covered up Muslim 'grooming' as a deliberate policy; Ann Clwyd MP and others had been ignored for years. (In 2013, a Freedom of Information request was made to the BBC to reveal the costs of covering up Muslim 'grooming' of white girls, and of carrying out a campaign to prosecute Nick Griffin for telling the truth. There is no hint that I could find that Robertson & Nicol would be the slightest use).
5: Religion, Jews, and Muslims: The BBC has never broadcast anything serious on Jewish beliefs and practice. And ditto with Islam. Despite having a religious broadcasting section. Media Law doesn't even recognise the issue.
6 & 7: Pederasty: Can suspicions (where there have been cover-ups) be reported? Media Law of course has accounts of trials in defamation cases but fails to address the issue of institutional concealment of under-age buggery and child abuse. They are scarcely indexed. Media students might look at more recent copies of this and other books on Jimmy Savile. But it is clearly BBC policy under its Jewish head to conceal this. (It seems child sex is accepted by Jewish 'holy' books). So I would have little hope that Media Law would be anything other than evasive and polysyllabic. As to the question whether images of rectal damage and disease caused by anal sex, as maybe photographs or large paintings, would be accepted as educational. I doubt Media Law would be much of a guide through the oddities of the legal system.
8: BBC's censorship of allegedly bona-fide protestors: Certainly since the 1960s, and very probably since its foundation, the BBC has broadcast demonstrators, claqueurs, dangerous activists, Jewish liars, and audience plants, with no identification. Is it legal to try to identify such people publically? Good question, which Media Law doesn't even recognise, since the BBC's Jewish policies are implicitly approved by Robertson & Nicol. Their vocabulary 'extreme right', 'paedophile', 'homophobe', 'Macpherson Report ... Stephen Lawrence murder ... identifying ... '"institutional racism" ... rife in the Metropolitan police' invariably aligns with Jewish propaganda.
10: Jews and Spying: The whole issue of state secrecy, spies, secrecy assigned to (for example) nuclear issues is barely mentioned by Media Law, as of course is to be expected. The Spycatcher book prosecution is taken seriously despite the lack of anything substantial in that book. The issue of Jewish subversion, in wars and politics, of course is unmentioned, since it doesn't conform to their Jewish agenda: it's not clear for example what the legal status of 'D notices' is, if they have one. It's entirely possible the IRA had Jewish false flag connections; it's entirely possible Thatcher's role was to get British public assets into Jewish control; it's entirely possible the interception of messages is used for financial spying by Jews. (The word 'conspiracy' is not even indexed).

The only investigative media work in Media Law is on Frankfurt School lines—damage white society by subversion, legal lies and chaos, mass immigration, use of Jewish worthless paper money to finance harmful activities. Some of the rights in the book include the 'need to protect the privacy ... mental hospital records of criminals' and concealing the identities of murderers. The issues are undoubtedly difficult: Should prisoners be allowed to be interviewed by journalists? Should journalists' sources be kept secret? Should bodyguards, employees, servants be unable to publish? But in every case Robertson and Nicol fail to raise issues relevant to white Britons: what about school pupils who disrupt; why should other pupils be forced to suffer? Why should immigrants get priority in housing? Why should free speech about Jews and others be stopped?

I found a few interesting comments in this book: in the 'film censorship' section, I noted a 1926 public scandal over an unnamed film, showing 'white girls and men of other races', a popular theme in the Jewish racist mindset. There's a general view that the 'Frankfurt School' were cunning Jews developing master plans, but it's more likely that they simply tested public reactions and made lists based on these, now almost forgotten, events. One of the constant themes is the naivety of officialdom: Donaldson is quoted as saying 'the media are the eyes and ears of the general public', an almost comical remark. Part of that illusion is kept up by internal feedback: both the ASA ('Advertising Standards Association') and PCC ('Press Complaints Commission') are funded by the advertising and newspaper 'industries' respectively, which of course largely explains their non-effectiveness and biases. And also something people have noticed: advertisements showing miscegenation. The DTI ('Department of Trade and Industry') holds hearings in secret; it may (it's uncertain from Media Law which dates it from 1932) have been started to investigate Jewish dealings during the First World War and appears to have operated at a low level of usefulness ever since. Another interesting if not very credible statement (on p.258) is that the printer of a newspaper is 'currently liable for every libel it contains' which I would guess is used as a final sanction by Jews.
Another amusing remark was that, in relation to September 11 2001, '.. western intelligence failed to anticipate the event..' though it doesn't say whether Israel is counted as 'western'. Generally, telling lies is considered, in accordance with Jewish beliefs, as recommended where it benefits Jews. The entire text of Media Law ignores damage caused by false flags, by secretly-incited wars, by science frauds which make money, and by continued massive frauds of the holohoax type.
One fascinating takeaway impression of this book is law as a charade of actors, almost indifferent to the outcomes of their activities, like cocooned vicars or paid barkers, secure in their bailiwicks. It's unsurprising that honest-minded persons feel an aversion to the law, or that it is populated by people who are in it to direct goodies to their own groups. How much more incentive there is to do that.

As regards writers, authors, radio and video makers, this book has nothing that I could find on contracts, risky contacts, and broken contracts; name-changing, anonymity, and false names (all of interest to analysts of Jews; is name changing a deception?) or on what legal force disclaimers of the 'all characters are fictional...' type really have.

WARNING to young people thinking of media studies: propaganda and deception is an interesting and legitimate and important subject. Whether you will get any of this in media studies is, however, unlikely. Be prepared to find censorship wherever you look, your qualifications to be laughed at, and to be forced to join unions with no respect for truth. Don't imagine the official presentation of the system is genuine. Remember Charlene Downs (died 2003), Kriss Donald (died 2004), mass murders in the USSR, mass murders in Vietnam, all under permanent censorship by ‘British’ media. Remember the circulations of many news sources are in steady decline. Maybe newer editions of this and other books will have material on Internet and e-book publishing, but in view of the dependence on precedent all these areas are likely to be uncertain for years.

Top of Page

Edmund Connelly: Jew-aware film critic

15th January 2014

Edmund Connelly (yes, 'e' in Connelly) as far as I know is an Internet-only film critic, posting occasional pieces in such online sites as the Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents, and the Historical Review Press.
(See for example https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/12/23/the-war-on-christmas-updated/. Including 'slasher' films with Santa Claus—maybe Saint Nicholas was written out by Jews?—and liar Spielberg's Gremlins.)

I don't know of any specific Jew-aware TV critics; there are some individual pieces—Kevin MacDonald on All in the Family, for example—but perhaps the deluge is simply too great and the topics too widespread and complex.

I don't think Edmund Connelly's material is collected in one place. Interested people might use a search engine on his name plus a film title or actor: Unstoppable, Remember the Titans, Morgan Freeman, Leonardo di Caprio. Rosario Dawson, Arbitrage, The Wolf of Wall Street, Django Unchained, The Taking of Pelham 123, Margin Call, Sophie's Choice, Schindler's List, The Piano, Christmas Evil are a few titles and actors I noticed in passing.

Connelly is good on the ubiquity of Jewish messages, which have so far been unnoticed by most whites: it's likely the anti-white material struck them as alternative, or carrying a frisson of criticism. Whereas most of it is intentionally misleading and fraudulent.
But don't expect much. But big movies always need Jew input; consider the power held by the cinema complexes—if they won't show them, the box office receipts are nothing. If they get no place in 'news' they will never get to that stage. In Feb 2021, Connelly favoured three films which he thinks shows whites (played largely by Jew actors) in what Connelly thinks are traditional, decent, all-white-male roles. One on an aircraft landing (Hanks as pilot), one on oil rig workers, one on forest fire fighters. Connelly seems to have missed the Jewish subplot: we see whites, paid not much, risking life as instructed; they could just as well be bombing or raping. Movies with Hanks are mostly Jew crap. But in the oil fire it's hard to know the Jewish angle: they may have preferred an insurance payout, for example. The oil thing was careful to mention BP; who knows what truth, if any, was in there. Connelly goes out of his way, incredibly, to point out a passage he liked: the small man says "You really want my take? I think you really all try to run out of fuel as the wheels tough down. Runnin out of gasoline as the plane lands is not smart. It's flawed thinking. It's hope as a tactic." [Then they discuss catfish]. The forest fire thing was issued at a time when fires were being intentionally set, something the brainless whites presumably were expected to not notice.

Top of Page

Media Reviews. Movies, New & Old:– Film, Video, TV, DVD. Audio: CD, Radio, Music. Media Books, BBC. Comments, Reviews by Rae West 'Rerevisionist'

Including some reviews of books on related topics, such as autobiographies, 'media studies', social engineering, US Networks, and the BBC. These reviews have been separated from big-lies.org/reviews because that file has grown too large.

Suffragette DVD 2015.UK (Jewish Channel 4 tv) & National Lottery

Review of Privates on Parade Handmade films (1982)

Review of El Cid Samuel Bronston movie (1961)

Review of Les Misérables Stage & DVDs

Review of Tolkien Part of a series?

Review of Blade Runner 1982 attempt at science fiction

Review of MITTY (based on The Secret Life of Walter Mitty 2013 movie

Review of Oppenheimer Christopher Nolan movie

Review of Empire of the Sun 1987 Spielberg. Ballard's book 1984.

Apocalypse Now

James Cameron's Avatar (2009. Sequels planned.)

Bohemian Rhapsody

Make Niggers History - It’s Fingerclickin’ Good!

Sharpe

All the Literary Value and Sincerity of Anne Frank's Edited 'Diaries'

Bride Wars

2009. Kate Hudson & Anne Hathaway c. 85 mins 28 scenes

The Truman Show

1998. Jim Carrey as Truman Burbank. Director Peter Lindsay Weir. Written by Andrew Niccol. Set in Seaside, Florida; plus computer graphics.

Two Weeks Notice

2002. Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock. c 90 mins. 28 scenes Writer Marc Lawrence

Matrix 1999 | Matrix Reloaded 2003 • Producer: Joel Silver. Seven 'executive producers'

Written and directed by the Wachowski Brothers. My version: 1999 Village Roadshow Films. (Also Silver Films, Warner Bros) 131 mins approx

Educating Rita 1983

• Michael Caine & Julie Walters • From a play by Willy Russell; Produced & Directed by Lewis Gilbert; Music by David Hentschel, Produced by John Gilbert.

Stage play promoted to film, with experienced director, musical hopes, and probably avoidance of tax

Review of La Dolce Vita Federico Fellini 1960

Satyricon 1968 • Producer: Alberto Grimaldi [i.e. supplier of money - RW] • Federico Fellini

My version: 2003 MGM Home Entertainment DVD 2hr 03:43Story and Screenplay: Federico Fellini & Bernardino Zapponi

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again

Film/DVD 'released' 2018 based on Abba's songs - Review by Rerevisionist. December 5th 2018

Black Beauty 1994. Prince Noir is I think the French title.

Bridget Jones's Diary

The Iron Lady

IPCRESS FILE (2022)

Lost in Austen

Hairy Bikers

Masterchef

Benny Hill

Blackadder

My Generation. Directed by David Batty. Who was born in 1962. With Michael Caine, David Bailey, Twiggy, Mary Quant. The cultural revolution that occurred in the 1960s England...

COMEDIES

Something Marigold Hotel and other fragments

'Public Service' Advertising

Note on 'General Knowledge' and books

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of David Attenborough Green PlanetBBC TV 2022

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of David Attenborough Life on Air First published by the BBC in 2002

Tenko

The Honest Supermarket (BBC2)

University Challenge (Christmas 2018 BBC2)

'Prominent Alumni'

Christmas University Challenge (2019 BBC2)

Jews, Quizzes, History, Blood, Dracula, British TV

Note on blood, genetic disease, and Jews

Neil Oliver

Poldark

Peaky Blinders

Ade in Britain

Susan Calman. After a long period of BBC training... She's allowed to read scripts travelling in Britain.

Portillo 'on Railways' (and other things).Notes on ten years or so of Jewish TV in Britain: history, technology, deception. Mixed dates of note-taking. Rae West of big-lies.org

Architecture and Issues

'Property Porn' as a genre

Rick Stein on Food

The X Files (1993-2002...)

House (2004-2012)

Doc Martin (2004-2022)

The Mentalist (2008-2015)

Elastica

Fairport Convention. Notes on the 1960s 'folk music revival', A L Lloyd, and the reshaping of history. Rae West 8 Dec 2019.

Roy 'Chubby' Brown

anti-Jefferson Airplane

Last Night at the Proms

Victorian Prelude

Early Twentieth Century

TV Proms

The Dark Side of the Moon

Goodbye Lenin!

Oom Paul

Media Reviews. Movies, New & Old:–
Film, Video, TV, DVD.
Audio: CD, Radio, Music. Media Books, BBC.
Comments, Reviews by Rae West 'Rerevisionist'

Including some reviews of books on related topics, such as autobiographies, 'media studies', social engineering, US Networks, and the BBC.

These reviews have been separated from big-lies.org/reviews because that file has grown too large.

Suffragette DVD 2015.
UK (Jewish Channel 4 tv) & National Lottery

Matrix 1999 | Matrix Reloaded 2003

• Producer: Joel Silver. Seven 'executive producers'

• Michael Caine & Julie Walters
• From a play by Willy Russell; Produced & Directed by Lewis Gilbert; Music by David Hentschel, Produced by John Gilbert.

Satyricon 1968
• Producer: Alberto Grimaldi [i.e. supplier of money - RW]
• Federico Fellini

My version: 2003 MGM Home Entertainment DVD 2hr 03:43
Story and Screenplay: Federico Fellini & Bernardino Zapponi

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of David Attenborough Green Planet
BBC TV 2022

Portillo 'on Railways' (and other things).
Notes on ten years or so of Jewish TV in Britain: history, technology, deception.
Mixed dates of note-taking. Rae West of big-lies.org

Denial Movie 2016, DVD 2017.
Reviews & Study Notes by Rerevisionist 14 May 2019

This film is of course dishonest Jewish propaganda.
And it has many, not immediately obvious, aspects. ...