FIRM Discussions April 22, 2003 - April 27, 2003
Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?
A Tale of Two Companies
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 09:22:43 PM
by Dennis HartwigA Tale of Two Companies:
The following is not so much a tale of two companies; it is a tale of optimism vs. pessimism.
Before I begin telling this story I must first clear a few things up.
I to believe there are problems with the current system. In an industry that is more and more competitive it is hard to convince studios to take risks. In a world of $100 million plus films, just one failure can bankrupt the company. This means opening weekends mean everything. Every week there is a new blockbuster opening and the turn over is just a matter of weeks. Smaller films are pushed out and do have the time they need to find their audience. Of course there are many more problems such as the MPAA and the Hollywood Unions to name a few. But the lack of financing and distribution are the most injurious.
Your Jewish Conspiracy is nothing more than a Red Herring taking focus away from the real problems. To further this argument not one of Entertainment Weekly's top five people in the annual list of the 100 most powerful people in entertainment are Jewish. The top five are: Tom Hanks, John Calley & Amy Pascal, heads of the allied Sony and Columbia film studios; CBS president Leslie Moonves; Kaz Hirai, head of Sony's U.S. video game unit; and Barry Meyer & Alan Horn, heads of the Warner Brothers film studio. Steven Spielberg is the only Jewish person in the top ten. In the entire list of 100, only about ten percent are Jewish. Most of which are entertainers such as Adam Sander and Jerry Seinfeld.
You and John Cones have been asleep at the wheel for so long you have not realized the world has changed since the old studio days of the 1950’s and 60’s. Hollywood is a global market. Three of the top five studios are now owned by foreign companies.
Another myth that must be dealt with is that films are art and artists have the right to express themselves. Films are not art, they are investments and making films is an earned privilege. This is a fact that filmmakers must first accept. It is not about race, politics or religion. It is about money. Making money is the ONLY motivation of a Hollywood studio and money is blind to religion. It is the audience that determines which films are successful and which ones are not. Any studio that does not recognize this fact will not be in business for very long. The audience has the real power. It is this power that we must tap into in order to be successful in change.
First you need to change the dynamics of the relationship between the filmmakers and the studios. This can be achieved by changing the way films are financed. Instead of this power being concentrated in the hands of a few we must make these investments available to individual investors.
Second we need to give the audience an alterative to what is currently being offered. This will be accomplished by attracting new and exciting filmmakers, offering them a creative alternative to the current system.
Third we need to create new distribution methods. The international box office is now larger than the domestic and home video sales larger that both. We now have more ways to distribute films than ever before, with more and more methods and markets opening every day. We need to take advantage of these markets in every way possible.
Now back to the story.
Let me begin by telling you what it is that I do. I created a Venture Capital firm to raise money for independent films. I do this by establishing General Partnerships. I then contact individual investors by phone and persuade them to invest. These funds are pooled to finance Independent Films. The partnership then creates these films from script to screen. Of course this is the short account.
About 18 months ago I approached Mr. Jaeger and MEC with an opportunity (of course had I know of your current beliefs I would not have made this offer). This opportunity was to head up the production of the partnerships films and manage their day to day operations. MEC was not required to invest any capital, to the contrary we where going to pay MEC $45,000 just for the use of their name as the “Pro Tem Managing Partner.” Mr. Jaeger turned this offer down. In his rejection email he said: “I cannot get involved with your business plan as my advisors want me to stick exclusively with the MEC business plan we have gone to great expense to develop.” I do not know who these advisors where or if the stock holders where made aware of this offer but I moved on with no hard feelings.
Since those 18 moths have passes we raised over 1.8 million dollars. MEC lost out on over $100,000 in bonuses and hundreds of thousands more in producing fees, plus a portion of any profits. Along with the financial losses MEC lost out on the opportunity to produce two feature films. With in the next year we plan to raise an additional 4 million dollars and produce 5 more films. I am not saying that I have achieved complete success, but at least we are heading on the right track. I do not bring this up to rub your nose in our success, but to show you what may have been. I also want to show you that success is obtainable as long as you stay optimistic.
Mr. Jaeger goes on to say in his rejection letter: “I'm very sorry to have to relate this to you and wish you well in your equity raise. If you are ever able to invest in the MEC business plan as we have worked it out, please feel free to consider us once again. We are not trying to be difficult or inflexible, but when you have seen as many business get financed and fail as I, and my associates, have seen over the past many years, you would probably opt to proceed in a similar fashion (and even with this, the odds are that we will fail as well).” All valid points, but I am afraid you have lost your way to such a degree that you have stop taking risks all together.
Any investor that has read your propaganda on your website would not come near you with a nickel, nor would any filmmakers with real talent. I do not want to see you lose out on any more opportunities because of misguided beliefs. With all of the time you are wasting by spreading half baked ideas you could make real change. You must first focus on the real problems.
I agree debate is very important but not at the expense of action. It is not enough to say there is not adequate diversity in Hollywood. You must create diversity. We can not afford to sit around wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting for us.
Sincerely,
Dennis Hartwig
Re(1): A Tale of Two Companies
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 10:45:37 PM
by Mitchell LevineI an thoroughly disgusted that the International Jewish conspiracy has registered this unprecedented failure.
I assure you that we will be doing everything in our limitless power to ensure that Barry Diller, Michael Eisner, Mike Ovitz, David Geffen, Jeff Katzenberg, and Joel Silver will once again rise to their former status of absolute, unyielding mega-dominance. You Goyim may think you're on top now, but karma's a boomerang!
Re(1): A Tale of Two Companies
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 11:05:53 PM
by Moishe Goyim
I'm not familiar with the Entertainment Weekly "list" you cite, nor the criteria for inclusion.You say Stephen Spielberg is the only one in the top ten. I haven't even seen the list, but it's clear you're an ignorant propagandist.
I believe that Amy Pascal is Jewish (though I confess I haven't got the citation). Surprise! Leslie Moonves is also Jewish; he's also a reputed relative of David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel. I'm not familiar with "Barry Meyer & Alan Horn," but until I see a citation about their church, those guys may well be Jewish. With a name like "Barry Meyer," I'd put up some money on it.
So, here's your list, as I understand it:
1)Tom Hanks
2)John Calley & Amy Pascal (Pascal possibly Jewish)
3) Leslie Moonves (Jewish)
4)Kaz Hirai
5)Barry Meyer & Alan Horn (Jewish?)Of these five positions, possibly 3 have Jews (that's 60%; Jews are 2.5% of the American population).
Things have changed since the 1950s?
While Jews make up merely 2.5% of the American population, in a 1990 issue of Premiere magazine, the first thirteen individuals identified "as the most powerful people in Hollywood," were Jewish. [WHITFIELD, p. 83] In the same year, as noted by American Film magazine, the chairmen of eight of the top ten movie and television companies were Jewish. [STAUTH, p. 44] In an October 1994 issue of Vanity Fair, ten of eighteen deemed important faces in the changing world of "media megacorporations" were Jews. [HALBERSTAM, p. 12]
In 1999, the Los Angeles Jewish Times ran an article entitled "Yes, Virginia, Jews Do Control the Media." "Four of the largest five entertainment giants," it announced, "are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch's News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout -- however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so." [LOS ANGELES JEWISH TIMES, p. 14] (And who is the Executive Vice President at the News Corporation? Gary Ginsberg.) [WEINTRAUB, B., 3-4-01] "Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom-CBS, News Corporation and Universal rule the entertainment world in a way that the old Hollywood studio chiefs only dreamed of," noted the Jewish Week in 1999, "And, after all the deals and buyouts, four of the five are run by Jews. We're back to where we started, bigger than ever." [GOLDBERG, J.J., 9-17-99, 12]
Nice try.
Re(1): A Tale of Two Companies
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 11:14:36 PM
by Moishe G.YOU SAY: "Mr. Jaeger goes on to say in his rejection letter."
RESPONSE: OK. It's all clear now. Your personal hostility towards Jaeger is sour grapes. Emotions rule over reason, hey? Vindictiveness. Bitterness.
YOU SAY: Making money is the ONLY motivation of a Hollywood studio and money is blind to religion.
RESPONSE: Money IS religion. Judging by your post here, money is YOUR religion. Good reason to climb into bed with Jewish ethnocentrism.
When the Holy One rings the bell, please point your prayer at that hundred dollar bill.
Re(1): A Tale of Two Companies
Posted on April 23, 2003 at 01:07:26 AM
by Dennis HartwigYou may be asking why I coming down so hard on you out –of-the-blue. The only reason I posted these messages was because you asked me to. I responded to an unsolicited email you sent me titled “Is Judaism a Race?” I asked you: “I am curious why you are forwarding this message. To what end do you hope to reach. I have been on you mailing list for quite some time now and I occasional scan your messages. It seems to me you are getting further and future off the subject of filmmaking. What is your purpose for having this site? Are you trying to use this medium as a tool for breaking down doors into the film industry or is this a veiled attempt at an anti-Semitic news letter.”
You responded by saying: “If you have something to add to this discourse, or you don't agree with something that's been said, please be good enough to express your views in the public forum so others may benefit from your insights.” So I did.
The reason this upsets me is that I see this kind of inaction all the time. People love to sit around and come up with all kinds of reasons not to succeed. If people would get up off your ass and do something we could have real change. Instead people wait for others to do it for them. Then ridicule them for achieving something.
Re(2): A Tale of Two Companies
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 11:17:56 PM
by Moishe GoyimYou note Barry Diller, Michael Eisner, Mike Ovitz, David Geffen, Jeff Katzenberg, and Joel Silver.
Could you please start listing the ones I don't know about? These guys are institutions.
Re(2): A Tale of Two Companies
Posted on April 23, 2003 at 06:47:09 PM
by Moishe G.YOU SAY: The reason this upsets me is that I see this kind of inaction all the time. People love to sit around and come up with all kinds of reasons not to succeed. If people would get up off your ass and do something we could have real change. Instead people wait for others to do it for them. Then ridicule them for achieving something.
RESPONSE: This sounds like a petty hustler talking. Exploiters like you "succeed" while others "get up off their asses" and struggle for justice. You're busy looking how to elbow your own way to the front of the line, and apparently nothing else matters to you.
Gosh. Maybe you have a seven-step platform to "success." No doubt you're selling it?
Is a version you'll sign in gold ink?
Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 23, 2003 at 07:47:13 PM
by Moishe the GoyimToday's Haaretz newspaper from Israel has an excellent article by a non-Jewish woman who married an Israeli and tried to convert to Judaism in the Jewish state.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=286180&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
The article is an indictment of Orthodox Judaism, the fraud of "conversion" to Judaism, rampant corruption within the faith, and chronic Jewish racism and ethnocentrism.
This article reflects profoundly the Judeoncentrism that Levine and Shelps refuse to face.
What's it got to do with Hollywood? Everything. Jews dominate Hollywood, and Jews overwhelmingly support the racist state of Israel.
"Are you Jewish?" in THE question of import in Jewish circles.
In this article below, the reader can discover bluntly the astounding dual moral standard that people like Levine and Shelps champion.
Better a Jew,
by Nicky Blackburn, Haaretz (Israel) April 24, 2003"For the growing minority of non-Jews living in Israel, a sense of belonging can be impossible to achieve. Just recently, former MK Michael Kleiner described non-Jewish immigrants to Israel as 'dirty water.' He applied the metaphor to Russian immigrants, but his racist statement was also aimed at me. The only difference is that I'm the dirty water that slopped in from England, not Russia. Kleiner's comments are not unusual in Israel. For years now I've been listening to politicians, public officials, even ordinary people spilling out bile toward the non-Jewish citizens of the country. Living in Israel as a gentile is not an easy experience. There is always someone out there to remind you that not only do you not belong, but that in some way you are polluting the purity of the country. During my early years in Israel, the first question people asked me was whether or not I was Jewish. It was like an obsession. In taxicabs, at bus stops, at interviews, at work, even in the supermarket, the question followed me everywhere and anywhere. 'Are you Jewish?' I lied about it twice. The first time to a taxi driver. He eyed me suspiciously and then launched into a tirade about his brother who had married a goy and gone to live in America. 'It's people like him who are destroying the Jewish race,' he told me angrily, his eyes locked on mine in the mirror.'"I cannot forgive him' ... I met my Israeli husband in India in 1990. We lived in England for a few years and then decided to move to Israel and get married. Before we left, my husband asked if I would convert to Judaism. He told me it was important for both him and his family. I agreed. I'm not a practicing Christian. I only went to church on special occasions. My faith went so far as the morning assembly at my Church of England school and the Lord's Prayer. I was open to Judaism. I thought that becoming Jewish would be an intellectual and emotional challenge. I thought it would bring me closer to my husband's family and my new way of life. I expected it to give me great insight into the Jewish people. In retrospect it did, but certainly not in the positive way I was anticipating ... After talking with the [Orthodox] rabbi [to convert to Judaism], my husband and I realized that it would be impossible to convert this way. We were already married and our lifestyle in Tel Aviv was far from that required by the Orthodox. We started looking for alternatives, and found a rabbi who would be willing to help me convert for NIS 600 a week. The rabbi lived in an Orthodox suburb in the hills surrounding Jerusalem. Twice a week we sat in his tiny, dark apartment studying at the dining room table. Whenever I asked a question he would snap at me angrily. 'Don't ask questions. It's a matter of faith. You're not supposed to understand. You're just supposed to believe.' Sometimes he would ask a question and as I made to reply, he would bark out 'wrong!' Whenever possible, he criticized the Christian religion. He told me it had been set up for people who were too lazy to live by Jewish rules, by people looking for an easy life. On one occasion he told me that Baruch Goldstein should be praised for killing 29 Arabs in an attack in Hebron in 1994. Throughout those awful weekly meetings I kept quiet. I gritted my teeth, studied the books, paid him the money and did not say a word. Inside, however, I began to seethe. I was sickened by his hypocrisy. He set himself up as a man of faith, then took our money without a moment's hesitation. The more I learned about the Jewish religion in Israel, the more I realized how rife it was with corruption. The media was full of stories about Orthodox figures taking bribes, about scams and dodges carried out in the name of religion. And worse than that, it was like an open secret. Everyone knew about it, they even laughed about it, but no one was prepared to do anything to stop it. Instead they insisted that it was vital that I become Jewish. After a while I began to question this insistence. No one actually cared whether I believed in Judaism or not, not even the rabbi. No one cared whether I'd continue to celebrate Christmas or any other Christian holidays. When I told Israeli friends that I felt this was morally wrong, many sympathized, but others dismissed my fears. "It's just a game," they'd say. "Don't even think about it." All anyone seemed to care about was that it would say Jewish on my ID card, and that somehow, therefore, I would fit in. As time went by, I became increasingly distressed. I was shocked by the discrimination I saw around me toward anyone who was not Jewish. In my office, colleagues called me 'shiksa' and 'goy' as if it were a joke. They made comments about my non-Jewish appearance. Readers wrote letters of complaint if newspapers dared run adverts for Christmas festivities. The media was constantly running stories about how the Jewish race was being destroyed by assimilation. A cartoon published in 1996 showed a man sitting at a table. 'The two major threats to Jewish continuity today are - terrorism and assimilation!' he said. 'Or, in other words, the non-Jews who want to kill us - and the non-Jews who want to marry us.' Facing facts I continued visiting the rabbi, but he began to grow uneasy as stories about corruption in the conversion process began to leak to the press. Finally he told me that he could no longer help. 'You're not prepared to suffer enough to become Jewish,' he said. We next tried a rabbinical court lawyer in Jerusalem, a man with good connections to Shas. He offered to convert me for a large sum of money. We met him in a hotel on the outskirts of Jerusalem. He asked me about Jewish friends, about any connections I had with Judaism as a child. After some coaxing, I realized he was not after the truth, just some fabricated story about how, even as a child, I had always wanted to be a Jew. He told my husband to gather certificates and documents showing that I bought my meat only from Kosher butchers, that I attended synagogue, and was following the rules of the Orthodox way. By the time we left the hotel I knew that I did not want to be Jewish. I bitterly regretted my decision. I was antagonistic and hostile. I did not want to lie or cheat anymore. Not long afterward we were given details of a rabbi in Paris who would convert me for $5,000 in a simple, one-day process. By then, however, it was too late. I was so ashamed of the whole process that I could not go through with it. I felt that by converting I would actually be committing a sin. I decided, however hard it would be, that Israel would have to accept me as I was. My husband's family took the decision badly. They felt I had cheated and manipulated them, and for a long time afterward their frustration spilled over into our relationship. Very few people here understood me.
Some Israeli friends felt I was making an unwarranted fuss about something very minor, while at the same time admitting that they would never dream of changing their own religion. For years after this experience, my bitterness and resentment continued to seethe. I felt let down by the country. Before arriving here, I believed that the terrible suffering the Jews have experienced over the centuries would have created a nation where tolerance and understanding was prized. Instead, I found a society full of prejudice and bigotr ... Today there is a growing minority of non-Jews who live within the Israeli community. We are full members of this society and yet we are still denied some very basic human rights. My two sons, for instance, can serve in the army, they can pay taxes, but they cannot marry here, nor can they be buried alongside Jewish friends or partners. Like me, they will spend their lives listening to constant sniping remarks by politicians and officials who feel they are second class citizens, the dirty water that slipped in on a wave of immigration. They too may have to listen to jokes about goys, sarcastic comments about their parental heritage, and have doubts raised about their Israeli identity. This, however, is a mistake. Today there are 50,000 Russian immigrants living in Israel who identify themselves as Christian, and another 270,000 who are not Jewish according to halakha. While some of them have given up and left Israel, in a few cases even seeking asylum in England on the grounds of religious persecution, the rest are here to stay. Israel must make a decision. Does it want yet another alienated minority, or does it want full citizens who feel a real bond to their country? In the wake of all this, it is hard to understand why the Orthodox community is so determined to make conversion such an unpleasant process. Every year thousands apply to convert, but only a small number make it through. Assimilation today is a major problem for diaspora Jews. Experts are beginning to realize that it is also a growing problem within Israel. At a recent conference, Dr. Asher Cohen, of Bar-Ilan University's Institute for the Study of Assimilation, reported that the present rate of intermarriage in Israel stands at 10 percent, and is rising. Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun, head of the Kibbutz Hadati Yeshiva, also told participants that rabbis who ease the conversion process and promote mass conversion, are actually preserving Judaism. Instead of welcoming new converts, however, Judaism shows them its worst face. Potential converts are too often met with narrow-mindedness, corruption, and distrust. While some people undertake conversion with a full heart, many others view it as a game in which you cheat and lie to win. Had I been met with understanding, then perhaps I would be Jewish now, and so would my two children. For Israel, it was a missed opportunity. Instead of teaching me to respect the religion, I learned instead to despise its protagonists ... I now have a warm relationship with my parents-in-law, whom I love dearly, and people rarely ask if I'm Jewish. Despite that, however, I still feel like an outsider. At Christmas I bring out my tree and decorate the house, but inside I feel it's almost an act of defiance. A few years ago, a co-worker arrived in the office fuming because hotels in Jerusalem had put up Christmas trees. I told her that I put up a tree every year. 'Well I hope you shut your curtains,' she said bitterly. 'It's not right that people in your neighborhood should have to see it. When you live here you should respect our beliefs.' I was deeply distressed by her prejudice, but the awful truth is that I really have begun to feel that my religion should be hidden away behind curtains. Just a few weeks ago I had another reminder. I was writing an article on Tekes, a new alternative Israeli organization set up to provide secular ceremonies for Jews who cannot, or do not want to, undergo an Orthodox ceremony. I suggested to the founder that I might also write up the article for a newspaper here. He hesitated for a few moments, and then said: 'No offense, but I think it would be better if a Jew wrote the story.'"
Re(1): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 23, 2003 at 11:03:33 PM
by George ShelpsAs usual, you're wrong. Israel a country and a government, Hollywood is a business. Even if you were right about Jewish ethnocentrism, it would not apply to Hollywood the way it would apply to Israel.
Once again, you have never presented any evidence of anyone who was prevented from making films in Hollywood just because he/she was not Jewish.
Re(2): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 23, 2003 at 08:28:05 PM
by Mitchell LevineYes, J.J., it's true - this one person's experience is absolutely universal, thus all Jews are worthless evil scum, and you are obviously morally superior, regardless of the fact that you are a transparently contemptuous, relentless, hate-filled proselytizing bigot.
Re(2): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 07:29:34 PM
by Moishe GoyimYOU SAY: As usual, you're wrong. Israel a country and a government, Hollywood is a business.
Both are Judeocentric. Period.
YOU SAY: Even if you were right about Jewish ethnocentrism,
RESPONSE: Thank you! I sense concession.
YOU SAY: ... it would not apply to Hollywood the way it would apply to Israel.
RESPONSE: We can argue about nuances: "the way." But Judeocentrism is something real.
YOU SAY: Once again, you have never presented any evidence of anyone who was prevented from making films in Hollywood just because he/she was not Jewish.
RESPONSE: Firstly, if I won't hire your sister because she's a Shelps, how is she going to prove that?
Secondly, if most of the people in my office are named Frenchfry, that might signify something.
Thirdly, read the predominance of Jews in Cones' research about who have headed the Hollywood studios, and YOU PROVE TO ME there's no bias in hiring.
Imagine if such Jewish-heaviness was Black instead. Apologists for the situation would be arguing the usual: Blacks are smarter, Blacks are more industrious, Blacks "founded" the film industry so it's no big deal that everyone is Black, Blacks are better at running things, etc.
Fourthly, the issue of Jewish hegemony is far, far greater than just hiring discrimination. It is about having the power to propagate an ideology, so much so that guys like you believe in it.
Re(3): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 23, 2003 at 09:15:49 PM
by Moishe the GoyimYOU SAY: Yes, J.J., it's true - this one person's experience is absolutely universal,
RESPONSE: This woman's account was published in Haaretz, one of Israel's leading newspapers. I guess the editors thought it would be wise to publish (and give credence) to a story that rarely happens, let alone allow another non-Jewish kook rant her "anti-Semitic" "hate" about Jews and Judaism.
YOU SAY: thus all Jews are worthless evil scum,
RESPONSE: You will have to contact the editors of Haaretz for their opinion about that, don't you think? They gave open forum to another lunatic "anti-Semite," not I.
YOU SAY: and you are obviously morally superior, regardless of the fact that you are a transparently contemptuous, relentless, hate-filled proselytizing bigot.
RESPONSE: So, OK. Spill the beans, Mr. Levine. How on Earth do you take an article of indictment against Jews and Judaism (published in a leading Israeli newspaper!) and blame it all on me for bringing it to your attention?
Neat trick. But it's a transparent scam. A rational response would be to reflect on the information in the article, not turn to scapegoat me for Jewish failings.
Re(3): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 10:18:07 PM
by Mitchell LevineIsrael is "Judeocentric?" Well, actually, it was intended to be the Jewish National Homeland, so that IS its function.
Does that mean that Iran, Sudan, Syria,Saudi Arabia, and the other Islamic fundamentalist states are "Islam-ocentric?" Well, come to think of it, none of them allow freedom of religion. That's not very democratic of them.
Now, it is true that they don't give infidels second-class citizen status: In fact, they don't give them any status at all! And they execute homosexuals by collapsing walls on top of them, and stone "adulteresses" to death, regardless of the fact that they might have just have been alone in a room with a man, and never had any intimate relations with them. They even make people who don't believe in their religious doctrines pay heed to their ethnocentric particulars or face prosecution! Not only that, they completely support self-segregation by refusing to marry outside their race!
Plus they "control" the largest oil cartel in the world and arrogantly refuse to allow anyone outside their "control group" proportionate representation! How ethnocentric can you be? Their anti-democratic hegemony over the world's energy supply is total, complete, absolute.
In fact, many Islamic fundamentalist nations engage in terrorism and fully support it as an ideology. And when Al-Quida made their communique to the U.S., they actually had the GODDAMN nerve to insist that people in the U.S. CONVERT TO ISLAM or face more terrorist retribution, that is, JUST TO LIVE! WHAT ARROGANCE!! THE ISLAMIC ARE A BAND OF RACIST, ETHNOCENTRIC CORRUPTERS THAT ARE GOING TO SEND US ALL TO THE APOCALYPSE!!!
When are you launching the Islamic Tribal Review site?
Re(4): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 25, 2003 at 10:14:33 AM
by George ShelpsMitchell, you have made the point dramatically. JJ hammers on Jewish ethnocentrism as if no other ethnic group ever practiced it!
It is not that everything he asserts is incorrect but that it is slanted to make Jews seem worse than any other group---which is the definition of "anti-semitism."
Re(4): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 25, 2003 at 04:45:30 PM
by Moishe the G.YOU SAY: Does that mean that Iran, Sudan, Syria,Saudi Arabia, and the other Islamic fundamentalist states are "Islam-ocentric?" Well, come to think of it, none of them allow freedom of religion. That's not very democratic of them.
RESPONSE: You are completely avoiding the issue. Iranians, Sudanese, Syrians, nor Saudi Arabians are NOT dominating Hollywood. Zulus are surely ethnocentric too, but they don't dominate Hollywood.
EESPONSE: Now, it is true that they don't give infidels second-class citizen status: In fact, they don't give them any status at all!
RESPONSE: Firstly, what has this got to do with ethnic domination in America? Secondly, I can post for you citations from Jewish scholarship about traditional Jewish thinking about "pagans" and they are, in some contexts, not even considered human. Doubt this?
Again. The WORST aspects of both Christianity and Islam you will find precedent in JUDAISM, from which these other faiths arose.
YOU SAY: And they execute homosexuals by collapsing walls on top of them, and stone "adulteresses" to death, regardless of the fact that they might have just have been alone in a room with a man, and never had any intimate relations with them.
RESPONSE: And what has this got to do with Jewish hegemony in Hollywood, American publishing, American pornography, etc. etc. etc.?
Orthodox Judaism is pretty harsh with homosexuality too. Severely so. Want some citations?
YOU SAY: Plus they "control" the largest oil cartel in the world and arrogantly refuse to allow anyone outside their "control group" proportionate representation! How ethnocentric can you be? Their anti-democratic hegemony over the world's energy supply is total, complete, absolute. In fact, many Islamic fundamentalist nations engage in terrorism and fully support it as an ideology. And when Al-Quida made their communique to the U.S., they actually had the GODDAMN nerve to insist that people in the U.S. CONVERT TO ISLAM or face more terrorist retribution, that is, JUST TO LIVE! WHAT ARROGANCE!! THE ISLAMIC ARE A BAND OF RACIST, ETHNOCENTRIC CORRUPTERS THAT ARE GOING TO SEND US ALL TO THE APOCALYPSE!!!
RESPONSE: So how come it's almost automatic with Jewish commentary: that when someone starts investigating Jewish influence in America, one of the prime defenses is to bash Islam? What's that got to do with Jewish hegemony in Hollywood, and so many other places? Most Jews have grown to despise Islam and Arabs the same way they despise Christianity. That's not news. Again, throughout Jewish history their neighbors are eventually painted to be barbarians.
YOU SAY: When are you launching the Islamic Tribal Review site?
RESPONSE: We'll launch it when Muslims exchange places with the Jewish moguls of Hollywood. Reasonable, no?
Re(5): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 25, 2003 at 04:47:28 PM
by Moishe G.You are completely blind. The reason I don't complain about folks like the Amish is because they're not running so much of the show.
Mr. Shelps! Get out of bed with the Jewish Lobby! And put on a pair of pants!
Re(5): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 26, 2003 at 07:31:07 PM
by Mitchell LevineThis is another typical example of The Islamic Lobby and their lapdogs, like Moshe Goyim and his culture-distorting band of ethnocentric racists, using the "Anti-Islamic Sword,"; that is, false charges of anti-Islamicism used to silence all rational, free debate of the "Arab Question" on the marketplace of ideas. The entire foundation of the Moishe Goyim position is based on racist, ethnocentric racism: The Arabs only consider you Arabic if your parents were Arabs, or you were born in Arabia - obviously clearly implying racial superiority! This statement can in no way, of course, be taken as an anti-Islamic ethnic slur, as we are in no way referencing all Islamic believers simply as Muslims, but merely a narrowly-defined, selective demographic of mung-encrusted, goat-eating camel-fuckers.
Given their complete, absolute control of global oil supply, Goyim's racist insistence on disingenuously shifting focus to the "Hollywood executives," simply because it happens to be posted on the message board of the Film Industry Reform Movement site is yet another ethnocentric ploy to distract attention away from the true issue - racism in Hollywood. Due to the Arab's absolute control of OPEC, they are the true brutal, ethnocentric masters of the movie business; any threat to the free movement of supply from the petroleum reserves would be a threat to our nation's gas tanks, critically paralyzing all of Hollywood and the entire Greater Area of Los Angeles county. This undue level of awesome racist power forces the entire entertainment industry to kneel before their true, towel-headed ethnocentric masters. The Arabs have had far too much power for too long, which is not good for Arabs or Americans or Arab-Americans, but especially not Americans. And that is far from the complete picture of their corrosive hegemony. As our research clearly demonstrates, Arabs are only .000001% of the American population, yet make up 99.9% of our taxi and limosouine and convenience food market industries. In fact, these racist, ethnocentric desert Nazis have even extended their deceitful tentacles into our education system, secretly inculcating their corrupt values by indoctrinating our students with the organized racist Arab propoganda system called "Algebra," which is actually an Arab word for "socially retarded middle-aged man who runs an internet hate site to anonymously psychologically overcompensate for self-perceived personal inadequacies."
You can find lots more useful information on our site, The Islamic Tribal Review, where you can learn the truth about our brutal, ethnocentric Arab oppressors, conveniently stripped of anything positive to prevent you from projecting your generic psychoneurotic antagonisms and disappointments onto an sociological outgroup. Remember: When obsessive xenophobic paranoia is outlawed, only outlaws will be obsessive xenophobic paranoids!
Re(6): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 25, 2003 at 06:06:17 PM
by George ShelpsThe Amish are a group dedicated to separatism. But other groups are prominent in different fields. (I refuse to go into specifics, because I'm not going to play your game).
You have failed to prove (a) that any significant number of people have been kept out of the movie business because they aren't Jewish and (b) that the fact that a specific ethnic group clusters in an industry, that ethnic considerations over-ride all other factors in making business decisions.
Re(7): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 25, 2003 at 06:29:42 PM
by Moishe GoyimI prove it:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org
It's offline right now. It'll be back up soon.
Includes a 2,000 page book with over 10,000 bibliographic citations and an online reference list of links to nearly 3,000 Internet articles.
Sure, you won't read it. And, true, it's an enormous amount of material.
But you want it all "proved" in a paragraph. No one can prove anything in a synapsis.
Those who seek the truth will find it, but you have to work to attain it.
Those who seek darkness can just flip off the light. Like you.
Re(8): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 25, 2003 at 09:44:00 PM
by George ShelpsI've your site numerous times. Collecting citations that back only your hypothesis is not scientific, it is not logical, it is propagandistic.
For your site to be convincing, it has to refute opposing points-of-view rationally.
For example, the idea of "the Chosen People" has a number of different interpretations, not just the ethnocentric, xenophobic spin you put on it.
The idea, for example, is essential to Christianity, because for Jesus to be the Messiah, God must have "chosen" the Jews to be a special people.
True, this specialness is available to all peoples through faith in Christ, but up to the time of his appearance, it was crucial that the Jews be the vehicle of God's special grace.
Now...there is one interpretation that collides with your bigoted one.
Re(9): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 25, 2003 at 10:17:14 PM
by Moishe GoyimYOU SAY: I've your site numerous times. Collecting citations that back only your hypothesis is not scientific, it is not logical, it is propagandistic.
RESPONSE: Hmmm. Let me see ... I don't mean to give you a heart attack, but what you describe is the premise of academia. Look at any book of scholarly research. You will find that the authors "collect citations that back their hypothesis."
Um, I don't mean to shock you, but in the free world of ideas, that's how things work.
YOU SAY: For your site to be convincing, it has to refute opposing points-of-view rationally.
RESPONSE: Rationally! It's therefore "irrational" to cite mostly Jewish scholarship about things that go counter to your convictions? In fact, your diatribes here are "propaganda" because all you do is smear what I post, with no corresponding counter-evidence at all.
YOU SAY: For example, the idea of "the Chosen People" has a number of different interpretations, not just the ethnocentric, xenophobic spin you put on it.
RESPONSE: You could say that anything on the planet could be "interpreted" differently by a different set of people. But that doesn't mean that it is erroneous to highlight the central current / the mainstream.
YOU SAY: The idea, for example, is essential to Christianity, because for Jesus to be the Messiah, God must have "chosen" the Jews to be a special people.
REPONSE: This is everything for you, as I've learned in past exchanges with you. It is the main reason why you hate what I post. Because you are an avowed "Christian" (of a particular sort and, for that matter, very pro-Israel) and your own belief system is contingent on a series of myths about Judaism.
"Rationality" has nothing to do with religious conviction. Herein lies your sticking point. You are incapable of looking at the "Chosen People" concept objectively, because you BELIEVE in Judeocentrism as the cornerstone of your FAITH. Ho! In Jewish tradition God allegedly declared that Jews are the "Chosen People" and you buy that totally. I mean, how can you engage in intelligent dialogue about something when all that matters to you is WHAT YOU BELIEVE, irregardless of historical evidence.
Again, according to the Bible, Jesus and his followers REJECTED Judaism and started their own ideology. Do you think Jesus kissed Jewish Butt the way you do? No. THEY hated him! He betrayed Judaism, and he is loathed by the Jewish community to this day for that! He turned over the money changers tables in the temple, condemned this life materialism, and wrecked havoc with many (but far from all) of the hypocrisies of Jewish ideology.
YOU SAY: True, this specialness is available to all peoples through faith in Christ, but up to the time of his appearance, it was crucial that the Jews be the vehicle of God's special grace.
RESPONSE: It's your personal business what you choose to believe. But you started your most recent comment with an appeal to the "scientific." Your foundation of belief has nothing to do with that. You may believe that a yellow turtle is God, and that's your choice. But I have the right to investigate the history of the ideology that declares that a turtle can lead you to Heaven.
YOU SAY: Now...there is one interpretation that collides with your bigoted one.
RESPONSE: Now, if you just cut your obsession to racist Jewry by the umbilical cord, you'd be free to understand -- and embrace -- your religious convictions in a more liberated manner.
The very PREMISE of your argumentation with me is your OWN "bigotry," and you note this above with your own conviction that Jews are "special."
Anyone's "special." And if you don't understand this, then you do not understand the premises of human univeresalism and YOU are a GROTESQUE "bigot."
Re(10): Levine, Shelps, Judaism, Film
Posted on April 25, 2003 at 11:40:25 PM
by George ShelpsHmmm. Let me see ... I don't mean to give you a heart attack, but what you describe is the premise of academia. Look at any book of scholarly research. You will find that the authors "collect citations that back their hypothesis." Um, I don't mean to shock you, but in the free world of ideas, that's how things work.
___Wrong. In scientific rational critical method, different hypotheses are tested and ALL evidence is considered.
In propaganda, there is only one idea and everything else is eliminated from consideration. That tendency is what makes your site anti-semitic.
YOU SAY: For your site to be convincing, it has to refute opposing points-of-view rationally.
RESPONSE: Rationally! It's therefore "irrational" to cite mostly Jewish scholarship about things that go counter to your convictions? In fact, your diatribes here are "propaganda" because all you do is smear what I post, with no corresponding counter-evidence at all.
___I just gave you a counter-interpretation of chosenness---which is your central beef against Jews.
YOU SAY: For example, the idea of "the Chosen People" has a number of different interpretations, not just the ethnocentric, xenophobic spin you put on it.
RESPONSE: You could say that anything on the planet could be "interpreted" differently by a different set of people. But that doesn't mean that it is erroneous to highlight the central current / the mainstream.
___That's YOUR spin, pal. You choose the racist-elitist spin for your own sick reasons.
YOU SAY: The idea, for example, is essential to Christianity, because for Jesus to be the Messiah, God must have "chosen" the Jews to be a special people.
REPONSE: This is everything for you, as I've learned in past exchanges with you. It is the main reason why you hate what I post.
___I hate what you post because your posts drip with hate. And because you have become a bad influence on James Jaeger.
Because you are an avowed "Christian" (of a particular sort and, for that matter, very pro-Israel)
__Sorry, no. I am critical of Likud.
and your own belief system is contingent on a series of myths about Judaism.
___No, it's based on my own religious experiences.
"Rationality" has nothing to do with religious conviction. Herein lies your sticking point. You are incapable of looking at the "Chosen People" concept objectively, because you BELIEVE in Judeocentrism as the cornerstone of your FAITH. Ho!
___"Ho?" I haven't seen a good "Ho" in years.
Once again, I chose to put forth an interpretation of chosenness that conflicts with your negative one.
There is also the idea that Jews are chosen to fulfill the laws of the Torah.
In Jewish tradition God allegedly declared that Jews are the "Chosen People" and you buy that totally. I mean, how can you engage in intelligent dialogue about something when all that matters to you is WHAT YOU BELIEVE, irregardless of historical evidence.
___No, idiot, I simply gave you one major interpretation of chosenness that is at odds with yours---one which is shared by a billion Christians.
Again, according to the Bible, Jesus and his followers REJECTED Judaism and started their own ideology.
___They did not reject Judaism. They simply made the strict religious law less important.
Do you think Jesus kissed Jewish Butt the way you do? No. THEY hated him! He betrayed Judaism, and he is loathed by the Jewish community to this day for that! He turned over the money changers tables in the temple, condemned this life materialism, and wrecked havoc with many (but far from all) of the hypocrisies of Jewish ideology.
___Everyone hated or abandoned Jesus at the time---except his mother, Mary Magdalene, and the thief on the cross. YOU SAY: True, this specialness is available to all peoples through faith in Christ, but up to the time of his appearance, it was crucial that the Jews be the vehicle of God's special grace.
RESPONSE: It's your personal business what you choose to believe. But you started your most recent comment with an appeal to the "scientific." Your foundation of belief has nothing to do with that. You may believe that a yellow turtle is God, and that's your choice. But I have the right to investigate the history of the ideology that declares that a turtle can lead you to Heaven.
___No, moron, I simply gave you one interpretation that is different than the racist, bigoted one you emphasize.
YOU SAY: Now...there is one interpretation that collides with your bigoted one.
RESPONSE: Now, if you just cut your obsession to racist Jewry by the umbilical cord, you'd be free to understand -- and embrace -- your religious convictions in a more liberated manner.
___Thank you Reverend Bigot.
The very PREMISE of your argumentation with me is your OWN "bigotry," and you note this above with your own conviction that Jews are "special."
Anyone's "special." And if you don't understand this, then you do not understand the premises of human univeresalism and YOU are a GROTESQUE "bigot."
___My point was that, through Christ, Jewish chosenness is given to all mankind. I guess you can't read.
Hollywood Revives McCarthyist Climate
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 08:37:54 PM
by Jewish Hollywood "Liberals?"Here it all is: the dovetailing of the U.S. invasion of Iraq on behalf of Israeli interests (if you don't understand this, read up on Jewish dual loyalists Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Josh Bolton, Ari Fleischer, etc. in the Bush administration) and Jewish "Liberal" Hollywood:
Hollywood Revives McCarthyist Climate By Silencing And Sacking War Critics
By Andrew Gumbel
Independent UKMonday 21 April 2003
Hollywood is often depicted in the US media as a hotbed of anti-government dissent and left-wing politics but that is not how it feels to Ed Gernon.
Mr Gernon was, until recently, a television producer at CBS responsible for a four-part miniseries on Hitler's rise to power, which will be shown next month. He thought the timing was apt, and said so in an interview with TV Guide magazine. "It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole nation into war," he said. "I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now."
That was far too strong for Leslie Moonves, CBS's chief executive, who promptly fired him. No reasons were given, although politics and a strong desire not to fall foul of the Bush administration apparently had plenty to do with it.
Another person who does not find Hollywood particularly liberal these days is the comedian and actress Janeane Garofalo, whose outspoken views on Iraq have made her the object of a vicious e-mail and telephone campaign that has intimidated ABC into pushing her new sitcom, Slice O'Life, into next year's mid-season. Again, the network's fear of losing viewers and advertisers seems rather stronger than its desire to defend one the freedom of speech of its stars.
The clearly emerging pattern is that entertainment personalities who speak out on touchy political subjects - particularly Iraq - do so at their peril. The group intent on stringing up Ms Garofalo, Citizens Against Celebrity Pundits, has campaigned energetically against everyone from Martin Sheen, whose anti-war views led to a credit card commercial of his being scrapped, to Susan Sarandon, dropped as a speaker at a Florida branch of the umbrella charity group United Way, to Sarandon's husband, Tim Robbins, whose invitation to a 15th anniversary screening of the baseball movie Bull Durham at the National Baseball Hall of Fame was withdrawn because the Hall's president, a former Reagan administration press secretary, felt his very presence might undermine the efforts of American troops in Iraq.
Beyond the film world, powerful radio station chains with strong political ties to the Bush White House have been orchestrating boycotts and hate campaigns against several anti-war performers, most notably the Dixie Chicks, the Texas country trio now fearing for their safety - not to mention their plummeting record sales - after their singer, Natalie Maines, said at a concert in London last month that she was ashamed to hail from the same state as the President. One radio chain, Cumulus Media, responded by arranging for a tractor to crush Dixie Chicks CDs, tapes and videos in an episode that carried uncomfortable echoes of historical book-burnings and other cultural purges.
The venom behind these campaigns is disturbing enough but there is a second strand to the story. And that is that Hollywood might not be such a liberal place after all. As Robbins said in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington last week: "I am sick of hearing about Hollywood being against this war. Hollywood's heavy hitters, the real power brokers and cover-of-the- magazine stars, have been largely silent on this issue."
While several dozen prominent actors and musicians opposed to military action in Iraq signed up for a celebrity-led group called Artists United To Win Without War, recent experience suggests that they are in the minority. Nowhere was this more clearly illustrated than at the Oscars, when the most outspoken of the evening's war critics, Michael Moore, was roundly booed, and those who had suggested it might be distasteful to go ahead with the shameless glitz of the Academy Awards with the bombs falling on Baghdad were systematically ridiculed by the host, Steve Martin.
The wife of a prominent Hollywood entertainment lawyer who attended a high-powered pre-Oscar dinner party was shocked to find that most of the assembled company was in fact heavily pro-war. "Here they were, all these so-called Hollywood liberals, and they were making jokes about peace activists and cheering on the troops," she said.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with Hollywood actors or executives being less liberal than their stereotype, but there is something troubling in the way in which their public image is manipulated, especially by the political spin doctors in Washington.
Hollywood has long been a favourite target of conservatives, who have repeatedly blamed the entertainment industry for gun violence, or drugs, or sexual promiscuity. Now there is an attempt to dismiss the anti-war celebrities in similar fashion -as morally irresponsible, overpaid know-nothings who would do better to keep their mouths shut.
Mike Farrell, one-time star of Mash who is now one of the industry's most prominent liberal activists, sees a distinct political strategy at work. "The suggestion that Hollywood speaks with one voice is of course silly," he said, "but the perspective articulated consistently in the media, courtesy of the right wing, is that celebrities are taking advantage of their forum to spew left-wing views. What this is really about is stifling dissent on a national scale. It does not matter a whit whether we are celebrities or not. What galls them so much is that we have access to the media."
The intimidation experienced by Ed Gernon, the CBS producer, or the Dixie Chicks, is certainly having its effect. In his speech to the National Press Club, Robbins cited an unnamed "famous middle-aged rock-and-roller" who thanked him for speaking out against the war but said he did not dare do the same himself because of the power of Clear Channel, the nation's largest radio station owner, which has an unabashed pro-Bush agenda. "They promote our concert appearances," the rocker said. "They own most of the stations that play our music. I can't come out against the war."
The Screen Actors Guild has likened the atmosphere to the McCarthy-era anti-Communist witch-hunts of the 1950s. It issued a statement saying that no performer should be denied work on the basis of his or her political beliefs. "Even a hint of the blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation," it said.
Within three hours of that statement being posted, the guild was inundated with the by now familiar deluge of hate mail. Nevertheless, the statement remains steadfastly posted on the guild's website.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
"Antisemitic" Film Producer
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 09:01:06 PM
by Moishe GoyimQuigley is a film producer, originally in Denver:
$10 million award upheld in feud. ADL likely to appeal ruling in couple's defamation lawsuit,
by Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News, April 23, 2003
"A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a jury's $10 million award to a former Evergreen couple denounced as anti-Semites by the Anti-Defamation League after their Jewish neighbors secretly recorded their telephone conversations. The 2-1 ruling by a panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likely will be appealed by the ADL, which faces spending a fourth of its annual budget to pay the award to William and Dorothy 'Dee' Quigley. The ruling also increases the worries of other advocacy groups and lawyers who help them. The nationally publicized case drew three friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the ADL from other groups and lawyers, contending the danger of huge legal liabilities threatened their ability to work for good causes. The Quigleys sued the ADL and the then-director of its Denver office, Saul Rosenthal, for defamation, violations of federal wiretap law and invasion of privacy. The 10th Circuit panel threw out the invasion of privacy claims Tuesday, but left other claims and the jury's total damages award intact. The Quigleys' attorney, Jay Horowitz, said the ruling may not end the legal dispute. 'The Quigleys have been involved in difficult and extraordinarily expensive litigation for the preceding 8 ½ years,' he said. 'They are extremely gratified by the United States Court of Appeals decision. They are aware, however, that proceedings may continue. For that reason, they must restrict their comments, other than to say that they are committed to continue this battle as long as it takes, and to vindicate their name, their reputation and their rights of privacy' ...
The Quigleys' Jewish neighbors, Mitchell and Candice Aronson, consulted the ADL in 1994 after overhearing the Quigleys' telephone remarks on their Radio Shack police scanner. They said they heard the Quigleys discuss a campaign to drive them from the neighborhood with Nazi scare tactics: tossing lampshades and soap on their lawn; putting pictures of Holocaust ovens on their house; dousing an Aronson child with flammable liquid. The Aronsons were advised to record the conversations. Based on the recordings, they sued the Quigleys in federal court; Jefferson County prosecutors charged the Quigleys with hate crimes; and Rosenthal denounced the Quigleys as anti-Semites in a press conference. The Quigleys got death threats and hate mail, including a box of dog feces. Their own Catholic priest denounced them from the pulpit.
Later, everyone found out that the recordings became illegal just five days after they began, when President Bill Clinton signed a new federal wiretap restriction into law. The hate charges were dropped, and Jefferson County paid the Quigleys $75,000 after prosecutors concluded Dee Quigley's remarks to a friend were only in jest.
Two lawyers on the ADL's volunteer board, who had advised the Aronsons, paid the Quigleys $350,000 to settle a lawsuit. The Quigleys and Aronsons dropped their legal attacks on each other, and neither family paid the other anything. The Aronsons divorced. The Quigleys now live in another state."
A Closing Deliberation
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 09:21:56 PM
by Dennis HartwigI am sure it will make some of you happy that this post is entitled “A Closing Deliberation.” My purpose for posting these messages was not to engage in mudslinging. The fact that the dialog has reached this level is as much my fault as it is yours. My belief in change and creating new opportunities in Independent Film sometimes makes me over aggressive I my execution.
I don’t care whether you’re anti-Semitic or not. It is your lack of action and sending unsolicited emails containing your Jewish “debate” that upset me. The only reason I brought up my business proposal was to illustrate my point that you are missing out on opportunities due to lack of action. One thing I know for sure is that you will never be successful at anything you do unless you make real changes.
Your assistance that I some how worked with Global Crossing is not true. I first contacted MEC in 1998 after searching for local entertainment companies (at the time my offices where in Gettysburg, PA). Shortly after talking with Mr. Jaeger I put my plans on hold. Three years later I decided to go ahead with my pans to raise money for Independent Films (this is when I extended the offer). During this span of time Mr. Jaeger apparently talked with someone from Global Crossing. 18 months later I guess I needed to refresh your memory. You need to go back and read your old emails. Once you do you will find this individual from Global Crossing is not me. If you would like I can forward you our email correspondence.
Hopefully I may have shook things up a little so Mr. Jaeger and his stockholders can take a new look at the direction of MEC. Hopefully some small changes can be made. I wish you good luck in fulfilling your true potential. If not you can always start a website illustrating how short white guys are kept out of the NBA or that Islam is monopolizing the taxicab industry.
Postscript
I wish you would use this “Message Board” for the purpose it was intended
Re(1): A Closing Deliberation
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 10:15:31 PM
by Moishe the GoyimYOU SAY: If not you can always start a website illustrating how short white guys are kept out of the NBA or that Islam is monopolizing the taxicab industry.
RESPONSE: This is a trivialization of the issue. Comparing the lack of "short white guys in the NBA" and Jewish hegemony in Hollywood is absurd.
The first is a purely objective reality. If you're four feet eight and try to dunk over Shaqille O'Neal, we all understand that reality. Nepotistic networking in a purely SUBJECTIVE field is something else again.
YOU SAY: Postscript I wish you would use this “Message Board” for the purpose it was intended
RESPONSE: You mean posting ONLY things to your liking? Or do mean things that get your certification first?
Say, by the way. I can make you $150,000 over the next weekend. It's a "can't miss" opportunity. We need a shill to sit in an auction audience and guide the tenor of the bidding.
Re(1): A Closing Deliberation
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 10:29:12 PM
by George ShelpsThank you, Mr Hartwig, for stating your case so clearly. You, as I have said, quite correct in thinking that Mr Jaeger has allowed MEC to drift.
Re(1): A Closing Deliberation
Posted on April 26, 2003 at 11:37:24 PM
by James Jaeger>The only reason I brought up my business proposal was to illustrate my point that you are missing out on opportunities due to lack of action.
How you define "lack of action" is a total mystery to me and even if you did, it’s a completely relative term. All any one has to do to realize that you are incredibly ill-informed about our action-level at MEC is simply go to http://www.mecfilms.com/mid and read about the new paradigm of motion picture distribution we have established and been piloting. I will be appearing again on MONEY MATTERS with a representative of Merrill Lynch this Wednesday (30 April 2003) evening at 9:30pm on channel 2 to explain the progress and details of Automatically Parsed Royalties and how our paradigm is better than Hollywood's paradigm of distribution for the producer, talent and investors. The show will run on various other cable stations over the course of the next month and then it will be available on-demand at pay-per-view.com and at The Video Archives (http://www.videoarchives.tv), both exhibition websites established and owned by MEC. And BTW, the producers of MONEY MATTERS are using our system of Automatically Parsed Royalties and we are hosting their shows, of which there are over 400 in the archives and 52 new ones produced each year. As we groove in this new system, we plan on distributing and archiving other TV shows such as CHARLIE ROSE, NIGHTLINE, OPRAH and TONY BROWN. We have already engaged a representative to approach Bill Moyers of NOW and Merv Griffin for his various TV properties. Recently we optioned the screenplay for BLADERUNNER II - FORCED RETIREMENT and have been in discussion with WARNER BROS as well as Bud Yorkin's company, the original producers of BLADE RUNNER. For other activities of MEC, log onto our Update page every month at http://www.mecfilms.com/update.htm. As you will see in the Updates, there are many things happening at MEC so it's simply untrue that nothing is happening. Has one of the major studios financed $30 million for one of our 20 projects in development at http://www.mecfilms.com/dna/indev.htm, or one of the 102 screenplays we now own options on -- no they haven't -- but if you measure all progress and action by this criterion – then, from such a point of view, there is NO ACTION going on on the entire planet 99.99999999999999% of the time. Will MEC get lucky and have one of its projects financed or picked up by a major studio? I hope so, because I would look forward to the opportunity to tell the executive who wanted to provide such funding to go fuck himself unless he reviewed all the material at the FIRM site and assured me, and our stockholders, that any interaction between his MPAA studio and our Matrixx Productions production company would involve an ethical definition of net profits (like DREAMWORK’s definition), proper GAAP accounting and NO contracts of adhesion (as discussed in John Cones’ book, THE FEATURE FILM DISTRIBUTION DEAL, a copy available via http://www.mecfilms.com/coneslaw).
>One thing I know for sure is that you will never be successful at anything you do unless you make real changes.
Well I don't disagree with you here, and in fact we ARE doing our best to make real changes, starting with the distribution system and the methods by which producers and their investors recoup. At this time what MEC needs more than partners is some venture capital that respects our vision and allows us to accelerate the development of our company without diluting our founding stockholder’s investments beyond a reasonable level.
Even though you and I disagree with a number of perceptions and issues, I thank you, Mr. Hartwig, for communicating.
James Jaeger
P.S. If I am mistaking you for the GLOBAL CROSSING executive I had discussions with almost two years ago, I apologize and recant anything I may have said that was either offensive or misrepresenting of you in any way as such may have related specifically to that issue.
Levine: Judaism and "Race"
Posted on April 25, 2003 at 05:09:56 PM
by Moishe G.This John Hopkins Medical Center article was emailed to me.
The point: if the issues raised in this piece underscore the commonality of Jewish genetics and the choice of centuries of in-breeding, how can folks like Mr. Levine dissimulate the racial self-conception of Jewish tradition, which is explicitly stated as the "Chosen People?" (Note: this article discusses the Ashkenazim branch of Judaism -- those Jews who (by Jewish religious dictate) continued to marry other Jews and NOT their European neighbors).
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/epigen/ashkenazim.htm
Why Study Ashkenazim? How Jewish Participants Are Especially Able to Help Researchers Understand Mental Illness Genetics, John Hopkins Medicine,
"Jewish individuals are in a unique position to assist scientists in the understanding of genetic disorders. Due to a long history of marriage within the faith, which extends back thousands of years, the Jewish community has emerged from a limited number of ancestors and has a similar genetic makeup. This allows researchers to more easily perform genetic studies and locate disease-causing genes. The following slides provide a graphic representation of variation. Due to the history of marriage within the faith, individuals of Jewish descent have less variety in their genetic makeup. This reduction in variability makes it easier for us to locate disease-causing genes ... Is our community still especially useful? Yes. Even though the Jewish genetic lineage is not as "pure" as it used to be, the long history of marriage within the culture still results in a more similar genetic background. This is why our Johns Hopkins study is able to accept participants with only one Jewish parent. There is already a potential for discrimination against Jewish individuals, as well as those with mental illness. With this in mind, why focus on the Jewish community? The concern for discrimination is valid, and we understand that participation is not an easy decision for many participants. As described previously, the Jewish community offers great potential to facilitate genetics studies. The more quickly we are able to locate risk genes for these disorders, the more quickly we can expect to offer improved treatments and medications for severe mental illnesses. In addition, we hope that a gene discovery will lead to a better public understanding of mental illness and a reduction in stigma. Potential volunteers must weigh the pros and cons of the study before deciding to participate."
Re(1): Levine: Judaism and
Posted on April 27, 2003 at 00:46:04 AM
by Mitchell LevineSo what? I'm Ashkenazi (as are most Jews whose families are Eastern European) and my brother-in-law is non-Jewish, as are many of the spouses of my friends.
Your ridiculous attempts to use genetic research to try and prove a "racial" basis to Judaism, and supposedly bolster your arguments that Jews are somehow racist, are still bullshit. Let me make this simple for you:
1) By definition, you cannot convert to a race: You must be born into it, otherwise it would be possible to "convert" to being black or Asian.
2) You CAN convert to Judaism.
Therefore,
3) Jews are NOT a race.
End of story.
Executive Tracking Boards
Posted on April 26, 2003 at 10:37:45 PM
by James JaegerThis month's issue of WIRED magazine (May 2003) is running an interesting article providing further evidence that Hollywood is NOT a merit system, and, in fact, resembles more of a movie cartel than a free-enterprise capitalist system -- at least at the MPAA studio/distributor level.
Journalist Ben Mezrich writes: "I've been tipped to the network of semi-secret cyberhallways, called tracking boards, that are open only to the most elite power players in the industry. In simplest terms, these boards are sophisticated chat rooms and BBSes where high-level executives at various studios trade information about potential projects."
Quoted in the article is Dana Brunetti, a producer with TriggerStreet.com, Kevin Spacey's production company. Dana states that "A project that's interesting to one studio is interesting to all studios; likewise, a project with one detractor is dead with everyone. Well, the tracking boards are the herd mentality gone digital."
As an independent producer who submits projects to the major studios, reading about this makes me wonder about some of the projects I have submitted over the years. I was under the impression that when I went to the trouble of purchasing an option on a literary property, contracted a writer to convert the property into a screenplay and then spent $50,000 over the course of 3 to 5 years packaging and promoting the project to each individual studio, it would be given individual attention and at least read. But it appears that this is not the way Hollywood’s scrip/project evaluation system works, as you will see from various independent, and authoritative, sources.
Mezrich goes on to write: “Robert Dowling, the editor in chief and publisher of THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, corroborates: ‘Everybody uses the boards,’ he says, ‘and at the highest level they can.’”
People begin tracking projects the minute an agent mentions it to anyone else,” says Alex Amin, executive vice president of BASELINE-FILM-TRACKER. Says Mezrich in summary: “By the time a scrip goes to auction, everyone’s already tracked it. Opinions, comments, information on buying and selling -– all of it is available before a project is officially on the market. It’s a Hollywood cartel.”
The WIRED article goes on to state, or imply, that the Hollywood tracking system is “easily manipulated,” “collusive,” “unregulated,” “dirty,” “not very fair,” “unethical or mildly illegal” and, as an exec whispers: “if you’re dead on the tracking boards, you’re dead in this business.”
The marketing of screenplays is not only similar to the “pump and dump” schemes played on Wall Street, but a form of collusion between what’s supposed to be 7 “competing” studios.
Mezrich confirms all of the above by meeting with a tracker who’s a development executive with one of the major studios. She must remain anonymous otherwise she says she would probably lose her job, adding that “This is a business that runs on fear.” The executive tracker goes on to state: “On their own, the comments (that are in the tracking system) seem inconsequential. But it’s the collective wisdom of 27 top development executives at the major studios: Paramount, Universal, Sony, MGM . . . . When someone wants onto the board, she explains, the moderator emails us all and asks if that person is OK. We can blackball someone we don't like. It's like sorority rush.” She goes on to indicate that a studio will buy a screenplay that gets positive tracking “without ever reading it” yet she, as an executive who tracks screenplays, would “absolutely” “turn down a project without reading it because of negative tracking.”
So are we -- those of us who have been following the news at FIRM for the past 6 years -- surprised by any of this? Of course not. Read John Cones’ book, WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! (http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm), to get a fuller understanding of how the MPAA studio/distributors, controlled by a small group of liberal, not-very-religious, white Jewish males of European heritage, have allowed bias and unethical business practices to dominate Hollywood for the best part of 90 years (see http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist for a list of their names and studio employment history).
James Jaeger
Re(1): Executive Tracking Boards
Posted on April 26, 2003 at 11:17:16 PM
by George Shelpsthose of us who have been following the news at FIRM for the past 6 years -- surprised by any of this? Of course not. Read John Cones' book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! (http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm), to get a fuller understanding of how the MPAA studio/distributors, controlled by a small group of liberal, not-very-religious, white Jewish males of European heritage, have allowed bias and unethical business practices to dominate Hollywood for the best part of 90 years (see http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist for a list of their names and studio employment history).
---------------Nonsense. Predatory business practices have nothing to with religion, gender, national origin, or political views.
This is the bogus cause-and-effect argument that you have been making but you've never proved any connection between the characteristics of the so-called "control group" and these practices.
Re(2): Executive Tracking Boards
Posted on April 27, 2003 at 00:01:39 AM
by James Jaeger>Nonsense. Predatory business practices have nothing to with religion, gender, national origin, or political views. This is the bogus cause-and-effect argument that you have been making but you've never proved any connection between the characteristics of the so-called "control group" and these practices.
No, this is NOT the claim John Cones has made. You have misconstrued the entire thrust of FIRM and the claim. Neither I, nor John Cones or FIRM are, or have ever said that predatory business practices have anything to do with religion, gender, national origin, or political views. We have simply OBSERVED that Hollywood is controlled by a narrowly defined group that JUST HAPPENS TO BE liberal, not-very-religious, white, Jewish males of European heritage. We have never said or implied that just because some one is either liberal, OR not-very-religious, OR white, OR Jewish, OR a male OR of European heritage THAT they were predatory OR "bad" in any way. For one, if we WERE saying this, wouldn't I have to include myself as being “bad” because, after all, I'M a white male who has some liberal political preferences.
We're also NOT saying that "Jews run Hollywood." We ARE saying that Hollywood is run by Jews (if you want to start the demographic out with this proper noun), and these Jews happen to be liberal, and not-very-religious males of European heritage. But all this is observable, so no ground broken here, so what’s the beef?
Again, just because the people IN Hollywood might have some predatory practices, we are NOT saying that this is a reflection of ALL Jews, or of ALL males or of ALL liberals, etc. Such a statement would be preposterous.
So, again, I just can't see what the beef is.
What's wrong with a narrow group running Hollywood is the same thing that would be wrong were ANY narrowly defined group to be running Hollywood. Some like to claim that we are just coming down on Jews, and true, some who have posted here DO have issues with Jews in general, but FIRM does not have such issues. To the degree the greater liberal community, or the greater Jewish community, or the male gender AGREES AND/OR SUPPORTS Hollywood's modus operandi, such are apologists for the system, and one can only assume that, as such, they derive some benefit from it at the expense of others. Is this fair in a democratic society where the free marketplace of ideas needs to be unencumbered by vested interests in order to be most effective?
James Jaeger
Re(3): Executive Tracking Boards
Posted on April 27, 2003 at 00:23:59 AM
by George ShelpsWhat's wrong with a narrow group running Hollywood is the same thing that would be wrong were ANY narrowly defined group to be running Hollywood. Some like to claim that we are just coming down on Jews, and true, some who have posted here DO have issues with Jews in general, but FIRM does not have such issues. To the degree the greater liberal community, or the greater Jewish community, or the male gender AGREES AND/OR SUPPORTS Hollywood's modus operandi,
___And that modus operandi is?
such are apologists for the system, and one can only assume that, as such, they derive some benefit from it at the expense of others.
___Oh, come on. You list--time after time--a slew of predatory business practices. Then you "observe" that a narrow "control group" runs Hollywood.
You obviously believe this "control group" is predatory. And you call more diversity in this Hollywood and an end to the "control group's" power.
Why? Why would diversity in and of itself cause the end of the predatory practices since you insist that you are not making a link between those practices and the control group?
If you say there's no link, then your argument for diversity is pointless.
Is this fair in a democratic society where the free marketplace of ideas needs to be unencumbered by vested interests in order to be most effective? __Democracy is a means of electing public officials. It has nothing to do with business.
Re(4): Executive Tracking Boards
Posted on April 27, 2003 at 09:16:31 PM
by James JaegerVery possibly another control group would end up being just as predatory, but at least there would be diversity.
Probably Hollywood, and the movie business for that matter, will always be predatory in some sense, but having a wider selection of movies would ease some of the pain.
James Jaeger
Re(5): Executive Tracking Boards
Posted on April 27, 2003 at 09:25:24 PM
by George ShelpsYou say that another group might be just as controlling but at least there would be diversity....how so?
Isn't lack of diversity a characteristic of ANY control group..it seeks those which share its own traits and excludes others, correct?
Re(6): Executive Tracking Boards
Posted on April 27, 2003 at 09:42:27 PM
by James Jaeger>Isn't lack of diversity a characteristic of ANY control group..it seeks those which share its own traits and excludes others, correct?
Probably. If there were more diversity then maybe there would be less of a control group, any control group.
James Jaeger
Re(7): Executive Tracking Boards
Posted on April 28, 2003 at 01:13:11 AM
by George Shelps>Isn't lack of diversity a characteristic of ANY control group..it seeks those which share its own traits and excludes others, correct?
Probably. If there were more diversity then maybe there would be less of a control group, any control group.
___So you're saying that the current control group engages in predatory business practices to keep Hollywood controlled by not very religious politically liberal Jewish males of European heritage...and this control group perceives diversity as a threat to its power?
Market-Dominating Minorities
Posted on April 29, 2003 at 04:51:53 PM
by James Jaeger___So you're saying that the current control group engages in predatory business practices to keep Hollywood controlled by not very religious politically liberal Jewish males of European heritage...and this control group perceives diversity as a threat to its power?
Possibly. This might be a good way to sum it up, PROVIDED, one does not construe this to mean that, just because HOLLYWOOD'S control group happens to be politically liberal not-very-religious Jewish males of European heritage, it is any reflection on Jews in general, or Liberals in general, or males in general, etc. I can't make that generalization because I have not done the research on any of these groups, however, as you have undoubtedly noted, others, such as Jim Jenks, HAVE amassed evidence for such generalizations, as politically incorrect as such may be at this time and as much as you probably disagree with the quality of his work.
Lastly, every industry probably has its "control group." There are industries out there that have control groups that have little or no Jewish people in them and these industries are probably just as predatory, in their own ways, as the Hollywood industry is in its ways. Are control groups good? I don't think so because if they DO tend to thwart diversity, then for this reason alone I would say they are not healthy -- especially in a world where we all need to better get along. Maybe control groups WERE necessary at one point in the evolution of each industry -- but again, I feel to exclude or inhibit anyone from any industry is not healthy. Thus control groups, also known as market-dominating minorities, can lead to some very undesirable situations and much animosity from majorities. There's an excellent new book out called WORLD ON FIRE that deals with the phenomena of market-dominating minorities on both the national and global levels. Of course on a global level, the U.S. is the market-dominating minority whereas on the national level, such places as South Africa have Whites as their market-dominating minority. Then at the industry level we have Hollywood with its market-dominating minority, as identified by John Cones.
James Jaeger
Hollywood Revives McCarthyist Climate
Posted on April 27, 2003 at 09:56:53 PM
by Andrew GumbelHollywood Revives McCarthyist Climate By Silencing And Sacking War Critics
By Andrew Gumbel
Independent UKMonday 21 April 2003
Hollywood is often depicted in the US media as a hotbed of anti-government dissent and left-wing politics but that is not how it feels to Ed Gernon.
Mr Gernon was, until recently, a television producer at CBS responsible for a four-part miniseries on Hitler's rise to power, which will be shown next month. He thought the timing was apt, and said so in an interview with TV Guide magazine. "It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole nation into war," he said. "I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now."
That was far too strong for Leslie Moonves, CBS's chief executive, who promptly fired him. No reasons were given, although politics and a strong desire not to fall foul of the Bush administration apparently had plenty to do with it.
Another person who does not find Hollywood particularly liberal these days is the comedian and actress Janeane Garofalo, whose outspoken views on Iraq have made her the object of a vicious e-mail and telephone campaign that has intimidated ABC into pushing her new sitcom, Slice O'Life, into next year's mid-season. Again, the network's fear of losing viewers and advertisers seems rather stronger than its desire to defend one the freedom of speech of its stars.
The clearly emerging pattern is that entertainment personalities who speak out on touchy political subjects - particularly Iraq - do so at their peril. The group intent on stringing up Ms Garofalo, Citizens Against Celebrity Pundits, has campaigned energetically against everyone from Martin Sheen, whose anti-war views led to a credit card commercial of his being scrapped, to Susan Sarandon, dropped as a speaker at a Florida branch of the umbrella charity group United Way, to Sarandon's husband, Tim Robbins, whose invitation to a 15th anniversary screening of the baseball movie Bull Durham at the National Baseball Hall of Fame was withdrawn because the Hall's president, a former Reagan administration press secretary, felt his very presence might undermine the efforts of American troops in Iraq.
Beyond the film world, powerful radio station chains with strong political ties to the Bush White House have been orchestrating boycotts and hate campaigns against several anti-war performers, most notably the Dixie Chicks, the Texas country trio now fearing for their safety - not to mention their plummeting record sales - after their singer, Natalie Maines, said at a concert in London last month that she was ashamed to hail from the same state as the President. One radio chain, Cumulus Media, responded by arranging for a tractor to crush Dixie Chicks CDs, tapes and videos in an episode that carried uncomfortable echoes of historical book-burnings and other cultural purges.
The venom behind these campaigns is disturbing enough but there is a second strand to the story. And that is that Hollywood might not be such a liberal place after all. As Robbins said in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington last week: "I am sick of hearing about Hollywood being against this war. Hollywood's heavy hitters, the real power brokers and cover-of-the- magazine stars, have been largely silent on this issue."
While several dozen prominent actors and musicians opposed to military action in Iraq signed up for a celebrity-led group called Artists United To Win Without War, recent experience suggests that they are in the minority. Nowhere was this more clearly illustrated than at the Oscars, when the most outspoken of the evening's war critics, Michael Moore, was roundly booed, and those who had suggested it might be distasteful to go ahead with the shameless glitz of the Academy Awards with the bombs falling on Baghdad were systematically ridiculed by the host, Steve Martin.
The wife of a prominent Hollywood entertainment lawyer who attended a high-powered pre-Oscar dinner party was shocked to find that most of the assembled company was in fact heavily pro-war. "Here they were, all these so-called Hollywood liberals, and they were making jokes about peace activists and cheering on the troops," she said.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with Hollywood actors or executives being less liberal than their stereotype, but there is something troubling in the way in which their public image is manipulated, especially by the political spin doctors in Washington.
Hollywood has long been a favourite target of conservatives, who have repeatedly blamed the entertainment industry for gun violence, or drugs, or sexual promiscuity. Now there is an attempt to dismiss the anti-war celebrities in similar fashion -as morally irresponsible, overpaid know-nothings who would do better to keep their mouths shut.
Mike Farrell, one-time star of Mash who is now one of the industry's most prominent liberal activists, sees a distinct political strategy at work. "The suggestion that Hollywood speaks with one voice is of course silly," he said, "but the perspective articulated consistently in the media, courtesy of the right wing, is that celebrities are taking advantage of their forum to spew left-wing views. What this is really about is stifling dissent on a national scale. It does not matter a whit whether we are celebrities or not. What galls them so much is that we have access to the media."
The intimidation experienced by Ed Gernon, the CBS producer, or the Dixie Chicks, is certainly having its effect. In his speech to the National Press Club, Robbins cited an unnamed "famous middle-aged rock-and-roller" who thanked him for speaking out against the war but said he did not dare do the same himself because of the power of Clear Channel, the nation's largest radio station owner, which has an unabashed pro-Bush agenda. "They promote our concert appearances," the rocker said. "They own most of the stations that play our music. I can't come out against the war."
The Screen Actors Guild has likened the atmosphere to the McCarthy-era anti-Communist witch-hunts of the 1950s. It issued a statement saying that no performer should be denied work on the basis of his or her political beliefs. "Even a hint of the blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation," it said.
Within three hours of that statement being posted, the guild was inundated with the by now familiar deluge of hate mail. Nevertheless, the statement remains steadfastly posted on the guild's website.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |