(30) Porphyreos

Wittgenstein said that there was no such thing as British cinema—and he was right. The British cannot make films, and all British films suck (the correct designation for films being American, it is an American medium—British films suck). There are great British directors, notably Hitchcock, but they operate outside Britain—they basically Americanise themselves. There is no autochthonous British film industry; and films that come from Britain are always cringe-inducing.

Cinema is primarily an American medium because it is a democratic medium. You don’t even really need to understand the language to watch a film—just look at the beautiful people and images, who cares what they’re saying (you can work out the plot from the expressions and the actions—just like the old silent films). Hence cinema is democratic and universal—just like America. Hence the Jews, a democratic and universal people, dominate the film world. Hollywood is everywhere, and yet it is also a byword for the lowest common denominator and crass superficiality. Los Angeles is the Judeo-Masonic ideal—a fetid melting pot where anything goes, races and religions mix in soupy combinations.

However, there is such a thing as French cinema—and German cinema, Italian cinema, Spanish cinema. This is because film is not purely democratic; it also relates to musicality—it is a Gesamtkunstwerk in European hands. The English are unmusical, the English are too parochial and cosy for music—or cinema. The Jews dominate American cinema because the Anglo-Americans have no talent for film; they do not have the grandeur, the musical soul, for it—to be profound you need to suffer, yet Americans (and Anglos) are too cosy and small-minded for Wagnerian tragedy (“Steady on, it’s a bit much—so over the top these Germans! Have a cup of tea!”). Nothing bad ever happens in America—and yet such an attitude cannot put the Grand Canyon on screen. Hence the Jewish impresarios stepped into the Anglo-American gap and so created a global Tin Pan Alley.