Zionist Hollywood: Not a Bed of Roses

Hollywood Great Joan Fontaine Revealed Zionists in Hollywood Long Before We Knew What Was Happening

-

by Jo Neace Krause

Movie stars are dreamers who feed a dreaming world, but some of them have their  eyes open to reality with an extraordinary understanding of what that reality means. They know all about  the  power games that move this world and the intriguing, puzzling submission of people who find themselves  exploited by one form or another of the entrapments laid for them.

“No Bed of Roses: An Autobiography”, the memoirs of Joan Fontaine, was published years ago, by William Marrow and Company, in l978, long enough ago to be found now in yard sales and flea markets, or a Goodwill store, which is where I happened upon a copy.  It is a short book, no more than two hundred and seventy pages, but it is a great surprise, a  little stick of dynamite in its blunt, intelligent opinions. Ms Fontaine is not interested in titillating gossip, but she has seen a hard rain fall on a lot of people and she doesn’t want to keep quiet or  let go of it. Certain subjects, like bullying and aggression by powerful others, keep coming up.

Her cat fight with Eva Peron (who took Fontaine’s passport as she tried leaving Argentina) is hilarious and even pathetic as the famous movie star sees through the  head of state , {“all she wants is to be a movie star, to be  loved the world over”), Eva is then instructed on the mistakes she had made. “One does not go to war torn Italy in diamonds and furs, else rotten fruit might be  thrown at your car.”

This was during the l940’s,  when Hollywood movies were at their best— the old days, when there was a gold  rush  to produce patriotic war movies. It was also the years  when studio heads could swing famous stars by the tail and all of Hollywood lived in fear. As if things have changed.

Ms Fontaine writes: “Looking back on Hollywood, looking at it even today, I realize that one outstanding quality it possesses is not the lavishness, the perpetual sunshine, the golden opportunities, but fear. Fear stalks the sound stages, the publicity departments, the executive office. Since careers often begin by chance, by the hunch of a producer or director, a casual meeting with an agent or publicist,  they can evaporate just as quixotically.”

The methods of power and control over artists in Hollywood were anchored in the contracts to studios ;  star struck artists signed such contracts among applause with   flashing cameras , scarcely realizing and perhaps not even caring they had become legal slaves who once they had made a box office success with one film could then be rented out  to make any number of trash ball movies for other studios with most of the  profits going to the studio heads.

Purchase Book on Amazon.com

These contracts did not come out of the blue. They came out the minds of men with a honed  instinct for money and its power and a toughness to use it, men like Louis B. Mayer, David O Selznick, Jack Warner, Darryl Zanuck, Samuel Goldwyn, famous names.

What happened when an actor or actress bucked the  all important demand to do a second rate movie they know will ruin their image?  Well, the client was sure to enter the no-man’s land of “between assignments.”  Their name was passed around to all the studios. Producers and their wives made jokes about them at dinner parties.

It was  known that studios encouraged stars to purchase large homes, two or three cars, race horses, yachts, even an airplane, to enhance their image as stars…and to burden them with debts to make them more easy to handle, more easy to exploit.

The controlled media of the industry, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, the feared gossip columnists .  knew exactly how to report with alacrity just who was now off the payroll , whose light was being eclipsed, who was moving into the dark. A recalcitrant actor could know he was being fingered. He might read that he was  a problem , having marital troubles, was “being treated for some emotional disease”, that he was “slipping”   The studios were well practiced to help  the press when suicides were to be reported. So and so who killed himself or herself had long standing debts, long standing emotional problems , sex and drinking  problems for which the studios had of course shown  great perseverance.

After her  triumph in Gone With the Wind, Olivia DeHavilland was handed a series of mediocre scripts when she returned to her home studio, Warner Brothers. Her employers felt she was now great “box office” and her name could sell any piece of tripe. She rebelled and was automatically suspended. The studios attempted to add the time of suspension on to her contract. Olivia took her employers to court, all the way to the California Supreme Court and won.

Actually these Jewish dominated studios suppressed more art  and artistic  talent than they supported; for their main goal was not art. It was low grade films that produced money . David O. Selznick’s artistic taste called for a smoke signal shaped like an R to come drifting  out of the chimney of the burned down mansion  in his film Rebecca. After DeHaverlland’s release from Warner Brothers the actress could select herown scripts, including the classics for which she is known, The Heiress, Snake Pit, and To Each His Own.

It is common in books written about Hollywood, to point out that the Jews who made the movies in the forties were victims of an Anglo society that crowded them out of all other professions, so they had to make movies, and thatis how America got its great artistic films. In a film of that era,  Gentlemen’s Agreement, we are told what Anglo society does to the Jew, but nowhere are we told what the Jews do to the non Jews.

In “No Bed of Roses”  Ms Fontaine refers to the British as a “cliquey lot”, but not a word on Jews, not a word on what the Anglos who found themselves under the thumbs of these  Jewish bosses, felt about Jewish group behavior.  There was a British air  in Hollywood at this time ,  an actual British colony with people like Ronald Colman, Merle Oberon, Claude Rains, Ray Milland, Boris Karloff, Ida Lupino, Carey Grant, David Niven, Gladys Cooper, George Sanders, Vivian Leigh, Lawrence Olivier, Basil Rathbone, and of course Alfred Hitchcock, but if quarrels and resentment against studio heads ever became charged with ethnic pique, we do not hear about it.

Just as we do not hear resentment over our foreign policy towards Israel called by its true name: the Jewish wars against the Arab world;  we hear any objection denounced as Anti Semitism, Self loathing. Obsessive hate, and so forth.  Jimmy Carter’s anger over the treatment of Palestinians is brushed off as  neurotic antics,  a former  president who cannot take being out of the spot light.

Many politicians  oppose the destructive pro-Israeli faction in D.C. but should it be a surprise that those who speak out are treated to the same vengeance that actresses and actors felt when they did not cooperate with Hollywood Jews? Remember Charlie Wrangle, the  congressman from New York, who suggested the war against the Arabs would subside if the military draft was reinstated?  A draft? Was he kidding? A draft would bring out the Jewish kids, the street fighters, the Fuck You crowd. They might even say the F word to Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.  So Charlie had to go, the feathers had hit the fan. Obama, always an easy tool, denounced the congressman, he had to  be investigated, brought up before the cameras and symbolically beheaded, quieted.

Someone in the media suddenly  knew that Wrangle had not paid his taxes on his second home in San Juan. Who told on Charlie and why was his problems with the tax man disclosed at this time?

Of course it was people who wanted the war to go on without descent.  Since pro-Israelis  began to exert serious control over the American government they have done so by digging, spying and knowing  where all the bodies are buried… which is how someone like the Zionist heavy, the now deceased Tom Lantos,  could get nearly every man in the U.S. Congress to sign a resolution-letter to Bush that came very close to being  a loyalty oath to Israel , stating that Palestinians were terrorists…and that any American who did so much as send a letter to a Palestinian was cooperating with terrorism, for chances were every Palestinian had a kid who had thrown a rock at an Israeli tank.

How can our own elected officials treat us like this? Why are they so afraid? What has the Mossad found out about each of them that they stay in their rabbit holes and vote for illegal wars?

Or consider John Kerry’s strange paralysis of fear as reported by Steven Zunes in Commondreams.org.   The  International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that the Israeli government’s construction of a separation wall running through the occupied Palestinian West Bank was illegal. Among other things, the ICJ noted that the construction of the first 125 miles of the proposed 450-mile barrier “has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of the thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory.” The Court called on Israel to cease construction of the wall and to dismantle what has already been built in areas beyond Israel’s internationally-recognized border and to compensate Palestinians who have suffered losses as a result of the wall’s construction.

The vote was 14-1, a not-unexpected margin, given that it reflected the overwhelming consensus of international legal experts regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers. (The majority included the highly-respected conservative British jurist Rosalyn Higgins; the sole dissenter was the American judge Thomas Buergenthal.) The 57-page decision examined in detail the various arguments raised by the interested parties and based their decision upon the strictures set by the United Nations Charter, a series of UN Security Council resolutions, previous ICJ rulings, and relevant international treaties.

Despite the seemingly clear-cut nature of the ruling, however, the Bush Administration, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress have all gone on record denouncing the verdict. Never before has there been such a unified negative response by America’s political leadership to a decision by the world’s highest court.

As Tom Watson the British MP, and author of Dial M for Murdoch,  said when his government condemned Rupert Murdock as unfit to run a news corporation in the United Kingdom. “How could we have been cowed by these people so long?”