Donate HERE to help with my webhosting expenses

Bitterroot Bugle post categories

Bitterroot Bugle archives

Good Guys With Guns

James Jaeger and Matrix Productions are well along production of an important, positive movie. I subscribe to his mailing list, receiving occasional updates and progress reports.

The film crews have completed most of the interviews with The Big People who stand tall in defense of armed self-defense. There are a lot of work hours yet to go before we get to see this film.

Meanwhile, he just sent this insightful explanation of how modern movie production functions, in particular how the financing and industry practices determine most of what the primary media outlets present…
and how alternatives actually reach a significantly larger audience…
and how that has already changed politics today.

– Ted

Would the Founding Fathers Donate?
by James Jaeger
Part I
With all the news of the “globalist Koch Brothers” pulling donor support from the Trump Team and the release of Dinesh D’Sousa’s latest film, DEATH OF A NATION, it may be time to discuss financing of conservative movies.  But first, put D’Sousa and the Koch Brothers on ice for a moment while I give you some background.
As many of you know, liberals dominate Hollywood movies and the New York media, what we call the Mainstream Media.  This means, when a conservative filmmaker attempts to make a movie in Hollywood or New York, that movie is pretty much dead-on-arrival.  Unless a movie — whether narrative drama or a documentary — conforms to the interests, values, cultural perspectives and prejudices of the Hollywood and New York Left, that film simply does not get financing, distribution or any sort of promotion by the Mainstream Media.
These are the facts of life in today’s media world.
Given this state of affairs, it’s a miracle Matrix Entertainment in association with OATH KEEPERS was able to finance and produce a 4-part mini series critical of today’s media world — MAINSTREAM.  This series is the only motion picture study that has ever fully explained how and why Hollywood and the New York media dominate the culture, why they lean politically left and why they promote the Globalist Agenda.  Since this is not the topic of this article, I suggest you screen MAINSTREAM for free at or purchase a higher quality DVD at  If you watch MAINSTREAM before or after reading this article, this article will make much deeper sense.
Briefly, the private-sector channels of financing supposedly open to all filmmakers boil down to basically distributors, TV networks and film investors.(1)  All of these channels comprise what’s known as “equity” financing.  Equity — as opposed to “debt” financing and “donor” financing — are the three big categories of financing not only movies, but skyscrapers and almost all other human activities.
Equity, debt and donor financing all have their advantages and their disadvantages depending on the project and the market conditions.
Over the past 30 years, I have been involved with all three of these forms of financing, and their various permutations.  For instance, when I worked in Hollywood with Doris Keating Productions and Columbia Pictures, we financed expensive TV movies by discounting CBS network license agreements.  First we did this through banks (debt), later through Canadian public offerings of master limited partnership units (equity) and European pre-sales.  This kind of financing raised millions of dollars, but it took a lot of time and we paid a lot of lawyer bills.  It also financed movies that were always liberal-leaning, so I, in essence, worked for the “liberal media” from about 1975 to about 1995 when I produced FIAT EMPIRE.         
Surprisingly, FIAT EMPIRE was accepted by the Left, went viral to millions  and even won a Telly Award.  The reason for this was I was probably still considered a Progressive filmmaker so naturally, making a film about the Federal Reserve System, interpreted as a “big bad corporation,” conformed with the interests, values, cultural perspectives and prejudices of the Left.  But when I ventured out to next make ORIGINAL INTENT — a film that was not blatantly liberal — there was little acceptance by the Left, no viral release or any Telly Award.  And here’s my theory why.
The subtitle of ORIGINAL INTENT was: “How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Destroying the American Dream.”  Note we were being critical of both the Democrats AND the Republicans?  But this is a no-no in politics because you have to pick a team whether that team is flawed or not.  You have to make a movie that the Democrats will love, OR the Republicans will love.  To attempt to be non-partisan, to attempt to be unbiased, to attempt to be pan-determinedly truthful, or to attempt to be Constitutional, are all concepts way outside the Mainstream Media mentality.
And this is unfortunate because the Mainstream Media mentality has led us away from founding principles.  In fact, the Founders Fathers frowned on political parties, what they called “factions.”  Here are some of their MANY quotes on the subject.
GEORGE WASHINGTON: Let me warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party … which opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.
JOHN ADAMS: There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.  This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
THOMAS JEFFERSON: The happiness of society depends so much on preventing party spirit from infecting the common intercourse of life, that nothing should be spared to harmonize and amalgamate the two parties in social circles. 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON: Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.  We are attempting, by this Constitution, to abolish factions, and to unite all parties for the general welfare.
JAMES MADISON: So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
So if the Founding Fathers disdained political parties why would it be difficult to finance a movie like ORIGINAL INTENT — How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Destroying the American Dream?  One would think a movie that disdained what the Founders disdained would be easy to finance.  Unfortunately your average citizen today is not aware that the Founding Fathers warned us against political parties.  Thus, any film that is critical of either the Democrats or the Republicans is not considered against the Founder’s wisdom, it’s against the sacred cows of the Left and the Right — their political parties. 
Accordingly, big donors like the Koch Brothers on the Right and George Soros on the Left will only support big political parties — partisan films that support only the current Republican agenda or the current Democratic agenda, whether they are Constitutional or not.  And unfortunately the Democratic and Republican Parties are not very good authorities on Constitutional principles – they mostly go for whatever is popular so they can raise money.  That’s right, these factions are little more than gigantic money-raising machines designed to pit one half of the American public against the other so that donations can be extorted out of both in the heat of important or trivial “issues.”
But why is this?  Trump answered some of this question in a Tweet of 31 July 2018 when he referred to the “globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles” because they “are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade.” 
In short, the Koch Brothers are Globalists and they support the mainstream Republicans because they too are Globalists.  And since Trump is packing up the Globalist Agenda in favor of an America First Agenda, the Koch Brothers are packing up their support of Trump because he isn’t supporting the Globalist Agenda.  Talk about true colors. 
In short Globalist Democrats are in bed with Globalist Republicans because they both prefer World Government and detest what Trump is doing to make American nationalism first.  So mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are political operatives that support the Globalist Agenda, not the American Agenda.  They are all part of the “Deep State” also known as the “Swamp.”  Again, equity financing is NOT available for any movie that’s critical of mainstream Democrats and donor financing is not available for any movie that’s critical of mainstream Republicans.  And debt financing is only available to left-leaning movie studios, TV networks and sophisticated investors who can collateralize loans with real estate.
So if a filmmaker, conservative or not, wants to make a film that’s in any way critical of the Republican Party — their ONLY option is donor financing from Mom & Pop American who are NOT Globalists.  Big donors, like the Koch Brothers — and the donors that orbit them — will never donate.(2)  And again, a conservative filmmaker can NOT get equity financing from traditional industry sources because the Left has distributors, TV networks and even celebrities and “name talents” totally and completely tied up.  Just try calling a Hollywood agent, lawyer or personal manager of a “name” actor and asking them if their client will act or interview for your conservative movie.  The fiduciary would rather burn in hell than permit this.
In summary, a Conservative filmmaker can ONLY get significant sums from wealthy investors and donors — like Koch Brothers — if they submit to producing a film that’s blatantly partisan, pro-Republican Party and/or anti-Democratic Party.  A Progressive filmmaker can get significant sums from both wealthy donors and investors — like George Soros — AND traditional Hollywood financial sources, especially if they make a film that’s blatantly partisan.  But the film does not HAVE to be blatantly partisan or specifically target the Republican Party because Progressive filmmakers can overtly or subtly target ANY conservative tenet or Second Amendment principle and be funded grossly and excessively by the Left and its cohorts at any time.  Donors, equity investors and even debt financiers come out of the woodwork for left-leaning progressive films.  Ask Michael Moore.    
Part II
Speaking of, let’s now discuss two perfect examples of a mainstream Progressive filmmaker, Michael Moore, and a mainstream Conservative filmmaker, Dinesh D’Souza. 
D’Souza’s most recent anti-Democrat, Pro-Republican films are OBAMA’S AMERICA, HILLARY’S AMERICA and DEATH OF A NATION released in August of 2018.  Moore’s anti-Republican, Pro-Democrat films are numerous, but his anti-gun movie,  BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, his anti-Bush film, FAHRENHEIT 9/11, and his pro-ObamaCare film, SICKO, deserve honorable mention.
All of these films received multi-million dollar productions budgets.  Why?  Because all of these films by Moore and D’Souza are highly partisan, highly twisted to kiss the butt of major donors — like the Koch Brothers and George Soros, again, supporters of the two major political parties.  So these two filmmakers blindly support the very political parties the Founders hated, and warned us against, because it’s the only way for them to raise money.
What does this say about filmmakers, parties, Americans and the donors, people and entities that finance political documentaries?  It says that John Adams was right when he stated:
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.  This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
So what can Conservative filmmakers do?  What can Libertarian filmmakers do?  What can filmmakers who want to make a political documentary that respects the U.S. Constitution more than the Republican or Democratic Party do? 
Consider this.  A political documentary is not entertainment.  It’s a film that’s supposed to educate, educate in a manner that’s enjoyable and as painless as possible.  Because today’s world has temporarily been made so chaotic by the Progressive, Marxist agenda ravaging the cultural institutions of America, few people have the time or peace of mind to read.  This is where the motion picture can step in and provide political primers that will be invaluable once the economy and world improve enough for the citizen to get back to reading.  These things said, the point I want to make is this: political documentaries, not being entertainment, do not have to be expensive.
The fact that Michael Moore spent $4.3 million on BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE and Dinesh D’Souza spent $5 million for HILLARY’S AMERICA: The Secret History of the Democratic Party is literally disgusting. 
Imagine, if instead of spending $4 or $5 million on a political documentary, one could produce political documentaries for $100,000 each.  This would mean for every movie a Michael Moore or a Dinesh D’Souza made, 40 or 50 low-budget films could be made.  Since the Left has the distributors, movie theaters, free TV and cable TV networks tied up, no Conservative film, weather budgeted at $100,000 or $5,000,000 is going to get distribution.
And if equity investors were to finance the film, they would demand distribution so they could get their money back.  But since neither a $100,000 Conservative film or a $5 million Conservative film is going to get distribution anyway, what makes more sense, having huge amounts of money at risk on one (1) high-budget Conservative film or producing 50 super low-budget Conservative films and letting them out in a flurry across grass roots America?
Thus, the important thing to remember is this: donor films can be disseminated for free whereas equity films cannot because the investors want their money back.  They will thus not make these films available to the public unless it pays.
Conventional left-leaning distributors will not distribute conservative films whether they are cheaply made or expensive, thus why put a lot of money into a film when it probably won’t get adequate or any distribution either way?  D’Souza even finally admitted expensive documentaries are not the way to go:
“We’re going back to the classic documentary style I used in my first movie, in part because the elaborate re-creations we did in the other two are quite expensive.  HILLARY’S AMERICA did fine in the theater, but we got hurt — and I want to emphasize not one of our investors are upset about this — I’ll make a movie a little more lean but no less effective.”
Lower budget films will do just as well as expensive films.  Documentaries are not suppose to be expensive, popcorn entertainment, they are supposed to be primers that explain the subject using the advantage of the cinematic image.
Many cheaper films as opposed to one expensive film will reach into the vast public space and pervade every level of interest.  Even though the box office gross for HILLARY’S AMERICA was $13 million, at $10 a ticket that means only 1.3 million people watched it.  More people watched my film, FIAT EMPIRE and the production budget was only a tiny fraction.
Is HILLARY’S AMERICA up on the Net for free?  Is BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, or SICKO or OBAMA’S AMERICA up on the Internet for free?  No they are not. Why?  Because, again, their investors and distributors still need to recoup the production budgets.  And while films like these are recouping millions of dollars and being screened by a very limited audience, our films — made for less than $100,000 are up for free and being screened by millions.   See the films at  — all 8 of them up for free and millions have seen them over the past 20 years.
So why do you think Trump is president?  One reason is because liberty ideas in films like ORIGINAL INTENT have been pervading America — the America between New York and Los Angeles — for years.  In other words America has been watching films like ORIGINAL INTENT, CULTURAL MARXISM, CORPORATE FASCISM, SPOILER, MOLON LABE, MIDNIGHT RIDE and MAINSTREAM and these films and their donors are changing the tides of history.
So the fact is: tides are not always changed with million-dollar films — they are often changed with swarms of smaller films, donor-financed films disseminated over the grass roots-Internet.
Consider these things the next time you wonder if it’s worthwhile to go to and donate to a film like GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS – which we hope you will do.
Consider that if just 1,200 people donated $75 — or 3,600 people donated $25 — to the production of a conservative film such as GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS, that’s more than enough to produce the film and get it out on the Internet in less than 18 months.  And the more donations, or the sooner they come in, the quicker the production goes because the producers can get more people working on it.
If you are one of 50,000 people who receive this article or one of our Progress Reports asking for a donation, and you realize that 1,200 people out of the 50,000 are easily going to donate $75  — why would you not chip in? 
This is a relatively cheap way to improve the country.
Also, as explained above, there is no other way conservative messages — or any message that’s not blindly and grossly partisan — will ever get out.  On the other hand, FIAT EMPIRE proves that a film costing just $25,000 can get out and even reach millions.  That’s more people per production dollar than either Moore or D’Souza — or their studios and network distributors — have ever done.
Imagine if out of 50,000 on an email list 3,600 sent in even $25.  That’s $90,000 — enough to produce a Conservative political documentary that millions could see.
Give these odds and the potentials, the only reason I can fathom that a fellow Conservative, Libertarian or Constitutionalist would not make a $25 – $75 donation is because they simply don’t really care about their country.  Or perhaps they just don’t believe the numbers I have presented above.
And other people asking you for donations is not an excuse to “justify” not donating to something that has merit. Every politician in the country is asking you for donations.  But what good does it do to donate to these politicians if voters don’t understand the U.S. Constitution well enough to know what politician to vote for?  A movie that can educate millions of people is much more important than donating to a politician that will probably fail to properly apply Constitutional principles in the first place. 
So you have to decide where to allocate your resources otherwise the political battle we as Conservatives are fighting will never be won.  Just because Trump and the GOP control the White House and both chambers of Congress now does not mean it will continue.
If everyone chips in a small sum to produce Conservative films, then donors who have chipped in $5,000, $10,000 and even $20,000 do not have to carry so much of the burden.  Is this really fair to them to carry it?  They chip in $20,000 and YOU chip in ZERO? 
IN SUMMARY:  The liberals have the Hollywood and New York communication channels tied up with their socialist, secular, globalist propaganda.  If you want to get the limited government, free enterprise, Conservative message out, you must put out communications that will rebut the Progressive propaganda that is now saturating America.  I am offering you a relatively cheap, viable way to do this.  Join me.
(1) With these entities, films are generally financed through vehicles such as production-distribution agreements, negative pickups, network licenses, foreign pre-sales, bridge loans, limited partnership units, Reg D private placements and S-1 public offerings.
(2) In Hollywood Reporter of 31 July 2017, Dinesh D’ Souza reveals that his Conservative films are financed by INVESTORS (emphasis added), people like the Koch Brothers or the investors that orbit them.  To wit, THR asked: “Will the same folks who financed your other three films finance this one?”  D’Souza answered:  “Yes. I’ve developed a pool of about 50 investors who are very committed to my work, and they believe the Hillary movie had a role in her defeat in the election, so they couldn’t be more excited.”  Note, as stated in the article, investors need their money back, that’s why “equity” films are never/rarely disseminated to large audiences on the Internet for free.
Originated: 30 July 2018
Revised & Supplemented: 31 July 2018
Revised: 01 August 2018
Revised & Supplemented: 04 August 2018

Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It’s thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them. Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don’t forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute