…by Jonas E. Alexis & Merlin Miller
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.
Miller’s 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 Eagles Are Gathering.
Alexis: We will discuss Petraeus and others next month. Let us discuss some of the major themes of your book. You write:
“To 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.”
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 Hollywood vs. America. He makes the point that during the 1980s, PG films
“represented less than 25 percent of all titles—but occupied six of the Top 10 places on the list of the decade’s 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 ‘G’ or ‘PG’; only 25 percent were rated ‘R’ films.”
Based on facts like these, the million-dollar question is why doesn’t Hollywood primarily produce G or PG rated films, since that is where the money is? The answer is quite simple—since 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.
As Medved goes on to say,
“In 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 ‘R’ rating. Instead, official figures from the Motion Picture Association of America show that the percentage of ‘R’ rated movies dramatically increased—from 46 percent in 1980, to 67 percent in 1989.”
We find the same result in 1990 and 1991, that G and PG movies “out-performed” R-rated ones.
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 “interesting,” but tried to explain why Hollywood preferred R-rated movies:
“We need pictures that have teeth to them, that have an edge, that stand out from all the stuff people see on TV…hard-edged pictures are a much safer bet—because they cut through the TV haze and get attention.”
He challenged Medved to reexamine his data. Medved writes:
“In 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…
“Box 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—and showed that the preponderance of ‘R’ films in each year’s release schedule made no sense whatsoever.
“As Mr. Cain concluded, ‘By almost every measure, ‘R’-rated films are less likely to succeed at the box office than their ‘G,’ ‘PG,’ and ‘PG-13’ counterparts. R-rated films generate substantially less revenue, return less profit, and are more likely to ‘flop’ than films aimed at teen and family audiences.
The specific figures should give the studio head and his colleagues good reason to reexamine their assumptions. Concerning his contention that ‘hard-edged pictures are a much safer bet,’ 41 percent of all ‘R’ films generated less than $2 million in box-office receipts—compared to only 28 percent of ‘PG’ pictures.
“At the other end of the spectrum of success, ‘R’ films are similarly disadvantaged. Thirty-eight percent of all “PG” films exceeded $25 million in box-office gross in 1991—while only 19 percent of ‘R’ films reached that level of revenue. In other words, ‘R’ films proved less than half as likely as “PG” releases to reach the ‘respectable’ box-office plateau of $25 million.
“In 1991, the median ‘PG’-rated picture grossed $15.7 million in domestic box office, almost triple the median ‘R’ picture gross of $5.5 million. Meanwhile, the few ‘G’ pictures registered the highest returns of all—a median box-office gross of $18.5 million. As Robert Cain reported, ‘These general patterns hold true for independent as well as major studio releases.’”
This pattern did not stop in the 1990s. Medved’s 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 “as soon as the Jews gained control of the ‘movies,’ we had a movie problem, the consequences of which are visible.”
You write that
“My career choice was to produce quality motion pictures—entertainment 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’s Wonderland.”
You also say that “Hollywood insidiously propagandizes us to believe non-truths, to worship anti-heroes, and to acquiesce to a world of increasing decadence and despair—a New World Order. Independent alternatives are faced with an insurmountable task to take on the Hollywood juggernaut.”
What did you find when you got into Alice’s Wonderland? Tell us more about this New World Order in Hollywood.
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.
When I entered “Alice’s Wonderland”, 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 “cultural Marxist” agenda.
Michael Medved with his 1992 book, Hollywood vs America, 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.
In a certain sense, as an “official voice of discontent”, he fulfilled a role which helped guide or placate criticism…typical of New World Order schemes. In subsequent years, as the “approved” societal conscience, he indicated how his book had had a positive impact on the industry.
I certainly didn’t see it. Hollywood’s contempt for traditional America only grows. Their elitist attitude is “you can never underestimate the intelligence of the audience”, and I believe they intend to guide our ever-constricting thoughts to animal levels.
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 “news”, 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; “Brave New World”, “1984”, Fahrenheit 451, and movies, such as; “They Live” and “V for Vendetta”, give homage to this reflective conditioning and gradual enslavement.
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.
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.
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:
“I 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—particularly Hollywood’s hostility to all forms of organized religion—but afterward he asked if I could spare a few minutes to speak with him confidentially.
“‘Maybe you can help me understand something,” he began, as we adjourned to his private office. ‘You’re right on target when you talk about what Hollywood’s been doing to this country. But you’re also part of the Jewish community.
“‘And what I don’t 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’t it, God’s chosen people? How come they’re so set on trashing everything that the rest of us still care about?
“‘I’m afraid we’ve got more and more people out there—decent people—who are wondering about the same thing.’
“To 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.
“No one could ever accuse him of anti-Semitism; for many years he had compiled an admirable record of service to Jewish causes and he’d 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.”
As much as readers should appreciate Medved’s Hollywood vs. America, the answers he gives here are unsatisfying from a historical perspective. He declares, correctly, that Jewish power in Hollywood “reached its high-water mark in the 1930s and early 1940s—during the period often described as Hollywood’s Golden Age.”
Medved’s answer is that if Jewish influence corrupts Hollywood, why didn’t it happen then, when the Jews were building their entertainment empire?
What he fails to take into account is that although powerful, the Jewish entertainment moguls didn’t have a free hand—the Catholics, with the Legion of Decency, were putting pressure on Hollywood. (Jewish revolutionaries like Leo Pfeffer completely opposed the Legion of Decency.) When those revolutionaries won the culture wars in the 1960s, they immediately began to produce pornographic movies such as Deep Throat and The Devil and Ms. Jones.
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. As Abrams himself put it:
“Jewish involvement in porn…is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion…
“Pornography 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 ‘what the Butler saw’ 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.
“It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics.”
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.
Because of this, Jewish revolutionary activities in movies in Hollywood were nearly non-existant, and many anti-Communist films were produced as a result.
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 Roth v United States, after which Hollywood began to push past its former boundaries.
Jewish historian Andrea Friedman tells us that “after 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.” Jewish writer Luke Ford lists a number of Jews during that era who rose up to challenge “the reigning order.”
Ten years after the Roth v United States case, 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
“funded a series of social scientific studies intended to gauge ‘erotica’s’ social effects, from which they concluded there was ‘no 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.’”
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 Seduction of the Innocent.
The conclusion reached by Johnson’s Presidential Commission—that pornography is essentially harmless—was later challenged under President Ronald Reagan with the 1986 Final Report.
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,
“dispatched V. J. Jerome and Stanley Lawrence to Hollywood to channel the inchoate political sentiment there…Educated 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’s Cultural Commission, its cultural commissar.”
Medved skipped all that historical background in Hollywood vs. America, which was quite disappointing. Medved reminds me of Rabbi Samuel H. Dresner. The late rabbi wrote a book entitled Can Families Survive in Pagan America? in which he attributed America’s moral decline to the Jews who were weakening the American culture.
Yet when he received a letter from a lawyer stating exactly the same thing, Dresner was quite upset.
So, you are absolutely right about Mevded. But for people who still do not know what’s really going on in the film industry, Hollywood vs. America provides a sort of introduction to the deep issues that post beneath the surface.
 Merlin Miller, Eagles Are Gathering (Upper Malboro, MD: American Free Press, 2015), 167.
 Michael Medved, Hollywood vs. America (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), 287.
 Consider this: in November 2009, the low budget movie The Blind Side grossed over $300 million.
 Medved, Hollywood vs. America, 287.
 Ibid., 288.
 Ibid., 289.
 Miller, Eagles Are Gathering, 167.
 Ibid., 168.
 Medved, Hollywood vs. America, 314-315.
 Ibid., 316.
 See E. Michael Jones, “Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos,” Culture Wars, May 2003.
 For a cultural history of this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).
 Nathan Abrams, “Triple-exthnics: Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004. By the way, Abrams’ article is a reworking of E. Michael Jones’ “Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos,” Culture Wars, May 2003.
 Abrams, “Triple-exthnics: Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004.
 Andrea Friedman, Prurient Interests: Gender, Democracy, and Obscenity in New York City, 1909-1945 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 193.
 Luke Ford, A History of X: 100 Years of Sex in Film (New York: Prometheus, 1999), 20-21.
 Friedman, Prurient Interests, 195-196.
 Ibid., 198-204.
 Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Anchor Books, 1988), 329.
 See E. Michael Jones, “Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos,” Culture Wars, May 2003.
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on March 16, 2016, With 9153 Reads Filed under Investigations, Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.