{"id":147024,"date":"2022-11-25T13:49:29","date_gmt":"2022-11-25T17:49:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=147024"},"modified":"2022-11-25T13:50:01","modified_gmt":"2022-11-25T17:50:01","slug":"khazarian-mafia-cultural-marxism-hollywoods-utter-depravity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=147024","title":{"rendered":"

Khazarian Mafia, Cultural Marxism & Hollywood’s Utter Depravity<\/b><\/h2>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Close Encounter with the Khazarian Mafia in Hollywood<\/h1>\n

“I was fortunate to become a part of the motion picture industry, not realizing that I had truly entered Alice\u2019s Wonderland.\u201d<\/em><\/h3>\n

By Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor<\/p>\n

\u2026by\u00a0Jonas E. Alexis<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Merlin L. Miller<\/a>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Merlin L. Miller is an independent film director, writer, and producer. He was the 2012 presidential candidate for the American third position party. He graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point and served in the U.S. Army where he commanded two units.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Miller\u2019s former classmates at West Point included former C.I.A. director David Petraeus, former National Security Agency director Keith Alexander, and the 18th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Demsey. Miller is the author of the new book\u00a0Eagles Are Gathering<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

Alexis: Let us discuss some of the major themes of your book. You write:<\/p>\n

\u201cTo do business in Hollywood, one must play by unwritten and unspoken rules, but the rules nonetheless. The first and foremost rule is to always support the Jewish-Zionist agenda. Their definitions of political correctness are usually anathema to traditional American values, and this destructive reality has been well hidden, but is increasingly coming to be recognized.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Jewish writer and talk show host Michael Medved, who is now a Neocon, said the same thing almost more than twenty years ago in his book\u00a0Hollywood vs. America<\/em>. He makes the point that during the 1980s, PG films<\/p>\n

\u201crepresented less than 25 percent of all titles\u2014but occupied six of the Top 10 places on the list of the decade\u2019s leading money-makers. If you expand the calculations to consider the twenty leading titles in terms of domestic box-office returns between 1981 and 1990, 55 percent were rated \u2018G\u2019 or \u2018PG\u2019; only 25 percent were rated \u2018R\u2019 films.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Based on facts like these, the million-dollar question is why doesn\u2019t Hollywood primarily produce G or PG rated films, since that is where the money is? The answer is quite simple\u2014since Hollywood is largely controlled by a wicked ideology, there comes a point where money does not matter anymore. Making money is less important than weakening the moral order.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

As Medved goes on to say,<\/p>\n

\u201cIn response to this consistent trend throughout the decade, one might reasonably expect that Hollywood would adjust its approach and reduce the levels of sex, violence and gutter language so that fewer films would earn the \u2018R\u2019 rating. Instead, official figures from the Motion Picture Association of America show that the percentage of \u2018R\u2019 rated movies dramatically increased\u2014from 46 percent in 1980, to 67 percent in 1989.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

We find the same result in 1990 and 1991, that G and PG movies \u201cout-performed\u201d R-rated ones.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

In 1992, Medved brought these statistics to the attention of entertainment executives and journalists in Hollywood. One Hollywood studio executive agreed with Medved, saying that the figures he presented were \u201cinteresting,\u201d but tried to explain why Hollywood preferred R-rated movies:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe need pictures that have teeth to them, that have an edge, that stand out from all the stuff people see on TV\u2026hard-edged pictures are a much safer bet\u2014because they cut through the TV haze and get attention.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

He challenged Medved to reexamine his data. Medved writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn this endeavor I enlisted the able assistance of Robert D. Cain, an entertainment industry consultant and the Director of Research for the Screen Actors Guild. At my request, he analyzed 221 films representing virtually all of the domestically-produced theatrical films for which 1991 box office figures were currently available\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cBox office revenue figures were prepared by Entertainment Data, Inc., and are considered highly reliable. The results of this research proved entirely consistent with the trends I had previously discovered going back to 1980\u2014and showed that the preponderance of \u2018R\u2019 films in each year\u2019s release schedule made no sense whatsoever.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs Mr. Cain concluded, \u2018By almost every measure, \u2018R\u2019-rated films are less likely to succeed at the box office than their \u2018G,\u2019 \u2018PG,\u2019 and \u2018PG-13\u2019 counterparts. R-rated films generate substantially less revenue, return less profit, and are more likely to \u2018flop\u2019 than films aimed at teen and family audiences.<\/p>\n

The specific figures should give the studio head and his colleagues good reason to reexamine their assumptions. Concerning his contention that \u2018hard-edged pictures are a much safer bet,\u2019 41 percent of all \u2018R\u2019 films generated less than $2 million in box-office receipts\u2014compared to only 28 percent of \u2018PG\u2019 pictures.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt the other end of the spectrum of success, \u2018R\u2019 films are similarly disadvantaged. Thirty-eight percent of all \u201cPG\u201d films exceeded $25 million in box-office gross in 1991\u2014while only 19 percent of \u2018R\u2019 films reached that level of revenue. In other words, \u2018R\u2019 films proved less than half as likely as \u201cPG\u201d releases to reach the \u2018respectable\u2019 box-office plateau of $25 million.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn 1991, the median \u2018PG\u2019-rated picture grossed $15.7 million in domestic box office, almost triple the median \u2018R\u2019 picture gross of $5.5 million. Meanwhile, the few \u2018G\u2019 pictures registered the highest returns of all\u2014a median box-office gross of $18.5 million. As Robert Cain reported, \u2018These general patterns hold true for independent as well as major studio releases.\u2019\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

This pattern did not stop in the 1990s. Medved\u2019s frustration with Hollywood is understandable, but the point here is very clear: Hollywood is primarily governed by an ideology that invariably leads to a deep-seated hatred of the moral and political order and any culture that has adopted that order. This has not changed since the 1920s, when Henry Ford noted that \u201cas soon as the Jews gained control of the \u2018movies,\u2019 we had a movie problem, the consequences of which are visible.\u201d<\/p>\n

You write that<\/p>\n

\u201cMy career choice was to produce quality motion pictures\u2014entertainment that goes beyond satisfying our fickle emotions, but that speaks truths and touches our very souls to inspire us to take positive actions. I was fortunate to become a part of the motion picture industry, not realizing that I had truly entered Alice\u2019s Wonderland.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

You also say that \u201cHollywood insidiously propagandizes us to believe non-truths, to worship anti-heroes, and to acquiesce to a world of increasing decadence and despair\u2014a New World Order. Independent alternatives are faced with an insurmountable task to take on the Hollywood juggernaut.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

What did you find when you got into Alice\u2019s Wonderland? Tell us more about this New World Order in Hollywood.<\/p>\n

Miller: Hollywood has come to mean many things, but was traditionally perceived to be a paradise, where dreamers could aspire to make motion pictures and live idyllic lives. This perception has obviously corroded over the last several decades, largely through the degeneration of movies and the disgusting behaviors of those who create them.<\/p>\n

When I entered \u201cAlice\u2019s Wonderland\u201d, I was the eternal optimist who believed the industry would reward those who could improve the quality of entertainment. But I soon found out that was not of any interest to the megalomaniacs who ruled Hollywood. Although I graduated at the top of my USC class, I discovered that only a small clique were given opportunities. They were our Jewish classmates and select others who would serve a destructive \u201ccultural Marxist\u201d agenda.<\/p>\n

Michael Medved with his 1992 book,\u00a0Hollywood vs America<\/em>, captured the essence of the disconnect between the creators of entertainment and the values and expectations of the viewing public. I reached out to Medved through a friend who knew him, but my perspectives were ignored. I believe Medved was concerned with deterioration of quality, but not willing to embrace the full reasons for it.<\/p>\n

In a certain sense, as an \u201cofficial voice of discontent\u201d, he fulfilled a role which helped guide or placate criticism\u2026typical of New World Order schemes. In subsequent years, as the \u201capproved\u201d societal conscience, he indicated how his book had had a positive impact on the industry.<\/p>\n

I certainly didn\u2019t see it. Hollywood\u2019s contempt for traditional America only grows. Their elitist attitude is \u201cyou can never underestimate the intelligence of the audience\u201d, and I believe they intend to guide our ever-constricting thoughts to animal levels.<\/p>\n

Hollywood, and entertainment in general, serves as a great conditioner for our attitudes, beliefs, and resultant actions (or inactions). Virtually all mainstream media, including television, music, and even \u201cnews\u201d, serves a powerful role in the brainwashing of the public and our acceptance to the degenerative state of society and our loss of individual liberties and free thinking. Books, such as; \u201cBrave New World\u201d, \u201c1984\u201d, Fahrenheit 451, and movies, such as; \u201cThey Live\u201d and \u201cV for Vendetta\u201d, give homage to this reflective conditioning and gradual enslavement.<\/p>\n

Although Medved easily proved that more money is made with more socially acceptable content, industry leaders are not concerned with that. Through distribution, they control the content released (and monies made) and are able to marginalize quality competition from any deserved profitability.<\/p>\n

New World Order orchestrators, through their banking networks, have the monies to not only partner with the military-industrial complex, but to buy our politicians, and certainly own the mainstream media. The growth of true alternative media is their greatest fear, and what we must facilitate.<\/p>\n

Alexis: I agree with you on Medved. He does say some good things in his book, but he was not prepared to embrace the whole truth at all. Here is a classic example:<\/p>\n

\u201cI vividly recall an emotional conversation with a best-selling author and popular television commentator who appeared with me as a part of a well-attended public discussion on media accountability. During the session, we agreed on nearly everything\u2014particularly Hollywood\u2019s hostility to all forms of organized religion\u2014but afterward he asked if I could spare a few minutes to speak with him confidentially.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018Maybe you can help me understand something,\u201d he began, as we adjourned to his private office. \u2018You\u2019re right on target when you talk about what Hollywood\u2019s been doing to this country. But you\u2019re also part of the Jewish community.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018And what I don\u2019t get, when I look at Hollywood, is why is it that so many of the people who are responsible for the worst garbage likes to talk about it, because nobody wants to sound like a bigot. But this is supposed to be the people of The Book, isn\u2019t it, God\u2019s chosen people? How come they\u2019re so set on trashing everything that the rest of us still care about?<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018I\u2019m afraid we\u2019ve got more and more people out there\u2014decent people\u2014who are wondering about the same thing.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cTo hear this sophisticated and dynamic public figure draw a connection between Jewish involvement in Hollywood and the current degradation of our popular culture hit me with the force of a blow to the chest.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one could ever accuse him of anti-Semitism; for many years he had compiled an admirable record of service to Jewish causes and he\u2019d made several trips to Israel. As uncomfortable as I felt in confronting the issue, I thanked him for his candor in raising it with me, and for his consideration in doing so in private.\u201d[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

As much as readers should appreciate Medved\u2019s\u00a0Hollywood vs. America<\/em>, the answers he gives here are unsatisfying from a historical perspective. He declares, correctly, that Jewish power in Hollywood \u201creached its high-water mark in the 1930s and early 1940s\u2014during the period often described as Hollywood\u2019s Golden Age.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

Medved\u2019s answer is that if Jewish influence corrupts Hollywood, why didn\u2019t it happen then, when the Jews were building their entertainment empire?<\/p>\n

What he fails to take into account is that although powerful, the Jewish entertainment moguls didn\u2019t have a free hand\u2014the Catholics, with the Legion of Decency, were putting pressure on Hollywood. (Jewish revolutionaries like Leo Pfeffer completely opposed the Legion of Decency.[12]<\/a>) When those revolutionaries won the culture wars in the 1960s, they immediately began to produce pornographic movies such as\u00a0Deep Throat<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0The Devil and Ms. Jones<\/em>.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

By 2016, basically nothing is forbidden in Hollywood anymore. As Jewish scholar Nathan Abrams himself argued back in 2004, pornography in the entertainment industry was a deliberate attack on the moral order and any culture that embraced that moral order.[14]<\/a>\u00a0As Abrams himself put it:<\/p>\n

\u201cJewish involvement in porn\u2026is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cPornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Porn is no longer of the \u2018what the Butler saw\u2019 voyeuristic type; instead, it is driven to new extremes of portrayal that stretch the boundaries of the porn aesthetic. As new sexual positions are portrayed, the desire to shock (as well as entertain) seems clear.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIt is a case of the traditional revolutionary\/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics.\u201d[15]<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Besides the Legion of Decency, there were other conservative groups in the 1940s and 50s, such as the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Parents and Teachers Association, that sought to counter-balance the disproportionate number of Communist Jews in Hollywood.<\/p>\n

Because of this, Jewish revolutionary activities in movies in Hollywood were nearly non-existant, and many anti-Communist films were produced as a result.<\/p>\n

When the decency code was eventually reversed in the late 1960s, Hollywood crossed the Rubicon, never to return. Sexual mores were successfully challenged by Samuel Roth in the 1957 court case\u00a0Roth v United States<\/em>, after which Hollywood began to push past its former boundaries.<\/p>\n

Jewish historian Andrea Friedman tells us that \u201cafter Roth an increasing number of opponents of obscenity justified their activism as necessary to the proper (democratic) operation of the legal process laid out by the Supreme Court.\u201d[16]<\/a>\u00a0Jewish writer Luke Ford lists a number of Jews during that era who rose up to challenge \u201cthe reigning order.\u201d[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

Ten years after the\u00a0Roth v United States<\/em>\u00a0case, Congress created the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography under President Lyndon Johnson, whose eighteen members were hired specifically to provide research information on the smut industry. After much debate, the group<\/p>\n

\u201cfunded a series of social scientific studies intended to gauge \u2018erotica\u2019s\u2019 social effects, from which they concluded there was \u2018no evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior among youth or adult.\u2019\u201d[18]<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Yet the assertion dismissed the research that was done in the 1930s by Fredric Wertham, a psychiatrist who spent seven years researching the effect of comic books and visual images on the development of children and adults, and the author of\u00a0Seduction of the Innocent<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The conclusion reached by Johnson\u2019s Presidential Commission\u2014that pornography is essentially harmless\u2014was later challenged under President Ronald Reagan with the 1986 Final Report.[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

This was an intense time period in America. Neal Gabler points out that even in the 1930s, Jews in Hollywood were still radical. Gabler notes that the American Communist Party (CPUSA), which was under the control of Communist Russia at the time,<\/p>\n

\u201cdispatched V. J. Jerome and Stanley Lawrence to Hollywood to channel the inchoate political sentiment there\u2026Educated in England and at New York University, Jerome was one of those leftist intellectuals who was attracted to the CPUSA, and by the time he arrived in California he had become chairman of the Party\u2019s Cultural Commission, its cultural commissar.\u201d[20]<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Medved skipped all that historical background in\u00a0Hollywood vs. America<\/em>, which was quite disappointing. Medved reminds me of Rabbi Samuel H. Dresner. The late rabbi wrote a book entitled\u00a0Can Families Survive in Pagan America?<\/em>\u00a0in which he attributed America\u2019s moral decline to the Jews who were weakening the American culture.<\/p>\n

Yet when he received a letter from a lawyer stating exactly the same thing, Dresner was quite upset.[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

So, you are absolutely right about Mevded. But for people who still do not know what\u2019s really going on in the film industry,\u00a0Hollywood vs. America<\/em>\u00a0provides a sort of introduction to the deep issues that post beneath the surface.<\/p>\n

This article was first published in the spring of 2016.<\/em><\/p>\n