China, Hollywood And The ‘Correct’ Point Of View

China, Hollywood

And The ‘Correct’ Point Of View


R.E. Prindle


A very interesting story about China and Hollywood appeared in the Wall Street Journal of today (4/19/17). It confirms the continuing marginalization of the US and the threat to the survival of its Constitution.

It seems that Part 8 of Fast and Furious opened in China to 169 million compared to about 70 million in the US. (Inflated to 99 million in the reporting by including Canadian receipts, so China can now dwarf North America. (US, Canada, Mexico). Thus, implications go far beyond mere Box Office considerations. China has now surpassed the US in screens adding 25 a day, that is, 25 a day! Chinese admissions are half the US so the Fast and Furious receipts could be doubled to 338 million. China soon will have a bigger annual gross than North America with plenty of room to grow.

Anent political considerations the WSJ story makes two very revealing admissions:

Tensions between China and the White House have accelerated since the presidential election. Mr. Xi is seeking to strike a contrast with President Donald Trump as a champion of globalism, and he appears eager to advance China’s narrative- both by pressuring Hollywood studios to portray the nation favorably and in the long term, by adopting Western filmmaking techniques for China’s own industry.

So, what kind of favorable portrayal do the Chinese insist upon, which is actually a form of censorship, because they won’t show US movies that might be critical. For instance in a movie portraying the Trump, Xi, Kim Jong Un situation it would be necessary to show China as the moral and ‘correct’ champion with the US and Korea as squabbling brats. Hollywood will have to accept an inferior position for the US.

Here Mr. Xi should horrify US Liberals and have them condemn him and China as Neo-Nazis. Indeed, as Mr. Xi states:

We must make patriotism into the main melody of literature and art creation, guide the people to establish and hold correct views of history, views of the nation, views of the country, and views of culture, and strengthen their fortitude and resolve to be Chinese,” said Mr. Xi at the Beijing Forum on Literature and Art in October 2014.

So, there you have it, conditions no Liberal will tolerate in the US but are acceptable to them when imposed by China. In pleasing the Chinese to retain access to the Chinese market Hollywood does violence to everything the US professes to believe as guaranteed by our Constitution. In point of fact, as far as movies go Hollywood is now the tail and China is the dog. The Hollywood tail is not going to be able to wag the Chinese dog.

In fact Hollywood’s relationship to the market now becomes like that of France, Germany or Japan to the US market. i.e. foreign films. China within perhaps as little as a year or two may produce more movies than the entire West let alone Hollywood.

The mass market in the US has then disappeared. With the mass market gone the way is open for other cities than Hollywood to produce movies designed specifically for the US domestic market or US-European markets. In any event Chinese control of ‘correct history, culture and mores’ must not be allowed to control US filmmaking.

As Mr. Xi’s comment indicates his notion of globalism is simply Chinese domination of the globe. Foolish Americans if they allow that to happen.


The Birth Of Two Nations



The Birth Of Two Nations


R.E. Prindle


In 1915 D.W. Griffith and Thomas Dixon Jr. released what is perhaps the most famous movie, silent or talkie, ever made. The movie that depicts the aftermath of the Civil War, that is Reconstruction, was the biggest spectacle ever produced to that time, and also the highest grosser.

The movie was addressed to the North. For the North the Civil War was a war of extermination intended to kill all the White Southerners. That they didn’t succeed is a mere accident of history. For instance, read War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco. After a hundred and fifty years later Southerners finally feel free to tell the truth. The book will help you understand Griffith’s Birth of a Nation.

Thus the nation Griffith and Dixon referred to was the unity of the Aryan Nation. The Birth was its hoped for reunification after the horrors of the Civil War. The plea was never to kill each other again; especially avoiding the genocidal horrors of Generals William Tecumseh Sherman and Phil Sheridan among many other Northern commanders.

Naturally the movie was seen as racial and racist and a great hue and cry was raised by Negroes and Jews but not by the men who fought the war either North or South. While the movie in many cases was viewed by participants and survivors of that great conflict, and thought to accurately represent the situation a barrage of defamation was directed at D.W. Griffith, the director, and Thomas Dixon, the writer.

Dixon who was a best selling author of talent and a good story teller was gradually turned into a racist monster having no place in American literature or culture. Both he and Griffith’s careers began a precipitous decline following the movie and both died penniless and in obscurity.

Now, a hundred years later in an effort to co-opt history a new film also titled Birth of a Nation has been written, directed and acted by Nate Parker. Nate is a Negro. His film deals with a slave uprising led by Nat Turner in Southhampton County, Virginia in 1831. The rebellion was a murderous, bloody, rapefest that ended as it must have once the surprise was over and the Whites organized. But, what is meant by Nate Parker’s filming the movie? Is it merely to mock Griffith and Dixon or is he calling for a unification of the present Negroes to exterminate present Whites?   In other words, a serious call for the birth of a Negro United States or Nation? The film certainly excites the Negro people to do battle with the White Demons. And that at a time when the Negroes are already working themselves into a lather finding excuses to kill, burn and loot.

The very people who denounce Griffith and Dixon now applaud Parker as the auteur of a fantastic picture. They little know that they are the projected victims of the film.

However Nate Parker has complicated the matter by having been tried for raping a White girl in college, sort of following Griffith and Dixon’s script that was denounced as defamatory.   The White girl is described as being unconscious, thus one imagines drugged, hence unable to give consent as Parker claims while having gratified his hatred of Whites on the girl’s body. Having gratified his hatred Parker invited his Black roommate into the room to have some too. So we have a gang rape.

So the Griffith film in which a Negro gratifies his lust on a White girl seems to have been reenacted by Parker even though the scene in Griffith’s film was called inaccurate and racist.

Parker, of course, represenst his rape of the girl as a mere youthful indiscretion and he’s put all that behind him; convenient for him although his victim subsequently committed suicide at the age of thirty. Collateral damage.   So let’s forget about the mistake and concentrate on Parker’s movie that calls for lots more murder and rape.

Let’s try to place Parker and his movie into a historical continuum. The Nat Turner uprising occurred in South Hampton County, Virginia in 1831 as noted. The uprising was not too far distant in time from the 1804 revolt of Toussaint L’Ouverture in Haiti which established the independence of Haiti from the French. Haiti was a major event in the consciousness of nineteenth century history. While Toussaint did not in any sense defeat Napoleon as some historians claim he did defeat troops of the Empire. The reaction among Whites was stupendous. Some feared an uprising in the US like that of Nat Turner other lauded Toussaint as the greatest military figure of all time surpassing Washington, Napoleon, Caesar and whoever. Just the greatest and that because he was a Negro. Matthew Clavin in his fine book Toussaint L’Ouverture and the American Civil War details the reaction to Toussaint’s victory. All the White men were massacred while the White women were given the choice of a horrible death or marriage to Negroes, but a real marriage not a mockery of one. Most women chose to submit to the Negroes.

The Whites not murdered during the Haitian Revolution fled to the nascent United States. While France had sold Louisiana to the US in 1803 New Orleans was still considered a French colony to which many of the slave owners repaired bringing their slaves with them. Many of the slave owners were mulattoes and Negroes thus New Orleans had a large corps of Negro slave owners at the time of the Civil War.

Others landed along the Gulf Coast so news of Haiti was general in the South among both slave owners and slaves. This Haitian rebellion then both incited Nat Turner and terrified the Whites. So, the result was murder, theft and rapine what it would seem Nate Parker is inciting with his movie. As far as rape goes he knows what he’s talking about.

Efforts are being made to prevent the theater release in October, not only by Whites but by Negroes also. This would seem wise. In the event of a Negro uprising that could occur before election time or at least inauguration that might seem to justify martial law and the continuation of Obama rule. Some worry about this and their worries may be justified. We’ll see. I fear that the US is now two nations and not one.

Vote Trump anyway.

Sony, Kim Jong-Un And The Hollywood Sewer

Sony, Kim Jong-Un And The Hollywood Sewer


R.E. Prindle


Pat Buchanan recently complained about the sewer culture of the US.  The culture has now gotten absolutely disgusting.  Within the week I have been so sickened by the sewage coming out of Hollywood that I have lost all interest in movies and television.  I don’t like pornography disguised as entertainment.

Thus when I read of the dictator of North Korea’s hijacking and exposure of the corruption of Sony-Hollywood I was of two minds.  Ambivalence deluxe.  Of course I deplore the Communist politics of North Korea but they have less of an immediate effect on my life than the Liberal corruption of Hollywood.  Let us ask:  Which is the greater evil?

I do not hold Sony Corp. responsible as their control over Sony-Hollywood executives and employees is tenuous at best.  Sony-Japan executives may not have had a clear idea of the movie in question- The Interview.  The movie will not now be shown so ignore it.

The movie as described is an invitation to assassinate Kim.  The US response cannot be directed at North Korea alone or Kim Jung-Un as he is justly angry, perhaps considering the film as an offensive act of the Obama administration; what other response could he have made that would have been listened to?  The nitwit Liberals in Hollywood have to learn what going too far means.  Can the tail really wag the dog?  They are the ones who should be punished, not North Korea or Sony.  After all, some hapless Negro who posted a comment that a cop should be shot on his front porch in front of his family for every Negro criminal killed while resisting arrest was fired from his job, so why shouldn’t the Hollywood Liberals be disciplined for the same offense against Kim Jong-Un?  What does globalism mean anyway?

Nor is this a matter of freedom of speech that Liberals don’t respect anyway.  Nor was the hapless Negro’s comment.  While movies may be entertaining they are also psychological tools that be using suggestion can and will influence future events.

Perhaps even the release of all those Sony-Hollywood executives’ emails may be beneficial.  Let no disaster go unused.  Perhaps this crisis can be used to loosen the logjam of so-called offensive or ‘hate’ speech.  Let’s get those offensive speech laws off the books.  If you don’t like what you see in the mirror it is not the mirror’s fault.  Smashing the mirror won’t change anything.

The hijacking is a regrettable crime possibly partly justified by the offence, but it requires no direct action by the Obama administration.  Learn a lesson and make Hollywood improve their manners.  Clean out that garbage producing sewer.  Do it Now.

Khruschev In Hollywood: Sept. 1959

Khruschev In Hollywood: Sept. 1959


R.E. Prindle

Various:  Face To Face With America: The Story Of N.S. Khruschov’s Visit To The U.S.A., Sept. 15-27, 1959

I came across this interesting volume at the local used book store.  Nikita Khruschev came to the US in 1959 in what was a sensational visit.  I was in the process of being discharged from the Treasure Island Navy base and taking up residence in Oakland at the time thus being otherwise occupied at the time so I  have no actual remembrance of the visit.

The Soviet press accompanying Khruschev obviously went back home and got this nearly seven hundred page volume together in a couple months.  The book reads very well, almost like a Russian novel of the nineteenth century.  Actually very enjoyable. especially as a first hand account.  In the course of the book the writers offer this very interesting Russian account of the nature of Hollywood’s effect on America.  I quote in full: pp. 217-220


While we are on the way to America’s film capital, it is well worth giving a brief account of it, telling why it plays such an essential part in America and why to many ordinary, unsophisticated boys and girls it is the city of dreams.

Hollywood is, in fact, a gigantic film factory of a New York office for propagating and consolidating the American way of life.  Gigantic is no exaggeration.  Hollywood annually produces hundreds of films which are shown not only all over America but in many other countries as well.  Decades of film propaganda and the allocation of a special role in the American way of life and American thinking to films are responsible for the fact that films have, indeed, become part of the average American’s life.

In the American family motion pictures take the place of books, museums, concert halls, the theatre and discussion between friends.  Films tell the Americans how to behave, to dress, to eat, treat the family, sweethearts and children, and even how to view world events.  Films give them the answers to all their questions- from what brand of cigarettes to smoke to the best buy in TV sets and automobiles.  If you want to know why all American boys suddenly adopt the crew-cut fad, go to a movie and see the hair-lay of the latest male star.  If, as though in a fairy-tale, the girls of some city unexpectedly, literally within a day or two, change their skirts for slacks, you can rest assured that it is the “dictate” of the new film star- Kim Novak, Shirley MacLaine, or some such.

The omnipotent penetration of Hollywood and its products into the life of the Americans has been going on for years.  Billions of dollars, the newspapers and the radio, stories spreading intimate details from the life of the popular film  stars, and even the church have been mobilized to create the cult of Hollywood.  Far be it from us to say that Hollywood with its dozens of studios has contributed nothing of significance to the world’s cinematographic art.  Many good films have been made there, and eminent producers and actors began their careers there too.

But with a cynical indifference to the destiny of individual honest craftsmen, Hollywood has always asserted its principal rule- to drum into the minds of the Americans the idea that they invariably, day and night, at work, at home, in school, at college and in the army, act according to the advice and decisions of the Hollywood gods and its New York bosses.

The American motion picture producers readily underline that Hollywood films are apolitical and have no ulterior motive.  Nothing is farther from the truth.  To be sure, the whole history of Hollywood is one of trends in American art.  Of course, these trends varied with time, always assuming some concrete expression.  There was a time when Hollywood did all n its power to assert the cult of the brave cowboy and sheriff, the maker of America’s “democratic” history.  Then came a wave of detective films followed by films about the police and “supermen”; a meticulous, almost pathological rummaging in human psychology is a characteristic of popular films today.  Hollywood tries to come closer to the church, to sacred themes- but, of course, by recasting them in the American manner.  Biblical commandments and other miracles appear with increasing frequency on the screen, the American cinema openly boosting religion.

But whatever the waves in which the Hollywood film production submerges the average American- police, cowboy, detective or religious- the main principals of mass ideological pressure imposed on Hollywood in the twenties, when Big Business and the Catholic hierarchy placed the odious figure of Will H. Hays at the helm of Hollywood, remain in force.

What are these principles?  Hays briefly formulated them as follows:  “Every American film must assert that the United States way of life is one and only for any person.  At any rate, every film must be optimistic and must show the small man that some time and somewhere he will catch his fortune by the tail.  A  film must not turn the dark aspects of our life inside out and must not kindle any powerful or dynamic passions.”

The last sentence clearly forbade the artist to engage in revolutionary thinking, or in efforts to change the existing state of affairs.

It is in the light of this last “Hays rule” that the end of Charles Chaplin’s work in Hollywood is so noteworthy and tragic.  In front of a fashionable cinema in Hollywood there is a concrete platform on which the film celebrities have left imprints of their hands and feet “for posterity”.  In our opinion and to our taste this is, naturally, not the best way for an artist to make his mark in history, but the sponsors of this unusual “monument” apparently  take a different view.

Be it so.  We are referring to something else.  When Charles Chaplin, addressing a big meeting during the war, said that it was the Soviet Army that would save the world from fascism, it infuriated the Hollywood bosses and they decided to erase the name of the great artist from history.  To them this seemed very simple.  They removed the plate containing the imprint of Chaplin’s feet.  They hoped that would suffice; they thought Chaplin would cease to exist in the memories of film goers.  Then, in order to “finish off” the artist who in all his films debunked the myth about the “American paradise” and was a friend of the little man, they framed Chaplin on a charge of seducing a young actress who had started acting in one of his films.  She disappeared from Chaplin’s studio, and soon the newspapers published an alleged letter from her in which she demanded 100,000 dollars to bring up the child which she alleged was Chaplin’s.

This was only the first blow, a small link in the chain of events which soon after the war burst over the heads of scores of eminent  Hollywood cinematographers, let alone Chaplin.  McCarthyism plunged hundreds of thousands of honest Americans into despondency and fear.  McCarthy attacked Hollywood with particular fury. this is understandable, because it was there that McCarthy and his lieutenants wanted to establish a set-up that would ensure the submissive compliance of the men of art for many years to come.  Chaplin was summoned before one commission after another.  He left the United States, the land where he had lived for 40 years, and went to Europe.

Perhaps when Chaplin bought his ticket to bid America farewell some members of the Un-American Activities Commission heaved a sigh of relief and thought all was over with Chaplin.  But Chaplin’s name has remained in the history of American and world cinematography.  Even today, when visitors to Hollywood are shown the places bearing the imprints of the hands and feet of Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Deanna Durbin, and many other well-known American film actors and actresses, it is interesting to note that each without fail asks the guide where is Charles Chaplin’s imprint.

The time of the McCarthy witch-hunt was the hardest in the life and history of Hollywood.  Ten prominent American film workers were accused of communist sympathies and jailed.  The interrogators of the McCarthy commission filled hundreds of pages questioning film actors, producers and script writers one after another.  Fear descended upon Hollywood and engendered what fear always engenders- time-serving decay, and servility.

Hollywood needed time to recover, to settle into shape after the terror, distrust, and denunciations.  The complex process is not yet finished, although it would, of course, be wrong to assert that nothing has changed in Hollywood and that there are no forces wishing to take a sober view of the world, the relations between the peoples and the problems of the development of art, albeit slowly and timidly, in Hollywood today.


I’m sure the Soviet writers would be surprised that the situation has deteriorated even further.  One has to be even more careful of what one says but has to erase any remarks one may have made under duress as much as twenty-five years earlier.  Today the punishment is swift and sure for shaking violently after having had a gun put to your head by a Negro with all the fears that has for a woman. Paula  Deen   uttered the horrific word nigger in reference to the Gentleman of Color who robbed her and might have raped her or blown her brains out.  I doubt if he even went to jail.  In Nashville you can do worse than what happened to Paula and be defended as innocent.  No shit!

Imagine having a lucrative career destroyed, a penalty of possibly tens of millions of dollars for the crime of uttering ‘nigger’  twenty-five years ago.  Imagine that.  What were the Soviets complaining about?  Of course they had no crystal ball for the future or they might have been even more astonished at the course American “civilization”  has taken.  What new “American” way of life have the asses of Hollywood created?  Stay tuned, you may be even more astonished.

Reclaiming Control Of Our Culture

Reclaiming Control Of Our Culture
R.E. Prindle

One of the results of pre-1914 immigration was that Aryans resigned control of the US culture to the immigrants themselves. Even the administration of immigration itself was placed in the hands of the immigrants. The unspoken deal was that the immigrants would recognize the superiority of our political system and culture renouncing their in our favor. This was called the Melting Pot theory. It was delusional and not realistic. The Melting Pot was never to be realized.

Of course there were certain people, denounced as Nativists bigots, who pointed out that theory was based on a false premise and couldn’t work. Liberals hooted them down as bigots and morally corrupt narrow people.

While this struggle was going on immigrants who thought our political system was inferior to theirs were going about laying the ground work for supplanting our system and culture with theirs. First among these peoples were the Jews.

As has been shown by the recent founding of the Paideia organization in Sweden by the ex-pat US Jew Barbara Spectre with the intention of suppressing the history of nineteenth century Aryan culture in favor of what she calls ‘Jewish Knowledge’, this has been their modern goal since the Jewish Emancipation of the French Revolution to the present.

It is no surprise then that from their landing on US shores the Jews set about supplanting Aryan systems and culture with their own.

This attempt fid not go unnoticed. A set of plans entitled the Protocols Of Zion professing this goal made its appearance but was vehemently denied as one would expect. Inn any event the Protocols were written toward the end of the nineteenth century and were obsolete by the time they were promulgated. Based on nineteenth century propaganda methods the twentieth century at its opening provided new unparalleled propaganda venues that went on increasing and improving: movies, radio, recording, TV and improved publishing techniques. The mass market was in front of them.

As movies and the new venues were unexploited those on the qui vive had the most incentive to exploit them and those people were the Jews. It was essential to control the content an personnel of these new opportunities. Thus with these more than powerful venues that caught the Aryans flat footed the Jews were able to begin the displacement of Aryan culture with their own.

When talking pictures became the norm about 1930 the way was clear. Radio that became commercial at about the same time placed the whole propaganda apparatus in Jewish hands.

The death camps of the Nazis placed the weapon of guilt in Jewish hands that was found to be irresistible. The actions of a few while unrepresentative of Jews in the case of Jewish criminals were declared representative of every single Aryan and White person. Thus, by at least the year 2000 Jewish culture and mores had taken prominence over Aryan. The Revolution is almost completed.

Our good will toward all has been traduced. It is only necessary to reject this Jewish influence to defeat the Jewish conquest.

As I indicated in my previous post it is necessary to establish our own presence in the movie and other propaganda industries and reaffirm our own cultural values. It is necessary perhaps as has been done in Canada and England to pass laws limiting the participation in the media of other nationalities.

When Canada and England, for instance, feared the dominance of American cultural influence whether movies, performing arts or other they had no compunction is legally limiting it. The came can be done in this country, Aryan Affirmative Action so to speak. Perhaps such would not be unlike the anti-Aryan Hate Laws championed by the Jews.

Obviously the system we developed, Democracy can be used to subvert the State without restraints. Let us put restraints in place to ensure the smooth operation of Democracy. The time for hope and change is now. A change is gonna come.

Why Not Another Hollywood?

Why Not Another Hollywood?
R.E. Prindle

The hypnotic influence of the movies is being conceded to Hollywood when nothing would be easier for us than to create a counter-Hollywood. This is a huge country. Why is there only one movie center? Currently Hollywood is controlled by Jews and they control the content shown to the entire population.

Content conditions the viewer to see things in a certain way. Perpetually repeated in every movie a specific way of looking at things is surreptitiously inculcated; a new more is inculcated and generally subscribed to.

Why do we not offer the public our point of view- change we can believe in. Keep the good mores and create new ones that further our cause.

Nothing could be easier. All you need is an empty hangar somewhere, anywhere and you’re ready to set up business.

Financing should be a relatively simple step- offer shares in a public company or two. Set up a distributing arm and finally set up public companies in big cities to either buy a theatre chain or create a new one. Expand from there. Thus vertically integrated the network would be independent of existing operations that would be sure to refuse our offerings or sabotage them.

There should certainly be enough talent, writers, actors etc. to produce movies from our point of view- entertainment not overt heavy handed propaganda. There are certainly enough stories that can be dramatized, enough complaints to be visualized.

Let’s stop complaining about movies and do something about it. Screw Hollywood! Who need them? If we can’t do a simple thing like setting up our own film center then we should give up the fight and join them.

Are we men and women or are we Devo? To action.

Hollywood’s New Shoa

Hollywood’s New Shoa


R.E. Prindle

Who can explain the lovely Rachel Shukert? Her opinions seem to walk a fine line between the concerned and the kooky. I smiled in polite disbelief when she mourned the lack of vicious Jewish criminals, although to perhaps more perceptive observers the lack isn’t so self-evident. She applauded the shrine built to honor the Jewish, to the exclusion of the Italian, uber criminals who made Las Vegas the capitol of crime. But, hey, this is America, everyone’s entitled to his or her opinion unless…well…you’re of a different opinion than Rache, perhaps an anti-Semite, whatever they may be, or, this hurts to mouth to say, a Conservative.

Rache’s most recent foray into the literary jungles is a resounding round of applause for the pervert Quentin Tarantino’s latest sado-masochistic presentation, Django Unchained. Django is a sort of Negro Prometheus, a murderous sort who restricts his serial killing to White people. We can all applaud that, right Rache? Does he use a knife, bow and arrows, bolo or boomerang? Heaven’s no. I shudder to say this in the light of New Town… he uses a hand gun. A G-U-N. The G-word and that’s not Government.

Furthermore neither Hollywood nor the lovely Rachel makes an apology for it, the fact that he uses a gun isn’t even mentioned. No. No shame whatever. A gun may be a gun, may be a gun, may be a gun to paraphrase a famous lesbian Jewish author but whether it’s good or bad depends on whose hand is aiming it. OK in the hand of an unmasked Negro avenger but negative in the hand of a White woman shooting a Negro invader of her home. I’m sure he was going to politely ask her for a piece of ass rather than just rudely taking it. Some call it rape? Phooey. A need is a need is a need…Oh,oh, I think I’ve played this lick before.

Well, first there was Cowboys and Indians, then Cops and Robbers, then Jews and Nazis and now a new genre of the old theme that Rachel applauds, Negro Avengers and White (excluding Jews) Bigots. Will Hollywood ever lose its inventiveness? Or more importantly, will it ever gain a sense of morality?

Sometime in the not too distant past Rachel was celebrating the fact that Jewish (her identification not mine) producers required actors to turn it up if they wanted juicy roles. Did Django? Rache didn’t say whether actresses, or perhaps, female actors to be politically correct, were asked to do it forehandedly or backhandedly, or perhaps both. An oversight I’m sure she deeply regrets.

At any rate she prays for many more of these vicious gun crazed epics. I’m sure you will get them, Rache, I’m sure you will.

Hollywood is far crazier than Adam Lanza or even Jared Loughner.

Hollywood Blacklists And Domestic Terrorists

Hollywood Blacklists And Domestic Terrorists


R.E. Prindle

Domestic Terrorist #1

Now that the Judaeo-Communists have lied their way into the White House we are finally in a position to correctly assess the Judaeo-Communist reaction to the HUAC and McCarthy Era blacklistings.

For those who remember there were many protestations of horror when the Communists who were mainly Jewish and ‘un-American’ were fired from their jobs for their Communist activities and blacklisted protested that this sort of thing had no place in Holy America that we all revered and loved.  ‘Fascism’ had to be suppressed and it was for several decades while the Judaeo-Communists undermined the State.  Now, sixty years or so later Fascism is rearing its ugly head but this time practiced by the Jews and Communists.

While the former campaign of the great Senator McCarthy was anti-Communist the current campaign is styled anti-Domestic Terrorist.  Yes, the former Communist domestic terrorists are now shamefully trying to fasten their own hatred on their anti-Communist opponents.  Heck, you don’t even have to oppose the Obama administration, all  they, or we I should say, have to do is have the common sense to reject their Judaeo-Communist stupidity.

Of course if you have a job and object to J-C policies you will be fired even if you are as qualified, nay as irreplaceable, as the discoverer of DNA, James Watson, stripped of all your posts and emoluments and, would this be the right term, blacklisted for all eternity.  Thus, it would appear, that the issue (blacklisting) was not the issue, no, the issue was that Jews and Communists were the blacklisted.  With the roles reversed blacklisting is a perfectly permissible all-American response to ‘Domestic Terrorists.’

Do you wonder, does it seem marvelous, that Bomber Billy Ayers said:  Guilty as hell. Free as a bird.  God what a wonderful country?

Yes, and more wonderful than even he even knew at the time.  Now, fifty years on the Bomber is in a position to not only arrest but get convictions on the very people who prosecuted him then.  ‘Guilty as hell, free as a bird and in a position to persecute any who disagree with him.  God, what a wonderful country.  Free to bomb and free to repress.   ‘Oh, say can you see…’

What it is is what it is.  To think that I should live to see hypocrisy triumph in such a regal manner.   Capt. America, I salute you.

But, the question is,  which side are you on?

Manipulating The Words And Symbols

Manipulating The Words And Symbols


R.E. Prindle

     If you think the various nationalities, races and religions of the US are not in competition for supremacy, think again.  There are several quiet fronts in action.

     The main thrust of the various ‘armies’ is to disarm and suppress the majority people, specifically the White male.  How can this be done witout a shot being fired, at least up to this time?  Patience has been a virtue.  The other is to manipulate words and symbols; empty them of their former content and replace that content with another but similar meaning.   Religously this is the way it has always been done.

     There are several movies that illustrate these methods.  The movies were made as instructional films for the initiated.  Three that I would recommend to get you started are:  A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence and Wag The Dog.  Also any of the Marx Bros. movies will do just fine.  These movies all illustrate methods to subvert the status quo.  They work just as well in reverse.

     In dispossessing the majority, as I say, one converts words and symbols to one’s own use while depriving the majority of them.  A key word of the majority was Democracy.  The old meaning was that the country was not a monarchy or aristocracy where birth was an entitlement to success but success was open to all (theoretically and nearly so in practice) on the basis of merit.  Thus the country was considered a meritocracy.  Of course a meritocracy automatically favors the more able which, in fact, discriminates against the less able but this is unavoidable.

     Beginning some time after The Great War the Jews led by the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and perhaps the NAACP guided by astute propagandists such as Edward L. Bernays the meaning of Democracy began to be collectivized from the individual to the group- Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Moslems etc.  It was then argued that merit was no longer a key determinant but that Democracy meant that each group, each race, each nationality, each religion had to have a proportionate share of whatever was to be had.  Thus meritorious Democracy which had always been open to all irregardless of other considerations became a sort of aristocracy that depends on  birth- Jewish, Black etc. regardless of capability or merit.

     This type of group, then, including White Liberals, was organized into a coalition, an alliance,  to dispossess the White male by any means necessary legal, moral or otherwise.

     Of couse, this was a stealth attack executed in increments so that at first only ‘the lunatic fringe’, that is the alert or wide awake, was sharp enough to notice and they could be easily infiltrated and disabled so that no effective offense developed.

     Now that the plot against America is clear it remains to blow the whistle on these criminals  which includes controlling the terms of discourse and organize an offensive.  The Tea Party may be a start.  Think about it. Then act.

Navy SEALS, Sam Peckinpaugh And Shotguns


Sam Peckinpaugh

And Shotguns


R.E. Prindle

     Liberals have watched one too many movies.  Apparently they have taken Andy Warhol’s advice  and are pretending that life is a movie.  Liberals have taken George Clooney and Syriana a little too seriously.  These Liberal yo-yos seem to think assassination is a media game.

     Thus Tony Dokoupil on the Daily Beast lauds the Navy SEALS as ‘the nation’s quietest killers.’  We aren’t told who the ‘nation’s’ noisiest killers are or the messiest or neatest or how they compare to the wonders of assassination performed by the Mossad.  Dokoupil further tells us that although quiet the SEALS can crash through doors and “double tap” the enemy’s face…killing…with two point blank shots.’  Shucks they should use exploding bullets and save the expense of the second round.   Point blank and they need two shots?  Tony’s got the lingo down and enough movie viewing experience to know what an action film is all about.  “I’ll be back!”  Tony mutters as he signs off.

     Not only that but Tony uses antiquated ‘conservative’ terms like ‘nation.’  Hell, we all know that nations no longer have a place on this earth.  One world, one people, one religion.  Global, global, global.    How does stuff like this get past the Daily Beast censors.  Are they so sloppy they don’t have oversight?  They’re owned by Newsweek aren’t they?  No wonder the magazine is going bankrupt.  Good thing too.  Save us the trouble of bursting noisily through the doors and shotgunning them to death a la Sam Peckinpaugh.