site is here

Film, Video, TV, DVD, CD Reviews by 'Rerevisionist'

Including some reviews of books on related topics, such as autobiographies, 'media studies', social engineering, and the BBC.

These reviews have been separated from because that file has grown too large.

I've included a few reviews by other people, indicated by the link in this colour.
v. 17 August 2018

TV   10 Rillington Place | Ali-G, Borat, Dictator etc  |  Apprentice (UK)  |  BBC and ITV Crime 'Drama' [ Morse (1987-) | Lewis | Endeavour | Maigret | Jonathan Creek (1997-) | Midsomer Murders (1997-) | Judge John Deed (2001-) | Foyle's War (2002-) | New Tricks (2003-) | Ripper Street (2012-) | Frost | Serial Killers ]  |  Big Sister 2018 |  Blackadder  |  Downton Abbey «Amazon ban   |  Harris: Fatherland  |  Masterchef  |  National Treasure (c. 2016)  |  Poldark  |  Portillo on Railways  |  Rick Stein on US Food  |  Robot Wars (c. 2000)  |  Sherlock  |  SOCIAL ENGINEERING TV & 'NEWS' Occasional notes  |  Strictly Come Dancing  |  Peter Ustinov: Planet Ustinov  |  War and Peace  | 
Flanders & Swann CDs  | 
Films, DVDs   Atomic Testing 3 DVDs «Amazon ban   |  Nuclear 'Ultimate' Weapons 2 DVDs  |  Mel Gibson: Apocalypto  |  Darkest Hour  |  Das Boot  |  Jeanne Moreau: The Bride Wore Black  |  Long Walk to Freedom [Mandela]  |  Nicholson: Bucket List  |  Capricorn One  |  Chabrol: Eye of Vichy  |  Denial  |  Eight Days a Week  |  Wnendt: Er ist wieder da «Amazon ban   |  Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them J K Rowling  |  The Fourth Protocol  |  Girl with the Dragon Tattoo  |  Gorky Park  |  Hobbit Movie  |  The Intruder «Amazon ban   |  Iron Lady  |  Jules & Jim and more  |   Kingsman 2014  |   Last Orders «Amazon ban   |  Dylan Tour 1966 DVD  |  Colin Firth: King's Speech  |  The Lady in the Van  |  Lord of the Rings  |  Remember Me  |  SOCIAL ENGINEERING FILM — some notes  |  Spielberg: Saving Private Ryan  |  A Single Man  |  The Sound of Music  |  Willis: Die Hard - Vengeance  |  Dennis Wise's Greatest Story Never Told ('TGSNT')  |  Tarantino: Inglorious Basterds  |  The Big Short  |  The Wall  |  Withnail & I  |  The World is Not Enough «Amazon ban   | 
Video Websites   YouPorn
'Newspapers'   The New Day «2016 Failed launch of Jewspaper?
Books about BBC   Robin Aitken: Can We Trust the BBC?  |  Asa Briggs: Broadcasting in UK History  |  John Cole: As It Seemed To Me     Dyke: Inside Story  |  Clive James  |  Naughtie: New Elizabethans  |  Ian McIntyre: Life of John Reith  |  Whitehouse: Ban This Filth!  | 
Books about Media   Dirk Bogarde: A Postillion Struck by Lightning/ For the Time Being  |  Michael Caine: What's It All About  |  Bob Dylan: on Dylan  |  Carla Lane: Autobiography  |  Nick Mason: Pink Floyd  |  Robertson & Nicol: Media Law
Revisionist Notes on Media   Jewish Propaganda UK 1908-1948  |  Some notes in 'Jews' in media  |  Edmund Connelly: Jew-aware film critic
Exhibitions, Museums   China's First Empire & Terracotta Warriors

• 10 Rillington Place, Notting Hill. Christie and Evans alleged murder as black immigration into Britain started
Tim Evans John Christie
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.

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

What is this Review for?   [ Back to Top ]
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 ]
1945 Eisenhower prisoner of war deaths
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. MacColls ... 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 ]
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 ]
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 ]
[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

Darkest Hour movie review 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 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.]

© 25 April 2018 Rae West

Top of Page

Dennis Wise Greatest Story Never Told   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 (also 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'.
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, impassible 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
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
J K Rowlong Fantastic Beasts
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. 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 campaigned 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). 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 ]

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 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.
[ Back to top of page ]


  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.
[ Back to top of page ]

TV Apprentice 2005-1014 UK   Review by rerevisionist of   The Apprentice   BBC TV (in Britain). 2005-2014
Useful Idiot Entertainment for Fantasy Entrepreneurs
The Apprentice (UK) Click here


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 ]

Labour Party   Sketchy Reviews by Rerevisionist of BBC and ITV Crime 'Drama'
[ Morse (1987-) | Lewis | Endeavour | Maigret | Jonathan Creek (1997-) | Midsomer Murders (1997-) | Judge John Deed (2001-) | Foyle's War (2002-) | New Tricks (2003-) | Ripper Street (2012-) | Frost | Serial Killers ]

Someone, please, review the BBC in depth!!
19 August 2015
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.

Delroy Grant Delroy Grant 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. 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 escale 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. 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 defined 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 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 got, 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.

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 Law 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.

Maigret is an oddity: 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. 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, 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. 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 looking at Labour Party paedophiles and sex criminals. Or perhaps (click the box) British Corruption UK 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.

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, or 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.

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.

I just saw parts of a final Endeavour; 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 Ayers, 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. 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.
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 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

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 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

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
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.

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.

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. 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.

    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 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.

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
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.

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'.
Top of Page

Occasional Notes on TV in Britain     [ Back to top of page ]
race mix
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 church in Manchester having gravestones crushed to make car parks for Muslims— but I recall no 'news' on the Jewish media.

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'.

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.

'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.

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.

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. It's curious to watch the appearancism. It must look nice, at least when it grows, 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, in real life, 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 output needs 123 people!
      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.
      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.
[ Back to top of page ]

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of Strictly Come Dancing:   Competitive Dressage for Human Horses. Under the Jewish Thumb poppy
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

  Review of DOWNTON ABBEY: Jewish propagandist garbage about white wars   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).

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,, 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

Robot Wars - Razer   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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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


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 clerygyman; 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 ]

on Railways

Review by rerevisionist of   Michael Portillo on Railways   BBC TV (in Britain). 2010s. 31-March-2017
Michael Portillo is a Marrano Jew, once a politician of sorts. 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 series starts with Bradshaw, the Victorian railway guide known to everyone at the time. Portillo's presentation relies on bold single-colour jackets and non-matching trousers. Portillo must have been successful enough to lead to follow-up series, in Europe, and the USA. There's more emphasis on towns, old technology, historical artefacts, than in the rail enthusiast types of film/video.

Amid the fairly accurate material is submerged history. I don't want (and can't be bothered) to give detailed examples. But watch for the erasure of wars and their funding, 'revolutions', deaths, divide and rule—remembering that it is, of course, difficult to spot what isn't there. 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. 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 but. 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 newreaders, there's no intermediary validation of their material. Christ for intelligent use of what promised to be a wonderful medium.

Like 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 invasions into the USA. In just such a way smiling Kommissars would cover up Jewish murders in the USSR.
[ 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

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! 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

image   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. 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

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo   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;
• 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.

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 Afica 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

  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's 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

image   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

Wolfgang Petersen - Das Boot   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

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

image   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

Gorky Park   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

The Sound of Music   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.
Top of Page

Occasional Notes on Jew-Controlled Films   [ Back to top of page ]
race mix
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 would 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...

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, Jew removed.

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
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."

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 Schützenpanzerwagen (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.)


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 Bützow 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

image   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 by 'Rerevisionist' of Film 18 May 2015     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; I haven't bothered with detail, but he was 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. 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. There were various takeovers, including 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.

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 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: 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'. It's why I give the film only an unreasonable 4 stars. It seems appropriate that Jackson's subsequent work includes the 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/).
Top of Page

The Hobbit movie   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

Review of François Truffaut     Jules & 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 be called 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 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.
Gérard Depardieu and Catherine Deneuve (1980) in La Dernière Métro seems to be a feeble '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 Vichy France, the Franc-Maçonnerie and Banque de France, the joint declaration of war against Germany in 1939, the sinking of the French navy, the extensive bombing of France, 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.
Top of Page

  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 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
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 been transformed by immigration. 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. The Lancashire actor is the exception, and is duly given hardly any lines. There are wartime scenes 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 how powerless actors are to select their material.
Top of Page

image   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 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 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

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 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

David Irving's site is 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
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 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 Zündel, 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 Zündel 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 Zündel trial.”

Exactly correct! When so-called “eyewitness Holocaust survivors” were cross-examined in the Zündel case, as detailed in this writer’s The Great Holocaust Trial, not one departed the witness stand with his credibility intact—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 Zündel 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 Zündel, 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 Zündel 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 Zündel 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 acknowledged—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 Holes—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 Zündel 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 Zündel 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-noble—but quite possibly accurate—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 Books—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 organizations—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 “Zündel 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!                                                      

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 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

Er ist weider da
Review of   David Wnendt's film   'Er ist wieder da' (Look Who's Back) by Rerevisionist   18 January 2018
Germans are still subjected to this trash; will it ever change?
Released in October 2015; obviously a 70-year anniversary film. 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.

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 'Sawatzki 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

image   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

  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

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 ½ 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 buttf—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 ½. 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 f— 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:

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 Gibon'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), 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

image   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 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.
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 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...
Top of Page

New Day Junk Newsimage   Review of New (2016) Jewspaper   The New Day

Supposedly Neutral New Newspaper: Just the Same Old Jews News.
  Review by Rerevisionist.   April 16 2016
10 years newspaper decline UK 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

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 (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 of Jewish paper money into Jewish propaganda, a significantly unimportant issue.

Briggs reminds me slightly of Patrick Moore: 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. 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 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 churchillasa briggs extract references
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

john-cole-BBC   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 — 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.'
Top of Page

image   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 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

image   Review of BBC junk attempt to survey Elizabeth II and Britain   James Naughtie: The New Elizabethans

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.

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

John Reith biog   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, with a genetic scream reflex when asked to investigate hypotheses, narrow-minded and unintellectual. 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

Mary Whitehouse biography   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 logoYouporn'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

image   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

image   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

image   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

mason-inside-out   Review of Pop Culture?     Nick Mason: Inside Out - A Personal History of Pink Floyd

Well-written and partially informative
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

Media Law   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. 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.
Top of Page

HTML and all content ©Rae West. This file of media reviews first uploaded 12 Jan 2016.