FIRM Discussions February 11, 2000 - April 17, 2001
What Are Some Good Aspects of the Film Industry? re: Race and Age Discrimination Suits
bill j.
11:00 pm wednesday february 21, 2001There's an interesting lawsuit in Inside.com regarding Jaama Fanaka. The over-50 writers are now trying to help Mr. Fanaka, a Black-American, in winning his racial discrimination lawsuit against the Hollywood Studios. If Fanaka succeeds, it will open the doors to the age discrimination suits. One lovely woman who is 81 years old was literally thrown out of an agent's office along with her disabled child. NO ONE EVER HEARS THAT STORY.
Mr. Fanaka's lawyer is Mr. Sprenger of Sprenger and Lang located in Washington, D.C. Their phone is (202) 265-8010.
If anyone has ever been discriminated because of their race, sex, religion, or creed, they should call Mr. Sprenger immediately and HELP ALL THESE PEOPLE!
Finally, I wish to thank Mr. Cones for his wonderful courage and guts to take on the people who run Hollywood.
MESSAGE TO THE EXECUTIVES IN HOLLYWOOD: Some of us are fearless and nothing you do will stop us from revealing the truth. We would rather die than capituate to you. If you're looking for a fight, come and get us.
The banned site JewWatch.com
Armand H.
12:57 pm wednesday february 21, 2001Everyone is saying JewWatch.com is evil and there's a movement to ban the site. Has anyone actually visited the site? I clicked over there and found interesting facts and articles.
I'm not saying I support JewWatch.com, but there are things on that site I don't see addressed in the media or newspaper or film. What happened to freedom of speech? Does it only apply to those who are free to speak?
Finally, I agree with most of what F.I.R.M. stands for. If people are so against this movement, why don't they counter with facts and statistics? Why don't they simply tell us why Christians and Catholics have such a hard time making movies in Hollywood? Or why certain ethnic groups get singled out as evil, but not the Jews.
I heard the same disinformation about JewWatch.com, but could not find any merit to those postings.
re: The banned site JewWatch.com
James Jaeger
9:46 pm monday february 26, 2001Although FIRM is not concerned with "watching Jews," I did go over to JewWatch.com and briefly looked it over. My initial impressions are that there is probably information there that is true, false, flattering and anti-Semitic, depending on who you ask.
Since the FIRM website concerns itself with media, in particular, the motion picture film industry, most of the information at JewWatch.com is irrelevant, however I DID note some of the material they have posted on entertainment, film studios and media control. One article entitled Jewish Aspects of Socialist News Spin in Jewish Owned American Media Outlets made several observations about what can happen when a narrowly-defined group controls major media outlets, to wit:
"New York, Jewish Review, April 24, 1999 -- The Jewish owners of the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the thousands of other media outlets which they, as a socialist/athiest group monopolize in America, mis-reported the Littleton, Colorado Murders in order to use it to further their socialist, pro-Jewish, anti-Christian, and pro-diversity dogma.
"The Jewish owned media failed to report the "anti-Christian" aspect of these murders, the "anti-European" aspects of these murders, the homosexual aspect of these murders. Nor did they retract their socialist pro-Jewish and pro-African-American spin, because it fit their socialist agenda to portray Nazis as racists and to ignore the death of Christians in this Christian Land. (which is 90% Christian in Descent yet only 2% Jewish in Descent).
"This is another illustration of the danger of having Jews who are only 2% of the nation present the NEWS to the other 98% of the nation. This is the utilitarian reason why the media needs to be taken away from these Jewish Monopolies--because of their editorial choices which are consistently anti-majority, anti-Christian and pro-Communist.
"The majority should own the media."
Some of the above views are reflected in materials at FIRM, such as an article entitled "The Role of Movies in a Democratic Society" found at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/crimes.htm.
But you are basically correct when YOU say the following:
"I'm not saying I support JewWatch.com, but there are things on that site I don't see addressed in the media or newspaper or film. What happened to freedom of speech? Does it only apply to those who are free to speak?
The short answer to your questions is this: To the degree the movie industry and the media are controlled by a narrowly-defined group, as is the case now, bias and opportunities for censorship increase. This seems to be the situation we face today. . . hence the need for film reform if we are going to retain the liberties granted to us by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
Finally, I agree with most of what F.I.R.M. stands for. If people are so against this movement, why don't they counter with facts and statistics? Why don't they simply tell us why Christians and Catholics have such a hard time making movies in Hollywood? Or why certain ethnic groups get singled out as evil, but not the Jews.
Again, the short answer to this is that the "facts and statistics" are not on their side. Christians and Catholics have a hard time making movies in Hollywood and telling their stories because they don't have the power to determine: a) which movies get financed, b) who gets to direct or star in them or c) who will be depicted as "evil" or "the bad guys."
James Jaeger
christian media outlets
Matt Huntington
6:23 pm tuesday february 27, 2001I see everyone posting their rants against the control group in Hollywood (ie:Jews)and how they have most of a major media outlet to themselves. I can understand your frustration, but then again the Christians control the US government, now that's a narrowly defined control group! (Joe Lieberman for vice president, wow what a concept!).
So ease up fellas, the Christians have a lot of control too and have had it for a good long time. Besides, you'll always have George W. Bush making domestic and foreign policy for you and the 700 Club and Pat Robertson and the EWTN channel preaching Christianity 24 hours a day on almost every cable network in the country.
Maybe you should let the Jews have Hollywood and the Christians can have the US Government.
Recent Postings
John Cones
4:19 pm wednesday february 28, 2001A couple of recent postings to this FIRM Discussion Forum raise questions about whether people can stay focused on a limited issue. One encourages visitors to this site to check out JewWatch.com. I haven’t. I don’t need to. It has nothing to do with FIRM. FIRM and its site are focused on the U.S. film industry and concerned about patterns of bias in film content, why it occurs and the impact of such biases on our society. It just so happens that in exploring why such patterns of bias occurs we find that the facts are that Hollywood has been dominated (and/or controlled) for its approximate 100 year history by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage. Those are the facts. We don’t manufacture the facts. We merely observe them and report them. Observing and reporting the facts as they exist in the real world do not make us prejudice. We would be quite happy to report that members of other religious, political, racial, ethnic or cultural groups were fairly represented in the top executive positions as the Hollywood major studios, but that simply has not been the case. FIRM is about diversity in the film industry. We believe that diversity at the top in the U.S. film industry will result in greater diversity of ideas being communicated through this powerful communications medium called film. We don’t care what the backgrounds of the people with power in the film industry are, except that we believe the lack of diversity at the top is a clear sign that those people in control are prejudiced and have engaged in 100 years of discrimination against all others. We believe that the pool of top studio executives should include Native Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Jews, conservatives, liberals, women, White males from the South, African-Americans, Latinos and so forth. Further, we are not as another writer suggested anti-Jew or pro-Christian. We are pro-diversity and that is inclusive of everyone. We also do not think it is appropriate for anyone to play God and suggest that it’s ok for Christians to control the federal government, and that being the case, it’s then ok for persons of Jewish heritage to control the film industry. What rubbish!
John Cones
I agree with James - good comments
Eric Jameson
4:11 am thursday march 1, 2001That's true, I agree.
I have two historical events that will help the freedom fighters of America take comfort.
One event took place in 1491, the year before Chris Columbus set sail. The government, controlled by the aristocracy, claimed the world was flat. If you disagreed with the aristocracy, you were sent to prison. Hence the Hollywood aristocracy. In 1492, ONE MAN Columbus changed everyone's thinking.
Another event happened in 56 B.C., the year the Ming Dynasty began to build the Great Wall of China. The government, again controlled by the aristocracy, claimed the Wall would protect the civilians from the outside world. If you refused to pile bricks, you were beheaded. Hence the Hollywood aristocracy. It took 400 years of building that wall, until ONE MAN, Liu Ping, stood up on top of the wall and shouted, 'This is stupid! Why are we wasting our time building this thing?' He was promptly thrown off the wall and his body fed to the crows.
So here you have two men: One man, Columbus, who succeeded, and the other Ping, a man who failed.
Yet both historical events took merely ONE MAN to stand up against the arrogant, cocky aristocracy.
GOD BLESS JOHN CONES, JAMES, AND ALL THE OTHER CONTRIBUTORS. YOU ARE FREEDOM FIGHTERS.
Recent School Shootings - HOLLYWOOD KNOW
Freedom Fighter
12:44 pm friday march 9, 2001The guys who run Hollywood know they're responsible for the recent school shootings. I mean, c'mon!
1) COLOMBINE KILLERS (both of whom were Jewish) had tapes of 'Scream' in their possessions. THEY OWNED THE TAPE. 'Scream' is about two teens who become tag-team killers and kill their high school classmates. 'Scream' is made by Harvey Weinstein at Miramax/Dimension under the tuteledge of Michael Eisner (also Jewish).
2) NORTH HOLLYWOOD BANK ROBBERY - Bank robbers each had in a copy of 'Heat' in their possesssion. Again, THEY OWNED THE TAPE. 'Heat' is about a trio of bank robbers who use AK-47s in the street to take out the police officers. It was written and directed by Michael Mann (also Jewish - no relation to the other Jew, Abby Mann)
3) KENTUCKY KILLINGS - The kid had a copy of 'Basketball Diaries' where Leo DiCaprio shoots and kills innocent Christian children. The movie is again produced, written, and directed by a Jew.
WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA ADDRESS THIS? THINK ABOUT IT. Is it because Disney owns ABC and Time owns Warner Brothers and Viacom owns CBS? OF COURSE. Is this something to be alarmed at? Of course.
To truly understand how bad it is right now is get behind the mind of the Jew and to fully understand where their hatred lies against so many Americans and why their intolerance cannot be tolerated by the 259 million other Americans who have NO VOICE.
The Jews want to either control or destroy the Internet. They bashed 'Yahoo' because 'Yahoo' is run by a gentile, Tim Koogle. WATCH AND SEE FOLKS. KOOGLE will appoint a Jew to be the next CEO. It's written in the stars. THESE ARE VERY PRECARIOUS TIMES WE LIVE IN. WE MUST BE ON OUR TOES. Knowledge is our last line of defense.
Freedom Fighter
Enthusiasm!
James Jaeger
6:30 pm saturday march 10, 2001A YOUNG FILMMAKER WROTE: "Nobody can stop me. Money cannot buy you balls."
JAMES JAEGER WROTE:
That's true. . . and I appreciate everything you said just above. You are probably much younger than I and have more energy. That's a great and admirable thing. Your determinism and courage will definately serve you and there's no reason your films will not entertain and serve if this is what you want them to do. I made a lot of mistakes in my career. One of them was thinking that if a) I was totally enthusiastic b) and totally schooled in my craft. . . these whould HAVE to lead to wild success. Here's where I went wrong. . . I didn't pay enough attention to the people-politics factor in the Biz. (At the time I was heavily into Scientology and the Scientologists are taught to basically ignore politics.) So what I mean is this: I do not believe the movie industry cares if you are good as a filmmaker or if you write a unique and exceptional screenplay. Many are able to do these things. But the movie biz does not care. Because the biz is controlled by such a small and narrowly defined group, this group feels that ITS ideas and screenplays are more unique and worthwhile than yours. . . thus, no matter how good or original your idea or script is. . . you cannot move to the head of the line, especially when this group has its very own CHILDEREN in that same line. No matter who you are, or how great your script or talent, you cannot move to the head of the line over a) children of the control group or b) the friends and associates of the control group.
Oh sure the control group lets a few of the disenfranchised (African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Poor White Boys, Handicaped, etc.) in every year, but this is just window dressing for the public . . . it serves to make them look benevolent, fair and giving when this is pure fiction.
If you are going to be successful in your career, you need to know all this and you need to be able to somehow navigate around it. This is ultimately where 90% of your energy will end up going AFTER you have learned your craft and AFTER you have something to say.
This is why John Cones and I have been "ranting," as you call it, about the state of affairs in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. We have collected and evaluated the facts. They are what they are, and they are at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm. I'm sorry to have to be one of the bad news bearers. None of this criticism is meant to target any particular religious group or race. . . really it's not. This situation would be the same if the control group were made of of ANY other demographic that displayed no diversity. You would have the same political problem with ANY demographic.
And the people that control the movie business are very bright and talented and yes they did start the industry and were unfairly kept out of other industries. These people take care of their kids probably better than all other people and others should learn from them. There are many great things to say about the people that control Hollywood and it is ashame we do not have more movies that relate this. . . but not at the expense of crowing out the valuable stories of others. There is something to be learned from every group, no matter what their religion, race or gender. THIS is what Hollywood needs to promote. This is what Hollywood needs: more diversity, and this diversity must start at the TOP otherwise it's only a hollow jesture. And by the top I mean at least the top 3 executive positions at the 7 major studios. Is this too much to ask? Were this diversity to develop over the next decade or so, I think you would see a wonderous fowering of stories and creativity. In fact I believe that if there WERE more diversity at the top, even the current control group would be less inhibited to make films that better-expressed their unique POV on life through entertainment. In other words quality not quantity.
Look at Steven Spielberg's attitude when he announced that he was going to make SHINDLER'S LIST. I well-remember reading about this in the Times. He said that he was going to make this picture in black and white and he was going to tell the story exactly as HE wanted whether or not the picture was commercial. I say good for him, and consequently he made a great picture and I think we all learned something (even though I did not find this picture at all entertaining).
So, I have gone on here a bit, but you brought this out as you seem to care and have what it takes to do well. It is inevitable that the movie business will reform so I don't think you have to worry. . . but this should be no excuse for inaction.
James Jaeger
Inventor of the World Wide Web
James Jaeger
7:14 pm saturday march 10, 2001I want to go on record here as asking the question:
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE NAME TIM BERNERS-LEE?
Checking my Internet search engine, I see that he comes up in only the following major publications, at least two of which are years old:
1) TIME 100
2) TIME MAG of MAY 19, 1997 VOL. 149 NO. 20
3) FORBES.COM of 12.01.97Further Question:
Why is the man who was instrumental in giving hundreds of millions of people the power to mass-communicate so ABSENT in mainstream publications and on mainstream TV?
James Jaeger
'THE GREAT CHRISTIAN WALKOUT'
kenneth beatty
0:18 am thursday march 22, 2001Has anyone heard of this?
Supposedly, several Christian groups are planning a mass boycott of the movie theaters on May 25-28 (Memorial Day Weekend).
Please let us know if you've heard anything of this. And also pass the word around if this is in fact the case.
I think Catholics should also join in.
Finally, this site is moving slower than it did previously. Are you guys changing something?
Kenneth
Labor Leader
re: 'THE GREAT CHRISTIAN WALKOUT'
James Jaeger
0:41 am sunday march 25, 2001Your observation is correct.
Most of the action on the reform issues has been getting argued over at the misc.writing.screenplays and alt.movies.independent newsgroups. And because ALL human endeavor descends ultimately from PHILOSOPHY, I also CC the alt.philosophers as sort of the unofficial "mediators."
A lot of the Hollywood apologists don't want to argue here because they feel that it will somehow add "dignity" to this reform movement.
Nevertheless, I am encouraging a number of people there to argue some of the more potentially inflaming issues here. A few may acknowledge some benefit to this. So we'll see.
James Jaeger
re: 'THE GREAT CHRISTIAN WALKOUT'
frank
0:43 am friday march 30, 2001Thanks James!
Christians spend $400 million dollars a year at the box office. Why?
Because publications such as 'Christianity Today', 'Decision' and other magazines are shut out of circulation by the Jewish owned bookstores like Borders, Waldens, and Barnes & Noble.
Secondly, Christians are extremely naive people.
One Christian owner of a restaurant complained about his restaurant being closed by the city board. The Board is run by the Jews. They'll shut down a Gentile restaurant before they shut down a Jewish restaurant.
Same thing with my Christian attorney friends. They will be investigated by the Jewish controlled California Bar Committee before a Jewish lawyer. My attorney friends say they rarely see a Jewish lawyer ever get disbarred. Why? Because the Jews control the committees. It's game over for the human race as long as the Jewish Racists continue to pillage the rest of the world. We must fight this horrific discrimination and end the DISINFORMATION the Jewish media is sending out.
re: 'THE GREAT CHRISTIAN WALKOUT'
John Cones
12:44 pm saturday march 31, 2001Frank:
I regret that you have chosen to post your general complaints about a particular religious/cultural group at this discussion forum. In my view, your complaint is both too broad and not appropriate for this site, which is dedicated to encouraging reform of the U.S. film industry, and that's all. FIRM has not and does not take a position on who controls the media, or certain state bar committees, but has done some research and reported its research into who controls the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. If you have comments relevant to that issue, or other issues relating to film industry reform, and can avoid making the unnecesary broad generalizations which are never true about any particular group, then feel free to continue posting here, but otherwise, I personally would appreciate it if you would move your bitterness to other sites.
Thanks,
John Cones
re: 'THE GREAT CHRISTIAN WALKOUT'
frank
1:11 am wednesday april 4, 2001Will Do!
Sorry John and I am extremely bitter. I suppose it's the fact that no one seems to listen.
But you've made great breakthroughs and I will honor your request, John.
Thanks for a good site.
Frank
Will of the Amoebae
James Jaeger
7:00 pm thursday april 5, 2001I would like to clear up some words and phrases that may be causing some amoebic thinking on the Newsgroups of misc.writing.screenplays and alt.movies.independent.
The People - the genus Homo sapiens that previously or currently holds citizenship in the United States or one of its territories.
Will of the People - What the majority of the People in the United States want to happen or be done. This Will includes WHAT the government will do, WHO will operate that government and WHETHER that government will even be recognized as EXISTING.
Will of the Amoebae - What the majority of the Amoebae in the ponds and lakes in the United States want to happen or be done. This Will includes WHAT algae will be eaten, WHO will get to eat most of this algae and thus become a Paramecium and WHETHER the water in which all Protozoa EXIST shall be recognized as a pond OR a lake.
The Government - a service entity authorized and established by The People as dictated by their collective and duly represented Will, with or without, the influence of God, Supreme Being, Providence or Universal Intelligence.
Constitution - The senior legal document in U.S. jurisprudence and in fact, other than the Declaration of Independence, is the only document that evidences the legal existence of the United States government.
Framers - The men and women that embody the ongoing Will of the People in a written document call the Constitution and its Amendments.
Official State Religion - this is where the government declares that a certain religion in its jurisdiction is the only one that can be practiced or recognized or has some sort of preference over others.
Separation of Church & State - This doctrine was set forth by the Framers so that the Colonies would not have an Official State Religion or fall into the same trap they had fallen into in European governments (i.e., that of trying to deal at once with both finite problems and infinite problems. At some level, a government deals with finite problems while a church deals with infinite problems.)
Public School System - a system of schools, fashioned after the Prussian Military and financed by taxes collected from private property owners and other sources.
Now, with these words and phrases defined, it becomes more possible to say something on this subject of Prayer in School:
If the Will of the People were such that it desired to reconfigure (or replace) the United States government such that the public policy (or entity) would allow an Official State Religion and/or no Separation of Church & State, the Framers would be authorized to reflect such Will in a law, amendment or even by an entirely NEW constitution. Since this desire has not been expressed by the Will of the People, it has not happened and it most likely will not ever happen as it would violate the principal of "Liberty and Justice for All," hence it would only be the Will of the Amoebae.
One of the problems with Public School System is that it is financed by property owners of various religious preferences of which the majority are Christians and the minorities are other denominations. Because the Framers set up the Constitution of the U.S. to reflect the Will of the People (i.e., the majority) without stepping on the rights of the minority, they did not allow the government to give any special recognition to any respective religious preference EVEN THOUGH most of the population in Colonial America, the People, that created this very concept, and authorized the Framers to stipulate same, WERE Christians.
The idea is: the Christian Founders of this nation did NOT want to force their religious beliefs on any person because THAT would be a violation of that person's LIBERTY, ipso facto. These Christians were, and are, confident that their religious preference is the superior choice and therefore, in a marketplace of free enterprise IDEAS, most people will ultimately reach this conclusion of their own accord. And indeed the proof is in the pudding for most HAVE come to this conclusion and the result is that the United States, in a short 200 years, has grown to become the leader of the free world, which is basically the entire world. Some people -- such as communists, their socialist brothers/sisters, cartelists, fascists, totalitarians and Hollywood apologists -- can't stand this reality. That some of the VERY Framers ALSO owned slaves at the very same time, should not, and cannot be used to invalidate their long-term intentions and love for this nation because these Framers were ONLY reflecting the Will of the People: and by far MOST of the People did NOT own slaves.
Since the majority of the People in the United States happen to be, of their own free will, Christians, their voice is the Will of the People. Therefore any person, whether of a minority or not, that disagrees with this statement also disagrees with the PRACTICE of democracy. Since many of the Hollywood apologists disagree with this statement, it can only be concluded that these people, if not most of Hollywood gives lip-service to the CONCEPT of democracy, but overtly or covertly is antagonistic to the PRACTICE of democracy. And this of course is no surprise because the Control Group of Hollywood is dominated by people that are of EUROPEAN HERITAGE - the VERY heritage that the Framers set up America to become INDEPENDENT from. Remember a document called the Declaration of Independence. If Hollywood has its way, most school kids will soon forget this document. So, it is obvious why Hollywood resents and disagrees with the Will of the People, except as it serves them in parting money from those people (through lip-service movies) to empower their agenda of socialism and one-world government.
Thus when one gets right down to it, probably the two MOST salient factors in John Cones' description of the Hollywood Control Group (i.e. LIBERAL, NOT VERY RELIGIOUS, WHITE, JEWISH MALES OF EUROPEAN HERITAGE) are the EUROPEAN HERITAGE factor and the MALE factor. The EUROPEAN HERITAGE factor explains Hollywood's Disdain for Democracy (See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/disdain.htm) and the MALE factor explains Hollywood's penchant for Violence in Movies (See http://www.mecfilms.com/moviepubs/memos/violent.htm). If WOMEN were running more of the studios they would probably neutralize the testosterone-driven male addiction to violence, conflict and war which is currently saturating the adolescent environment and co-causing such atrocities as Columbine and Santana.
So again I say, those of you who have tried to make John Cones' research and this reform movement into a "Jewish Thing" either:
a) have an ego problem, and/or;
b) can't read and comprehend written text, and/or;
c) are using the anti-Semitic Sword to cover up Hollywood's
agenda (as partially described above), and/or;
d) are trying to impress studio executives to sell a screenplay or movie project.James Jaeger
re: christian media outlets
R. Acker 9:35 am monday april 9, 2001>I can understand your frustration, but then again the Christians control the US government, now that's a narrowly defined control group!
Actually, Congress is much more diversified than the Control Group of Hollywood.
Historical Accident Argument
John Cones
6:11 pm monday april 9, 2001Recently an old argument relating to one aspect of the film industry reform movement has resurfaced. As the argument goes, the Hollywood apologist claims that the upper level management of the Hollywood studios is not diverse due to historical accident. In other words, the politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage who have dominated the top three major studio executive positions for nearly 100 years are there, not because of their discrimination against others, but because the original founders of Hollywood were discriminated against by white, male Christians on the East Coast and got into the film business because it was one of the few career choices available. There are several problems with this argument.
1. NOT REALLY AN ACCIDENT–Anyone familiar with the history of the U.S. film industry knows that it was originally created and controlled by the inventors of the camera and projector, a group of predominantly white, Christian males based on the East Coast. Many of the theater owners, on the other hand, were Jewish males of European heritage. They saw opportunities to make a great deal of money in the film business and wanted to expand into production and distribution. They obtained the cameras and projectors from the manufacturers of such equipment obligating themselves contractually to pay royalties for the use of the equipment. Many of these so-called independent producers decided not to pay the royalties (a clear violation of their written agreements). The manufacturers, banded together as the so-called Edison Trust in an effort to enforce the payment of the royalties. The independent producers, also sometimes called the "outlaw producers" fled the East Coast and went West, to a place near the U.S. border with Mexico, so that if they had to avoid the collection tactics of the Edison Trust they could easily do so. The Edison Trust, meanwhile, went too far in trying to enforce its contractual rights. It also engaged in illegal activities. One of the independent producers finally sued the Edison Trust, and the trust was found to be guilty of anti-competitive practices, not because banding together to enforce its contractual rights to the royalties that were not being paid was a problem at the time, but because its representatives engaged in illegal acts (i.e., threats, intimidation and actual violence). So the Edison Trust was shut down and the independent producers flourished in their new base of operations Hollywood, California. As those formerly independent producers began to consolidate their holdings (i.e., band together just as the Edison Trust before them), they, in turn, became the original Hollywood moguls (i.e., the founders of the major Hollywood studio/distributors). This all occurred back in the early 1900s, 80 years or so ago. Nothing in this history suggests "historical accident". The men who became the original Hollywood moguls were opportunists, who came from other fields, like the fur trade, clothing and vaudeville and aggressively sought their fortune in a new industry. They engaged in an industrial war with the founders of the film industry and prevailed partly because of tactical mistakes made by the Edison Trust. Where’s the accident in all of this? It seems that the so-called "historical accident" argument is quite naive and can only be convincing to people who do not know their film industry history. The control of the U.S. film industry gained by the original Hollywood moguls (i.e., politically liberal, for the most part, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage, was not an accident at all, but a series of intentional choices and a classic industrial war.
NO LONGER USEFUL–Another problem with the "historical accident" argument is that its usefulness is limited to only a reasonable number of years. In other words, even if we assumed that control of the U.S. film industry came into the hands of a small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage by historical accident (and as we’ve seen above it did not), the only reason that control has continued now through three or four generations of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage, is consistent, ongoing and contemporary discrimination against all other groups seeking to gain power and influence in the U.S. film industry. FIRM is not trying to reform the history of the film industry, but to change what is happening today, continuing discrimination against African-Americans, Latinos, women, political conservatives, Christians, while males from the South, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Asians and others by that small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage who still control Hollywood today, and whose control is and was illegitimate (i.e., it was gained and is maintained through the use of several hundred well- documented unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive and predatory business practices including massive discrimination).
ADMISSION OF UNDERLYING FACT–Another interesting facet of the "historical accident" argument is by taking such a position, the proponents of such an argument are admitting the basic underlying fact that Hollywood is controlled by politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. In other words, by making the "historical accident" argument, such persons are saying we know that Hollywood is controlled by who FIRM says it is controlled by, but the reason is justifiable (i.e., it was an historical accident–beyond our control). Well, thanks for confirming our original research on the point of who controls Hollywood.
HYPOCRITICAL AND SELF-SERVING ARGUMENT--Finally, one more problem with the "historical accident" argument is that if applied more broadly, the people who are making the argument could not support it in other fields. In other words, if we accept that the Hollywood control group gained its control by means of historical accident, then it is also fair to take the position that the dominance of white, Christian males in the U.S. government and in corporate America is also an historical accident, and thus all those minorities in this country arguing that they are being discriminated against in government and business would just be out of luck, just as all of the groups trying to get a fair shake in Hollywood have been for so many years. It would be better to face the fact that the so- called "historical accident"argument is not valid in either context.
John Cones
Instigating Violence: A Concern?
Robert Morein
10:56 am tuesday april 10, 2001My problem with John Cones' book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! is that largely it's having a bunch of chapters on different subjects, written by the same author. As in:
1. Jewish people run Hollywood
2. Hollywood studios peddle drugs to talent, thus trapping them
3. Hollywood has the highest rate of suicide (implying, the Hollywood Jews drive the talent to suicide.)
4. Suspicious deaths (implying, the Hollywood Jews engage in murder to maintain control.)
5. Jews are largely the beneficiaries of the post-WW-II prosperity boom (FALSE, and implying the Jews HAVE IT TOO GOOD.)
6. Directing is expensive psychotherapy. Jews get more psychotherapy than they are entitled to. (Kick out the Jews -- they're gettin more than their share!)THIS IS CLASSIC ANTISEMITISM.
It's a tad more subtle than the Crystal Night approach.
It's Protocols of the Elders of Zion in another form.In case you don't recognize it for what it is, that's because it's not intended to be, at first glance. You're supposed to read the book the way you swallow a sugar coated pill containing arsenic. Then the poison begins to eat away at your reason, and you become a Jew-hater.
The only alternatives, when confronted by such material, are to
1. Reject it entirely, as most of the readers of this group do. (i.e., Writers at the misc.writing.screenplays newsgroup)
2. Become programmed as a Jew hater.I could spend another couple months arguing with Cones about this manuscript, but his book is quite artful in an evil way -- it's really a brilliant document, in terms of achieving an effect. I don't think I'd get anywhere with someone so committed. It's apparent to me that Cones believes that he can incite hatred but control it -- hence his denial of prejudice in general -- but once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't control it. Cones's book may eventually be responsible for some deaths of Jewish people, innocent people. Where that genie of hatred goes, neither you nor I nor Cones can know.
In my experience, even people of modestly-above-average morality make serious mistakes when part of a system. The Jews of Hollywood are entitled to every protection under the law. There is no proof, even circumstantial, that they are deserving of blanket condemnation as individuals, as Cones's book attempts to imply. Cones's book attempts to circumvent that obstacle with associative smear.
Robert Morein
re: Instigating Violence: A Concern?
John Cones
2:44 pm wednesday april 11, 2001Before responding to Mr. Morein’s criticism of my book “What’s Really Going On In Hollywood”, I do want to thank him for his comments, and for posting them at the FIRM site for all who are interested in the subject of film industry reform to see.
His first general criticism is somewhat puzzling however. He says, and I quote: “My problem with John Cones’ book What’s Really Going On in Hollywood! is that largely it’s having a bunch of chapters on different subjects, written by the same author.” I’m not sure what he really means with this criticism, since I see no problem with a single author writing all the chapters in a book, in fact, that seems to be the norm for most books. But maybe he’s suggesting that the subjects treated in these chapters vary so widely that no single author could have expertise in each area. On the other hand, I never claimed to have expertise in each of these areas. The book itself is heavily annotated, meaning as a researcher and author, I relied heavily on the published works of others in order to produce this book. The extensive bibliography accompanying the book makes that clear, as does the introduction. What I tried to do and clearly said I was trying to do was to summarize the literature of the industry, and to combine that with some original research and my own personal experience. Of course, each chapter deals with a different subject. That’s what chapters are for. Each “subject”, as he refers to it, is however, a sub-topic relating to the overall topic of what’s really going on in Hollywood. There may be varying degrees of relationship or no relationship between each sub-topic (chapter), but they all relate to the overall topic of the book, and that is how it’s supposed to be.
1. Now, for Mr. Morein’s criticism #1 and again I quote him as stating that I claim “Jewish people run Hollywood”. You will note that Mr. Morein has chosen not to quote me. And the fact is that no where in any of my writings do I say “Jewish people run Hollywood”, and therein lies the fallacy of his criticism. In informal logic, such an argument is referred to as a “straw man argument”. You take someone’s statements and exaggerate them, thus making them easier to refute. In other words, Mr. Morein apparently is taking a factual observation and statement that I do make, based on research of the industry literature, (i.e., that Hollywood is controlled by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage) and making his own inferential leap beyond any meaning reasonably deduced from my chosen words to a false interpretation specifically chosen by him for the apparent purpose of trying to prejudice his readers against my work. If I had meant “Jewish people run Hollywood” I would have said “Jewish people run Hollywood”, but I did not mean that, nor did I say that, so it is dishonest for Mr. Morein to claim that I said something I didn’t, and then seek to criticize me for saying something that I did not say. Further, he has no expertise or qualifications for representing to others what I mean. My own chosen language is the best evidence of my meaning. I would suggest that in the future, anyone choosing to criticize my language, start with my language. Basic fairness requires this common sense approach, otherwise, such critics are not really criticizing what I wrote, they are only criticizing their false interpretation of what I wrote (i.e., the straw man).
2. Once again, Mr. Morein’s 2nd criticism is nothing more than his own false statement attributed to me. No where in my writings do I say “Hollywood studios peddle drugs to talent, thus trapping them”. I do have a chapter that reviews the published history of the rather consistent pattern of drug abuse among Hollywood personalities, and I think it is fair to suggest that the studios are well aware of these problems and have not done enough to prevent such problems, but that’s a far cry from the reckless disregard for the truth displayed by Mr. Morein in his 2nd criticism. He would do better to start with a direct quote.
3. It’s like a broken record. Mr. Morein’s third criticism is not a criticism of something I actually wrote, but again, a criticism of something that Mr. Morein’s falsely accuses me of writing. He claims that I say “Hollywood has the highest rate of suicide”, when I actually trace in one chapter of the book the published history of suicide and other unusual or mysterious deaths among Hollywood personalties stating that the rate of suicide is unusually high. I could not and did not make the statement attributed to me by Mr. Morein because I’ve done no study of the suicide rates outside the film industry. Mr. Morein just seems to gloss over these important distinctions.
Again, in the second part of this criticism #3, Mr. Morein chooses to focus on his own false interpretation of my statements saying that I implied that “the Hollywood Jews drive the talent to suicide”. Here’s what I actually said:
“Aside from the possible negligence of a studio illustrated by the death of Sonja Davis and others, one of the questions raised by this review of Hollywood deaths is, what drives so many actors, actresses and others in the film industry into depression, to drink, take drugs, live recklessly, and, in many instances, to commit suicide? It is the contention of this book, that too many writers about the movie industry proceed straight away to the drugs and alcohol abuse, without stopping to analyze the underlying causes, and that when the underlying causes are analyzed, much too little emphasis is placed on the abuse of power routinely being exercised by the major studio/distributor executives, talent agents and others in the film industry as they regularly exploit, manipulate, scam and abuse Hollywood's creative talent.”
So, my writing clearly does not state what Mr. Morein falsely claims it does, but instead, points out that the subject is more complex, that there are multiple causes for the phenomenon, and that previous writers about the subject have failed to consider all of the possible underlying causes, including the contributions of the studio executives.
4. Mr. Morein states that my writing implies that “the Hollywood Jews engage in murder to maintain control”. What I actually say follows:
“In terms of economic and human losses we have seen that there are grossly unequal employment opportunities in Hollywood for women, African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Native Americans and older citizens, among others. We have also noted that the Hollywood film community tends to be openly hostile to religious Christians and Muslims, that it has exhibited over the years, a distinct preference for European immigrants and that Hollywood's chosen people are actually a narrowly defined group of Jewish males of European heritage who are politically liberal and not very religious. We have also noted that quite often in this environment, the trampling of the interests of creative people occurs and that the pressures of such an environment lead to all manner of human loss including murder, suicide and other forms of so-called ‘Hollywood Death’.”
The fact is that I do not know who is guilty of "murder" in any given instance. If I did, I would be obligated to report that to the authorities. All I’ve said is that in the Hollywood environment, murder does sometimes occur. That is a factual statement, but a not anything close to the statement falsely attributed to me by Mr. Morein.
5. It is difficult to respond to someone’s criticism when they are not providing quotes. In this case, it is obvious that Mr. Morein has consistently chosen not to provide direct quotes, even quotes taken out of context. He only provides his own exaggerated misinterpretations of what he thinks I’m saying [i.e., "Jews are largely the beneficiaries of the post-WW-II prosperity boom (False, and implying that Jews Have it too good)"]. The only thing I could find in the book that might have prompted Mr. Morein’s 5th criticism and false attribution is the following quote from Leonard Dinnerstein’s book:
"On the other hand, University of Arizona professor Leonard Dinnerstein, in his 1994 book Anti-Semitism in America, ‘ . . . categorically states that there is less bigotry in this country than ever before. He also argues . . . that Jews have never been more at home in America.’"
If that statement makes Mr. Morein uncomfortable, I suggest he take it up with Mr. Dinnerstein, don’t try to fabricate a false statement or implication and apply it to me.
6. This one is really a doozy! Mr. Morein claims that I state: "Directing is expensive phychotherapy. Jews get more psychotherapy than they are entitled to" and then he adds his own additional interpretation suggesting that it is mine (i.e., "Kick out the Jews – they’re gettin more than their share!"). The expensive psychotherapy language actually comes from Steven Spielberg. The entire paragraph is set forth below. It is part of a chapter that explores various possible motivations of the Hollywood control group as reported by others.
"Personal Therapy and Self Expression--If Hollywood is driven by fear, insecurity and swollen egos, then Steven Spielberg's analysis of one of the important benefits of being a filmmaker seems to be on target. Spielberg admits that ‘[o]ne of the healing benefits of being a filmmaker is that you can work through some of your life, have other people re-enact your feelings and traumas and ideas and then sit back and take a look at yourself . . .’ Spielberg goes on to point out that ‘ . . . Martin Scorsese and other filmmakers are much more id oriented with their movies than I've been. But in all of my movies there's been something of me in them . . . Either Universal or Warner Bros. is paying for my very expensive therapy . . . ‘ Author Diane Shah agrees with these Spielberg observations, saying, for example, that ‘[t]he theme of children separated from their parents (a real-life experience for Spielberg) runs through some of his films, many of which are told from a children's point of view.’
Compare the above paragraph with Mr. Morein’s interpretation and draw your own conclusions. I think he is wildly out of bounds in attributing his own misinterpretations and statements to me.
Mr. Morein concludes by saying that my writing is "Classic Antisemitism". It would be more accurate to say that Mr. Morein’s false interpretations of my writings are examples classic misinterpretation or dishonesty. He should be smart enough to know better. His claims do not apply to anything I’ve written.
Here’s something I’ve actually written, something that Mr. Morein chooses not to use as he rushes to apply his own worst possible interpretations to my intentions:
"Another of this book's companion volumes in the series of books on Hollywood (How the Movie Wars Were Won) examined the question of ‘How Did They Gain and Maintain That Control?’ That study determined that the people who control Hollywood have gained and maintained their control by engaging in business practices that are unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and/or, in some instances, illegal. Again, both of these books take the position that the behavior of this small group of Jewish males of European heritage is not typical of Jews generally and that the Hollywood Jews do not behave the way they do because they are Jewish, but rather in spite of being Jewish. In any case, the focus of this and the following chapters is on the results of the above described situation, (i.e., in which Hollywood is controlled by a very narrowly defined interest group). This book further argues that it really makes no difference which narrowly defined interest group controls Hollywood, but that results similar to those cited here are likely to occur whenever any such interest group finds itself with an inordinate amount of power over others in the context of a single industry. Additional results of the Hollywood film patterns of bias phenomenon were discussed above in the chapters on ‘Patterns of Bias: Movies Mirror Their Makers’ and ‘More Bias in Motion Picture Biographies’."
I think Mr. Morein and his fellows are being quite careless in their analysis of my writing. It is difficult for me to believe that intelligent people could arrive at the extreme conclusions drawn by Mr. Morien and try to pass them off as sincere argument. I have to conclude that he is either incapable of moving beyond his own prejudice and thinking more clearly about what I’ve actually written, or this is just another attempt to falsely portray my writing so as to discourage others from reading it.
Best wishes,
John Cones
Violent Acts Argument
John Cones
1:31 pm tuesday april 17, 2001VIOLENT ACTS
From time to time, my partner in film industry reform (James Jaeger) passes along arguments made by Hollywood apologists in other forums outside of the FIRM Discussion Forum set up specifically for such discussions, with a request that I respond. Here’s my reaction to a recent argument made by Robert Morien, that my writing, posted here at the FIRM site may cause or encourage some whacko person somewhere to threaten or do bodily harm to persons of Jewish heritage.
1. Hate-Filled Speech--Although, Mr. Morien consistently and falsely states that my writing directs hatred toward Jews (and thus may inspire hateful acts toward Jews), he has failed to quote any statement of mine that is either hateful or applies to Jews generally. The fact is that none of my writing applies across the board to all Jews (or Jews generally), and my writing is nothing more than bona fide criticism directed toward the well-documented wrongful business-related behavior of a small group of high-level Hollywood studio executives who happen to be predominantly politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage (a phenomenon not denied by Mr. Morien, but explained as an “historical accident”–see response to the “historical accident” argument posted earlier).
My study of the backgrounds of the Hollywood studio executives is simply a sociological observation made in the same spirit as the periodic DGA and SAG studies relating to the racial and ethnic backgrounds of those groups’ working members from selected minorities (i.e., reporting on the percentage of Native Americans, African-Americans and Latinos working as directors or actors in the film industry within a given time period). Such studies are often reported in the industry trade publications. On the other hand, such studies exclude the most obvious so- called “minority”, those persons of Jewish heritage, and, of course, the most likely reason for this glaring omission is that the result of such a study would tend to reveal that a hugely disproportionate number of such persons are working as directors and actors in the industry, thus making it painfully clear who is depriving the Native Americans, African-Americans, Latinos and others of those high-paying jobs. It is hateful for the Hollywood studio executives to arbitrarily deny meaningful and lucrative employment to persons of Native-American, African- American and Latino heritage (or openly religious Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc.) while granting a disproportionate number of those jobs to persons with whom these same executives share a religious/cultural heritage. And, it is equally hateful and intellectually dishonest for the DGA and SAG studies to overlook this obvious injustice in Hollywood, an injustice that is much more likely to eventually lead to violence against those responsible than anything I’ve ever written. If Robert Morien is sincerely concerned about protecting persons of Jewish heritage from potential violent acts (something all responsible persons would hate to see), he should work as hard as he can to bring about diversity at the top in Hollywood. That would be more effective, in my opinion, than attacking my right to speak out about corruption in Hollywood.
I have simply studied the concentration of power in the hands of a few at the top of the industry, and that apparently makes some people nervous. I would be most happy to report that a high percentage of Latinos, African-Americans, Native Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Christians, Muslims, politically conservative, highly religious persons, White males from the South and other traditionally disenfranchised demographic groups have gained access to the positions of power in Hollywood, when that occurs. In the meantime, we have to deal with the facts as they exist in the real world, something Mr. Morien has difficulty with. In other words, he has yet to directly admit that my observations regarding the backgrounds of the majority of the individuals making up the so-called Hollywood control group is accurate. Instead, he insists on questioning my motives, something about which he has little knowledge, and warning of dire consequences.
2. Ideas Are Powerful–I do agree with Mr. Morien regarding one point – that ideas are powerful -- that, in fact, ideas communicated through a medium like the Internet may influence the thinking and behavior of some human beings. But, Mr. Morien is apparently guilty of self-serving tunnel vision, because he fails to realize that his own argument, if applied to other communications media (e.g., the very powerful communications medium of motion pictures) would indicate that the communication of hatred or the depiction of violent acts directed toward certain populations in films also has the potential for influencing the thinking and behavior of people all over the world. I am truly complimented by the implication that my writing may be a more powerful source of influence than major motion pictures distributed throughout the world by Hollywood studios. I don’t believe it, but I am humbled by the suggestion nonetheless. I think it would be more accurate to speculate that Mr. Morien simply overlooked the logical extension of his “words may cause harm” argument, failing to realize that he is making the same argument that we here at FIRM have been making for some time (i.e., the consistent portrayal in Hollywood movies of certain populations in our diverse society in a negative or stereotypical manner may lead to prejudice, discrimination and yes, maybe even violent acts directed toward those same people). If Mr. Morien wants to talk about hate- filled speech, he should pay attention to the consistent patterns of bias depicted in Hollywood movies over the years. It was hateful for Hollywood to consistently portray women, Latinos, Native Americans and African-Americans in a negative or stereotypical manner for all those years. It is hateful for Hollywood to consistently portray Christians and Muslims, political conservatives and White males from the South in a negative or stereotypical manner in its more contemporary movies. Why isn’t Mr. Morien concerned that such hate-filled speech disseminated through what the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “significant medium for the communication of ideas” will lead to violent acts against those targeted by Hollywood movies? Is it because he’s not in those target groups? The answer Mr. Morien is not to attempt to trample on my free speech, but to help us all bring about more diversity at the top in Hollywood, so that Hollywood movies will tend to reflect that diversity in its movies.
John Cones
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |