There are a few people in Hollywood who still produce consistently good content (Tom Cruise being the most prominent lately), but ultimately, decentralization of the filmmaking industry is long overdue.
It used to make practical sense for the majority of movies to be made in one city (especially when westerns were King and could be shot on location just a few miles outside of Los Angeles), but jet travel, green screen, and the Internet have changed things so drastically that the Hollywood system isn't needed anymore.
Most Hollywood movies aren't even shot in Hollywood anymore (they're often shot in places like Georgia for tax breaks), so why even produce them from Hollywood offices anymore?
I will even start it. 1 Trump.
Even he hung out with Epstein for a while, and even flew on one of his planes once (not to the island, though). Then he found out what Epstein was up to, had him kicked out of Mar-a-Lago, and cut ties with him.
This announcement is that they've fired her. That's right in line with David Zaslav's M.O.
Zaslav is the new CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, and has been cleaning house there since he took over in 2022. He has reversed some of the bad policies of the old regime. He was even involved in the decision to let president Trump have a CNN town hall.
Wikipedia has this description of one of its scenes:
More of the "horrific nature of man" is examined with footage of a cannibalistic cult eating the innards of a cadaver stolen from a morgue and then partaking in an orgy afterwards.
I just looked it up and found this description of one of its scenes on Wikipedia:
More of the "horrific nature of man" is examined with footage of a cannibalistic cult eating the innards of a cadaver stolen from a morgue and then partaking in an orgy afterwards.
I sounds like that might indeed by the tape that he saw.
Wasn't Walt Disney a dirty 33rd degree mason?
From what I understand, he was a DeMolay member in Kansas City in his teenage years but never joined Freemasonry itself. Some people think Club 33 at Disneyland was named after the 33rd degree, but apparently the real reason for its name is because it was named after its address on Royal Street in New Orleans Square at Disneyland
Who took money from the CIA to get his stupid park built?
I don't know of any evidence that the CIA provided him any money. What he did do, though, was to hire Paul Helliwell and William Donovan, who had CIA connections (in fact, Donovan had founded the OSS, the CIA's precursor). Helliwell and Donavan used their spy skills to make money on the side in corporate espionage and the like, sort of like lawfare mercenaries for hire. He used their skills to help him stealthily acquire the land he needed.
https://knowledgenuts.com/2015/07/08/the-cia-spies-behind-disney-worlds-secretive-fake-cities/
Jonathan Swan published a two part article posted at axios. com. The article was based on his research into President Trumps second term plans; plans that began to be drawn up in early 2017 and began to be operationalized in early 2021.
Jonathan was so horrified by what he discovered that he labelled those plans, Trumps Blitzkrieg on DC; a Blitzkrieg set to begin the second President Trump is sworn in.
I can't find the two-part article. Do you have links?
Probably worse than Freud overall. This provides a good crash course on what Jung really was and the issues with him:
I know. She's not fully awake (she also seems to buy into Carl Jung, for example), but she's relatively awake for someone in Hollywood and seems to be gradually becoming increasingly aware of the destructive agendas being pushed by the elites.
A YouTuber named David Stewart who I frequently watch has pointed out that the idea of marriage is "too risky" because of how some marriages turn out badly or end in divorce isn't logical, because it treats it as a matter of random chance rather than acknowledging that it's a matter of cause and effect.
Judging by the wording, I'm pretty sure that the comment by the second person using pizza emojis is by a person creeped out by the photo and hinting at Pizzagate as a result, and the first one probably is as well. Anyone can post comments on an Instagram photo; it's not just her friends.
An alleged Epstein victim claimed that Epstein and Maxwell name-dropped Cate Blanchett as being one of the people that they knew.
To be fair, I don't know how trustworthy she is (she seems like she has Stockholm Syndrome), and not everyone that Epstein and Maxwell rubbed shoulders with was intimately connected with them or knew everything about them (President Trump apparently took a while to catch on, after which point he had Epstein kicked out of Mar-a-Lago).
They were exceptional at painting their world as exciting and glamorous, name-dropping all the big shots—Bruce Willis, Ashton Kutcher, Cate Blanchett, Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey. And they had all the photos to prove it. This was the early 2000s before social media, before celebrities were as accessible as they are now. They made you want to be a part of that world… but there was a trade-off. Sometimes you had to do things you didn’t want to do.
https://jessicareedkraus.substack.com/p/a-victims-perspective
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators"
That quote has never been sourced back to anything that Solzhenitsyn is documented to have written. In chapter 15 of "200 Years Together", he criticized attempts to absolve Russians of all blame for the October Revolution and put all of the blame solely on Jews. In fact, the "you must understand..." quote reads an awful lot like someone paraphrased some of his words from the portion of chapter 15 quoted below and twisted the meaning into something contrary to what he intended:
"This theme—the Jews alongside the Bolsheviks—is not new, far from it. How many pages already written on the subject! The one who wants to demonstrate that the revolution was “anything but Russian”, “foreign by nature”, invokes Jewish surnames and pseudonyms, thus claiming to exonerate the Russians from all responsibility in the revolution of seventeen. As for the Jewish authors, those who denied the Jews’ share in the revolution as well as those who have always recognised it, all agree that these Jews were not Jews by spirit, they were renegades.
We also agree on that. We must judge people for their spirit. Yes, they were renegades.
But the Russian leaders of the Bolshevik Party were also not Russians by the spirit; they were very anti‐Russian, and certainly anti‐Orthodox. With them, the great Russian culture, reduced to a doctrine and to political calculations, was distorted.
The question should be asked in another way, namely: how many scattered renegades should be brought together to form a homogeneous political current? What proportion of nationals? As far as the Russian renegades are concerned, the answer is known: alongside the Bolsheviks there were enormous numbers, an unforgivable number. But for the Jewish renegades, what was, by the enrolment and by the energy deployed, their share in the establishment of Bolshevik power?
Another question concerns the attitude of the nation towards its own renegades. However, the latter was contrasted, ranging from abomination to admiration, from mistrust to adherence. It has manifested itself in the very reactions of the popular masses, whether Russian, Jewish, or Lithuanian, in life itself much more than in the briefings of historians.
And finally: can nations deny their renegades? Is there any sense in this denial? Should a nation remember or not remember them? Can it forget the monster they have begotten? To this question the answer is no doubt: it is necessary to remember. Every people must remember its own renegades, remember them as their own—to that, there is no escape.
And then, deep down, is there an example of renegade more striking than Lenin himself? However, Lenin was Russian, there is no point in denying it. Yes, he loathed, he detested everything that had to do with ancient Russia, all Russian history and a fortiori Orthodoxy. From Russian literature he had retained only Chernyshevsky and Saltykov‐Shchedrin; Turgenev, with his liberal spirit, amused him, and Tolstoy the accuser, too. He never showed the least feeling of affection for anything, not even for the river, the Volga, on whose banks his childhood took place (and did he not instigate a lawsuit against his peasants for damage to his lands?). Moreover: it was he who pitilessly delivered the whole region to the appalling famine of 1921. Yes, all this is true. But it was we, the Russians, who created the climate in which Lenin grew up and filled him with hatred. It is in us that the Orthodox faith has lost its vigour, this faith in which he could have grown instead of declaring it a merciless war. How can one not see in him a renegade? And yet, he is Russian, and we Russians, we answer for him. His ethnic origins are sometimes invoked. Lenin was a mestizo issued from different races: his paternal grandfather, Nikolai Vasilyevich, was of Kalmyk and Chuvash blood, his grandmother, Anna Aleksievna Smirnova, was a Kalmyk, his other grandfather, Israel (Alexander of his name of baptism) Davidovitch Blank, was a Jew, his other grandmother, Anna Iohannovna (Ivanovna) Groschopf, was the daughter of a German and a Swede, Anna Beata Estedt. But that does not change the case. For nothing of this makes it possible to exclude him from the Russian people: we must recognise in him a Russian phenomenon on the one hand, for all the ethnic groups which gave him birth have been implicated in the history of the Russian Empire, and, on the other hand, a Russian phenomenon, the fruit of the country we have built, we Russians, and its social climate—even if he appears to us, because of his spirit always indifferent to Russia, or even completely anti‐Russian, as a phenomenon completely foreign to us. We cannot, in spite of everything, disown him.
What about the Jewish renegades? As we have seen, during the year 1917, there was no particular attraction for the Bolsheviks that manifested among the Jews. But their activism has played its part in the revolutionary upheavals. At the last Congress of the Russian Social‐Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) (London, 1907), which was, it is true, common with the Mensheviks, of 302‒305 delegates, 160 were Jews, more than half—it was promising. Then, after the April 1917 Conference, just after the announcement of the explosive April Theses of Lenin, among the nine members of the new Central Committee were G. Zinoviev, L. Kamenev, Ia. Sverdlov. At the VIth summer Congress of the RKP (b) (the Russian Communist Party of the Bolsheviks, the new name of the RSDLP), eleven members were elected to the Central Committee, including Zinoviev, Sverdlov, Trotsky, Uritsky.[1781] Then, at the “historic meeting” in Karpovka Street, in the apartment of Himmer and Flaksermann, on 10 October 1917, when the decision to launch the Bolshevik coup was taken, among the twelve participants were Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov, Uritsky, Sokolnikov. It was there that was elected the first “Politburo” which was to have such a brilliant future, and among its seven members, always the same: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sokolnikov. Which is already a lot. D. S. Pasmanik clearly states: “There is no doubt that the Jewish renegades outnumbered the normal percentage…; they occupied too great a place among the Bolshevik commissioners.”
Of course, all this was happening in the governing spheres of Bolshevism and in no way foreshadowed a mass movement of Jews. Moreover, the Jewish members of the Politburo did not act as a constituted group. Thus Kamenev and Zinoviev were against a hasty coup. The only master of the work, the genius of October’s coup de force, was in fact Trotsky: he did not exaggerate his role in his Lessons of October. This cowardly Lenin, who, he, had been hiding out, made no substantial contribution to the putsch.
Basically, because of his internationalism and following his dispute with the Bund in 1903, Lenin adhered to the opinion that there was not and never would be such a thing as a “Jewish nationality”; that this was a reactionary action which disunited the revolutionary forces. (In agreement with him, Stalin held the Jews for a “paper nation”, and considered their assimilation inevitable.) Lenin therefore saw anti‐Semitism as a manœuvre of capitalism, an easy weapon in the hands of counter‐revolution, something that was not natural. He understood very well, however, what mobilising force the Jewish question represented in the ideological struggle in general. And to exploit, for the good of the revolution, the feeling of bitterness particularly prevalent among the Jews, Lenin was always ready to do so."
In chapter 14, he wrote this:
"The closer it got to to October coup and the more apparent the Bolshevik threat, the wider this realization spread among Jews, leading them to oppose Bolshevism. It was taking root even among socialist parties and during the October coup many Jewish socialists were actively against it. Yet they were debilitated by their socialist views and their opposition was limited by negotiations and newspaper articles – until the Bolsheviks shut down those newspapers.
It is necessary to state explicitly that the October coup was not carried by Jews (though it was under the general command of Trotsky and with energetic actions of young Grigory Chudnovsky during the arrest of Provisional Government and the massacre of the defenders of the Winter Palace). Broadly speaking, the common rebuke, that the 170-million-people could not be pushed into Bolshevism by a small Jewish minority, is justified. Indeed, we had ourselves sealed our fate in 1917, through our foolishness from February to October-December.
The October coup proved a devastating lot for Russia. Yet the state of affairs even before it promised little good to the people. We had already lost responsible statesmanship and the events of 1917 had proved it in excess. The best Russia could expect was an inept, feeble, and disorderly pseudo-democracy, unable to rely on enough citizens with developed legal consciousness and economic independence.
After October fights in Moscow, representatives of the Bund and Poale-Zion had taken part in the peace negotiations – not in alliance with the Junkers or the Bolsheviks — but as a third independent party. There were many Jews among Junkers of the Engineers School who defended the Winter Palace on October 25: in the memoirs of Sinegub, a palace defender, Jewish names appear regularly; I personally knew one such engineer from my prison experience. And during the Odessa City Duma elections the Jewish block had opposed the Bolsheviks and won, though only marginally."
The book is very thorough and nuanced, neither downplaying nor exaggerating the role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution. Solzhenitsyn carefully addressed every aspect and angle.
Former supermodel Ana Lucia Alves is now a whistleblower (or at least claims to be one) who has talked about handlers, human trafficking, etc, in fashion and showbusiness. According to her, the "price" that certain people pay to get superstardom differs. In some cases, it's of a sexual nature (she claims that Heidi Klum and Naomi Campbell are likely high-class madams for the Elite who pimp out the models working for them - a deal that she herself was offered but turned down). In other cases, the "price" is spreading propaganda (such as in Leonardo DiCaprio's case). She said that some mega-talented people like Gary Oldman don't have to make such deals at all to become superstars because they are so talented that showbusiness can't get along without them and leaves them alone. She claims to have met DiCaprio, and said that he seems like a nice person but is essentially living in a gilded cage with handlers all around him.
Here's a video of her talking about these things:
Some portion of it might, although not before Paramount and the other investors involved take their cut, which is the majority.
No. The alien in question is Xenu, who is essentially their Satan. They loathe him.
Here's an updated color version of the classic "An Illustrated History of Scientology", which is a great tongue-in-cheek (but genuinely accurate) explanation of what Scientologists are taught:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYtuKdzw5LQ
And here's the Xenu story narrated by L. Ron Hubbard himself with some humorous pictorial accompaniment:
https://scientology.neocities.org/slideshow.html#2