FIRM - Discussions

FIRM Discussions

May 11, 2003 - May 14, 2003

Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?

Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 11, 2003 at 10:05:47 PM by Moshe 2 First, no, to preclude the inevitable garbage responses to this post, I do not endorse anything about Adolf Hitler. But I raise these important questions: 1) Why is this movie about Hitler submitted to a Jewish censorship tribunal? Why do they have the power to mold a film to Jewish dictate? 2) What does this blatant example of censorship imply about a distinctly Jewish ideological influence throughout Judeocentric Hollywood? 3) What are the implications of the Anti-Defamation League's role in the film as a Judecentric, pro-Israel propaganda organization and part of a broad socialization process? 4) How is it possible to understand Hitler's animosity towards Jews without honesty about the social-political conditions of the Weimar Republic? 5) Why is it a crime to attempt to "humanize" Adolf Hitler in a movie, but rather make him a stick figure embodying -- singularly -- "evil?" 6) What is the nature of our society (and Hollywood) if to ask these simple questions inevitably elicits the smear of "Nazi" (etc.) from those who seek a totalitarian control of history, let alone Hollywood? 7) What does it mean that the Jewish head of CBS passes along his network's TV series to Jewish organizations for their sanction, and what does this imply to the broader, democratic, multicultural issues raised by FIRM? 8) Why does the film's epilogue exclusively underscore Hitler's killing of Jews (as if that is the centrality of Hitler's identity), and not the tens of other millions of Poles, Russians, French, and others who happened NOT to be Jewish? http://jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Hitler+miniseries+gets+thumbs|Dup&intcategoryid=5 After revisions, Hitler miniseries gets thumbs-up from Jewish leaders, By Tom Tugend, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 5, 2003 "There were nights, acknowledges Leslie Moonves, president and CEO of CBS Television, 'when I lay in bed, looking up at the ceiling and asking myself, ‘Is this the right thing to do? Will it open old wounds? Are we creating more anti-Semitism?’'Moonves had good cause for sleepless introspection. Since announcing last July that CBS would air a four-hour, prime time miniseries on the early life of Adolf Hitler, media critics and Jewish spokesmen had had a field day. They feared that the early Hitler would be 'humanized' into a sympathetic figure as an abused child and misunderstood artist or as a German Rocky who overcame tremendous odds. Some even feared the film might trigger pogrom-like outbursts. Moonves, who lost much of his grandparents’ family in Poland during the Holocaust, even took flak from his own relatives. Now, with 'Hitler: The Rise of Evil' broadcasting May 18 and May 20 during the ratings sweeps period, the CBS chief is breathing easier. After previewing tapes of the film, a half-dozen Holocaust scholars and prominent rabbis generally have given it their approval. Some of the turnaround can be credited to an entirely new script and complete revision of the original project, starting with the metamorphosis of the title from 'Young Hitler' to 'Hitler: The Early Years,' 'Hitler,' 'Hitler: The Origin of Evil' and finally to the present title. The earlier critical volleys, and advice from Jewish leaders consulted by the producers, apparently gave a substantial push to the revisions. In its final form, the film briefly touches on young Hitler’s brutal and domineering father, his troubled adolescence, his rootless existence in Vienna as a failed artist and his enthusiastic soldiering in World War I. But the vast bulk of the film deals with Hitler’s career from a Munich beer-hall orator in 1920, through his political machinations within the Nazi party and against the Weimar Republic, ending in 1934 with the consolidation of state power in his hands. A n epilogue summarizes, in stark statistics and pictures, the utter devastation Hitler wrought on Europe and the Jewish people ... One of the aspects of Hitler that the film does not explain — that, indeed, may be beyond explanation — is what triggered his murderous hatred of Jews. Theories abound — a brighter Jewish classmate in school, a Jewish doctor who performed a mastectomy on Hitler’s beloved mother, the poisonous anti-Semitism of Vienna or simply the oratorical success of his anti-Jewish tirades — but a definitive answer may never be found. During the broadcast, there will be a number of public service announcements on tolerance with guidance from the Anti-Defamation League. CBS has said it will make donations to one or more Holocaust education funds." Re(1): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 11, 2003 at 11:03:59 PM by Mitchell Levine Just to begin with, as explained by numerous posts on the site, a television network making revisions to a product is in no way "censorship." Censorship occurs when the government prosecutes someone based on their speech or exercises prior restraint. CBS is not the government, but is in fact a private business which has the right to broadcast anything it wishes, within FCC guidelines, in order to convince the public to watch, and allow it to sell advertising time to sponsors. Not being able to have your mini-series broadcast by a communications conglomerate is not a compromise of fundamental rights, so it is therefore not a censorship issue, as much as you'd like to frame it as one. Les Moonves was acting as a businessman who runs a corporation in the mass media, and one with a recent history of faltering sucess. In general, a network has to worry about offending its mass audience, which has the typical consequence of impelling viewers to stop watching. Because of this, networks have to play it in the pocket and sometimes be conservative. As much as you might not like it, people tend to feel that serious portrayals of Hitler that are sympathetic are in bad taste, and that is offensive to viewers. For CBS to call the project "Young Hitler," a title which calls to mind films like "Young Frankenstein," "Young Sherlock Holmes," and "Young Einstein," would make it appear to have insufficient gravity for a movie about a man seen as an evil mass murderer, and many people would consider that to be bad taste. This is a much different matter than comedies like "Married with Children" that are known for bad taste, and the network would risk seriously harming themselves by running it without due care taken. Believe it or not, people in the media have feelings like everyone else. The reason why studios were uncomfortable with "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," is not, as Jaeger suggests, somehow a reaction to perceived Greek antisemitism. (Where he gets the idea that Jews everywhere are aware of the latter phenomenon, I have no idea. Most of my co-workers are Greek, and I've never heard of such a thing in my life. Neither has anyone else I know. That's not to say it doesn't exist, just that his claim that most Jews know about it is bogus.) The reason why studio executives were uncomfortable with it is because they were afraid that it was stereotypical and insensitive to another ethnicity's feelings. Just the name itself seems to allude to the stereotype that Greek people are big and fat, and that's why they wanted to change the title, not some Jewish antipathy based on perceived anti-Semitism. The fact that a Greek woman wrote it alone was not enough to overcome that feeling, so they consulted with some ethnic organizations, and eventually it was independently released. The fact that Jaeger would try to make it into another argument for claims of "Judeo-centric" bullshit says a lot. CBS did exactly the same with the Hitler project, and they should have. There was nothing "censorial" about it. If Bush threw the producer into Ad-Seg at Riker's, then you'd have an argument. You don't. And as much as you'd like there to be no social stigma against your relentless attempts to collectively blame all Jews everywhere as scapegoats for everything you dislike, there is still going to be one. You can get used to it now, or you can expect a lifetime of bitter frustration to complement your bitter hatred. Re(2): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 12, 2003 at 00:32:02 AM by Moishe YOU SAY: Just to begin with, as explained by numerous posts on the site, a television network making revisions to a product is in no way "censorship." Censorship occurs when the government prosecutes someone based on their speech or exercises prior restraint. RESPONSE: The term "censorship" does not singularly reflect "government" as you'd like. Kings censor, dictators censor, teachers censor, companies censor, people censor, Jews censor ... YOU SAY: CBS is not the government, but is in fact a private business which has the right to broadcast anything it wishes, within FCC guidelines, in order to convince the public to watch, and allow it to sell advertising time to sponsors. RESPONSE: CBS is headed by a Jew, Leslie Moonves, with extremely strong convictions about Jewish victimology (Holocaust). He is reported to be a relative of David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel. Your arguments read like the dictates of the Resident Thought Commissar. Jewish censorship is Jewish censorship. Period. All your babble about "product" etc. is garbage. Changing a movie about Hitler to convey what the Jewish Lobby wants has absolutely nothing to to with attracting an audience and making money. YOU SAY: Not being able to have your mini-series broadcast by a communications conglomerate is not a compromise of fundamental rights, so it is therefore not a censorship issue, as much as you'd like to frame it as one. RESPONSE: Yours is lawyerese babble. This "communications conglomerate" is run by Leslie Moonves who fed his "product" to the Jewish Filter for sanction. And CHANGES to accomodate the Jewish views of history. YOU SAY: Les Moonves was acting as a businessman who runs a corporation in the mass media, and one with a recent history of faltering sucess. RESPONSE: Mr. Moonves, tossing and turning at night about how his Hitler film is going to be seen (as the article says) has -- hmmmm -- some emotional interest in this objective "product." YOU SAY: In general, a network has to worry about offending its mass audience, which has the typical consequence of impelling viewers to stop watching. RESPONSE: The "mass audience" won't give a flying feather about how Adolf Hitler is depicted in 2003. The Jewish "audience" is obsessed with this issue for fear that the complete demonization of Hitler as a subhuman beast who was enraged with Jews for absolutely no logical reason is in some way weakened. YOU SAY: Because of this, networks have to play it in the pocket and sometimes be conservative. As much as you might not like it, people tend to feel that serious portrayals of Hitler that are sympathetic are in bad taste, and that is offensive to viewers. RESPONSE: No one cares about Adolf Hitler, except the Jewish Lobby which uses him as the consummate irrational, beastial "anti-Semite" that threatens the very decency of humanity itself. YOU SAY: For CBS to call the project "Young Hitler," a title which calls to mind films like "Young Frankenstein," "Young Sherlock Holmes," and "Young Einstein," would make it appear to have insufficient gravity for a movie about a man seen as an evil mass murderer, and many people would consider that to be bad taste. RESPONSE: Nonsense. Mel Brooks' "Springtime for Hitler" has become kosher. Jews have declared a lock on the historical depiction on Jewry's self-declared mortal enemy. That's quite different than a "mass audience" being "offended" by a depiction of someone in a film. This censorship is an excellent example of Jewish influence in asserting its ideological will. Who was Adolf Hitler and why was he outraged by Jews in the Weimar Republic? For Jewish Hollywood, and Jews at-large, this is a forbidden question. Why? Because even if a kernel of rationality and "humanization" is afforded the EVIL icon, Jewry fears that its own conventions of collective saintliness are endangered. It is convenient to lump all critics of Jewry into the "Nazi" camp. As you know. The icon of Adolf Hitler serves as a very important icon in Jewish identity: the absolute nemesis (like Haman, Amalek, etc.) This nemesis is EVIL, as an absolute, with no cracks left open to real historical inquiry. YOU SAY: This is a much different matter than comedies like "Married with Children" that are known for bad taste, and the network would risk seriously harming themselves by running it without due care taken. RESPONSE: What are you talking about? "Married with Children" nothing to do with the subject at hand: Jewish censorial molding of history via Hollywood. YOU SAY: CBS did exactly the same with the Hitler project, and they should have. There was nothing "censorial" about it. If Bush threw the producer into Ad-Seg at Riker's, then you'd have an argument. You don't. RESPONSE: No other ethnic group has the power to censor Jewish Hollywood's depiction of them. Only Jews have the power to shape their own image. And they have been doing this for years. Our web site, http://www.jewishgtribalreview.org (which is back up) documents various aspects of this, with bibliographic citations. YOU SAY: And as much as you'd like there to be no social stigma against your relentless attempts to collectively blame all Jews everywhere as scapegoats for everything you dislike, there is still going to be one. You can get used to it now, or you can expect a lifetime of bitter frustration to complement your bitter hatred. RESPONSE: Time to wake up, Mr. Levine. As long as there are bigoted, racist, hypocritical Jewish apologists like you, there will be more and more people like me: committed to social and democratic justice in underscoring Jewish hypocrisy and collective "hatred." Re(3): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 12, 2003 at 01:51:18 AM by Mitchell Levine " Kings censor, dictators censor, teachers censor, companies censor, people censor, Jews censor ... " Hey, Moishe - thanks for going on the record that Jews aren't people!!! Very representative of you! And even a psychotic idiot like you couldn't possibly believe that only Jews consider Adolph Hitler important. He is a somewhat important figure in World War II, which is generally considered to be a significant era in the 20th century. I'm sure most of your friends do too. Or at least the people who tolerate you, in case there are any. And, of course, everyone who works for your site. If only Jews had the power to shape our image in the media, there would be no explanation for the many films which have promoted anti-Semitism. Also, I've gone on record as saying that I don't believe that Jews are a race, so even in the Bizzaro universe where I'd be a "bigot," you still couldn't establish me as a racist. Re(4): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 12, 2003 at 02:06:39 AM by Mitchell Levine "The "mass audience" won't give a flying feather about how Adolf Hitler is depicted in 2003. The Jewish "audience" is obsessed with this issue for fear that the complete demonization of Hitler as a subhuman beast who was enraged with Jews for absolutely no logical reason is in some way weakened." You're right, J.J., how could anyone possibly get the idea that Hitler was a "subhuman beast" just because he had millions upon millions of people systematically exterminated simply because he felt that his was the Master Race and that they were non-human Untermenschen? Another example of sound, impartial reasoning on your part! Obviously, you wish to see him portrayed as a great guy that systematically exterminated non-people for a completely logical reason! The reason why he's been "demonized" is because he WAS a demon. Re(5): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 13, 2003 at 11:17:41 PM by mg YOU SAY: Obviously, you wish to see him portrayed as a great guy that systematically exterminated non-people for a completely logical reason! RESPONSE: This is the beginning, the middle, and the end of your argument. It is your perceptual core. ANYONE WHO DARES TO CHALLENGE JEWISH POWER AND MYTHOLOGY IS A REINCARNATION OF ADOLF HITLER. That is the Jewish Collective's prism. It is totalitarian. There can be no rational or moral exchange with you, because you cannot pull yourself from this root. It is the heart of modern Jewish identity: whoever criticizes the Judeocentric power network is decreed to be a Nazi. Thanks to the continued atrocities of Israel, and Jewish power in seizing American foreign policy towards world war, your inane position will continue to erode. MORAL people criticize Jewry's chronic hypocrisy (symbolized in modern racist Israel). IMMORAL people defend it. Such will be the future. Re(6): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 13, 2003 at 11:49:45 PM by Mitchell Levine I don't think so: You implicitly attempted to defend Hitler's position by complaining about his being portrayed as a "sub-human beast" whom had "absolutely no logical reason for his actions." You manifestly suggest that there must BE some logical reason for his exteriminating millions of defenseless people. The only problem is that there IS no logical reason to exterminate millions of defenseless people, unless you buy into the Nazis loony racial theories. And your claim that noting this somehow implies that you are therefore the "reincarnation of Adolf Hitler" is truly indicative of the prolonged psychosis that is your signature. Oh, and, by the way: "MORAL people criticize Jewry's chronic hypocrisy (symbolized in modern racist Israel). IMMORAL people defend it." Not only that, but War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery! Re(7): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 14, 2003 at 00:33:06 AM by mg This is the Jewish game: you insist upon cornering me as a supporter of Adolf Hitler. I'm afraid to tell you that this stupid ploy is fast eroding. The current of those who criticize Jews and Israel today runs the entire ideological spectrum, from Left to Right. YOU SAY: You implicitly attempted to defend Hitler's position by complaining about his being portrayed as a "sub-human beast" whom had "absolutely no logical reason for his actions." RESPONSE: Hitler is human the way Ariel Sharon is human. that YOU SAY: You manifestly suggest that there must BE some logical reason for his exteriminating millions of defenseless people. RESPONSE: You enormously twist what I say. Complaining about someone and mass murder aren't the same things. Your inane posturing decrees that these two things are the same -- and this is indeed the Jewish Collective's decree. YOU SAY: The only problem is that there IS no logical reason to exterminate millions of defenseless people, unless you buy into the Nazis loony racial theories. RESPONSE: Again, public acrimony towards Jewish hegemony in the Weimar Republic is not an equivilant of mass murder. The issue, again, which you REFUSE to admit, is that there were LEGITIMATE gripes against Jews in Europe. That, of itself, is NOT mass murder. If you honestly want to understand the origin of Adolf Hitler, and "anti-Semitism," you will try to fathom what his complaints were. This is NOT the same thing as an endorsement of murder. You equate an honest investigation into history with crimes against Jews. And that's bullshit. Again, Jews don't want to know what the European "anti-Semitic" complaint was. And, I assure you, it was vast. And reasonable. Today Jews forbid ANY discussion about it. "Anti-semites are lunatics." That's the beginning, middle, and end of ALL Jewish queries into the subject. YOU SAY: And your claim that noting this somehow implies that you are therefore the "reincarnation of Adolf Hitler" is truly indicative of the prolonged psychosis that is your signature. RESPONSE: Your "psychosis" is an inability to reason and moralize about the various confluents of human history, short of blanket smears, insults, defamation, and condemnation. YOU SAY: Oh, and, by the way: "MORAL people criticize Jewry's chronic hypocrisy (symbolized in modern racist Israel). IMMORAL people defend it." Not only that, but War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery! RESPONSE: Thank you for the concluding seguey. The "War is Peace..." etc. phrase is of course from George Orwell's 1984, in his great work against totalitarianism. We face such totalitarianism today, in the Jewish Power Network's censorial dictates about "anti-Semitism." Alas, some Jewish critics have also declared that Orwell himself has written some "anti-semitic" writings, and we document this at our web site. The Jewish hunt for "anti-Semites" is everywhere, and in Jewry's own conspiratorial premise about anti-Jewish hostility, it is the obverse of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Re(8): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 14, 2003 at 01:14:34 AM by Mitchell Levine Jews don't have to hunt for anti-Semites, all they have to do is log onto www.jewishtribalreview.org. The history of European anti-Semitism is based on simple religous bigotry, the consequence of direct teachings by the church of that era. Your claiming that there could be a logical reason to commit genocide suggests that there are reasonable motivators for this act. There aren't. And your claim that there was "Jewish Hegenomy" in a nation that had a Christian state church is ridiculous. Your definition of "hegemony" is anyone Jewish in the government. People of any other description can exist in the government in any proportion, it's only "hegemony" if they are Jewish. This is very similar to the Nuremburg Laws, where if 10% of an industry is Jewish, that industry is said to be "dominated" by the Jews. The fact that 90% of an industry is non-Jewish is irrelevant. In fact, the end goal of all social policy should be the minimization of the Jewish population, because Jews are scum because they don't believe in Christ. That is the philosophy that nourished the enviroment which eventually produced the Nazis. It has nothing to do with anything Jews actually did. Like a very wise (non-Jewish) man once said, "the Jews aren't hated because they have evil qualities; evil qualities are sought in them because they are hated." And, very relevant to you, Jenks, another one said, "Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools." Re(8): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 14, 2003 at 01:16:47 PM by George Shelps Again, Jews don't want to know what the European "anti-Semitic" complaint was. And, I assure you, it was vast. And reasonable. ___This is the heart of your propagandistic poison. There was and is no legitimate basis for anti-Semitism. Germany was flattened by the burdens of the Treaty of Versailles, out-of-control inflation during the 20s, and the Great Depression the 30s....Hitler exploited all these issues as well as the threat from Bolshevism. He was not elected on the basis of his "reasonable" or "vast" criticism of the Jews. In fact, his protege and close adviser Albert Speer wrote that he---and many of Hitler supporters---ignored his ranting about the Jews. They thought it would pass once he was in power and that it was nothing more than overheated rhetoric. Re(9): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 14, 2003 at 01:30:27 PM by George Shelps In fact, the end goal of all social policy should be the minimization of the Jewish population, because Jews are scum because they don't believe in Christ. That is the philosophy that nourished the enviroment which eventually produced the Nazis. It has nothing to do with anything Jews actually did. ___No, you're not quite right. The opposition to Judaism that came from the Christian Church did not produce Hitler's anti-Semitism. Jews had learned to live with that prejudice. It did not advocate murder. Nazi anti-Semitism was sui generis---a type unto itself. It was based on a crackpot theory of "Aryan" superiority and it sought to "purify" the race by removing biologically "inferior" beings...the Jews, yes, but also the Slavs. Eventually, it would have removed the Christian Church, too. The CIA held in its files for decades a written Nazi plan to decimate the Church once Germany had won the war. The documents have finally been unsealed and are available on Rutgers University's website. The Church's strong oppositionism to Judaism certainly can't be defended--and it has finally been repudiated. It could have used its power to oppose Hitler and saved Jesus's own people. But like all of the Western world, it was cowed by the German dictator and fearful of war. finally Re(9): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 14, 2003 at 11:18:26 PM by mg YOU SAY: The history of European anti-Semitism is based on simple religous bigotry, the consequence of direct teachings by the church of that era. RESPONSE: Your response is fraudulent, at every level. Jewish Tribal Review itemizes all the social factors that caused anti-Jewish hostility. I'll also add that Judaism traditionally teaches "bigotry" against all other faiths. We document this too at our web site. YOU SAY: Your claiming that there could be a logical reason to commit genocide suggests that there are reasonable motivators for this act. There aren't. RESPONSE: Again, yours is the pickpocket's sleight-of-hand. Posting "logical reasons" for anti-Jewish hostility throughout history isn't the same as advocating genocide. And you know that. But if you can demonize anyone who criticizes Jews, without arguing anything really, it makes your life a whole lot easier. YOU SAY: And your claim that there was "Jewish Hegenomy" in a nation that had a Christian state church is ridiculous. RESPONSE: I have posted earlier at this forum some of the intriguing facts about Jewish dominance in the arts, movies, publishing, and general culture of the German Weimar Republic. Read them. Then read about the Jewish vanguard of the communist party that was widely perceived as subverting German nationalism. Then read the rest of Jewish Tribal Review. YOU SAY: Your definition of "hegemony" is anyone Jewish in the government. RESPONSE: You made this "definition" ought of thin air, as usual. YOU SAY: This is very similar to the Nuremburg Laws ... [blah blah blah] RESPONSE: Again, your creed: Criticize Jews? You're a Nazi. YOU SAY: In fact, the end goal of all social policy should be the minimization of the Jewish population, because Jews are scum because they don't believe in Christ. RESPONSE: Where do you get this stuff? Maybe this is Shelps' ultimate fantasy (he's a Christian Zionist), but not mine. YOU SAY: That is the philosophy that nourished the enviroment which eventually produced the Nazis. It has nothing to do with anything Jews actually did. RESPONSE: Like most Jews, declaring that Jews played no role whatsoever in the growth of "anti-Semitism" is Jewry's secular religion. YOU SAY: Like a very wise (non-Jewish) man once said, "the Jews aren't hated because they have evil qualities; evil qualities are sought in them because they are hated." RESPONSE: One of the foundations of modern Jewish identity today is to "hate" "anti-Semites." What is an "anti-Semite?" Someone who Jews hate. YOU SAY: And, very relevant to you, Jenks, another one said, "Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools." RESPONSE: August Bebel said that. He said that because most of the prominent Leftists in Europe (not just Rightists) were criticial of Jewry. Now, why would that be that everyone across the political spectrum were pointing out Jewish bigotry? Re(10): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 15, 2003 at 00:02:59 AM by Mitchell Levine Very true, George, but nonetheless one can easily see the roots of genocidal intent in Luther's Von Der Juden und iher Leugen. It doesn't seem like much of a strain to believe that Luther, whose credo was 'pec fortier' anyhow, could easily have been down with the Final Solution on that basis. Personally I feel that the theory stressed in Hitler's Willing Executioners is just a little bit of an over-heated fantasy on Goldhagen's part, however. I don't believe that most of the Christian denominations or Germans in general would have willfully chosen extermination. Interestingly enough, there seems to be a real rennaisance of interest in Jewish culture in Deutschland today. On the other hand, this WAS a population that was willing to accept the "stab in the back" theory to save face after losing WWI. That's pretty desperate. Did you get a load of Jenks' idea that Hitler's programme was justified by "Jewish hegemony" undermining German Nationalism? Yeah - undermining that German Nationalism would have been a real loss to the world! Just ask the French! Of course we know you're not a Nazi, Jenks: You're black. He would have exterminated you as an Untermenschen. Your rejection of National Socialism is truly a moral victory on your part! Re(11): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 15, 2003 at 11:38:25 AM by George Shelps Very true, George, but nonetheless one can easily see the roots of genocidal intent in Luther's Von Der Juden und iher Leugen. ___Luther's text is extremely hostile and violent but is still in the context of theological hostility. The Jewish rejection of Christ infuriated him to the point of his advocating a violent response to what he deemed to be blasphemy. There is no connection to the Nazi doctrine of Jewish genetic inferiority or of the superiority of the Aryan "Master Race." The theological animus exhibited by Luther can't be defended, however, and the Christian Church has repudiated it. Re(12): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 15, 2003 at 12:03:24 AM by Mitchell Levine George, I didn't say Luther WAS a Nazi, only that you could see him as a precursor. Obviously he didn't prefigure the Nazi's ideology in all of its extremity. I'm not blaming the Church for the Holocaust, other than the small role they played - turning a blind eye, in some cases. Re(13): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 15, 2003 at 05:42:01 PM by George Shelps I didn't say Luther WAS a Nazi, only that you could see him as a precursor. Obviously he didn't prefigure the Nazi's ideology in all of its extremity. ___I still don't accept the idea that Luther was a "precursor" of Nazism. Germany and the Jews co-existed for 100s of years after Luther. There was anti-Semitism, but nothing resembling Nazism. I read Goldhagen's book, which purports to find "eliminationist" anti-Semitism in Germany just waiting for a Hitler. The Final Solution was carried out in relative secret in a police state where the average German was wise to look the other way and keep his mouth shut. As Irving Kristol (I believe) wrote, "No Hitler, no Holocaust." Re(14): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 16, 2003 at 00:10:14 AM by mg My dear Mr. Shelps. As a Christian Zionist, if you took the time to educate yourself about Jewish conviction about Christianity, you'd quickly get out of bed with him. Jews loathe Christianity. Re(14): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 16, 2003 at 01:16:25 AM by Anonymous I was only referring to Martin Luther's own personal convictions - I didn't say the Lutheran CHURCH proselytized Nazism. In fact, many theological commentators within the church have said that they feel his works were specifically racist. They repudiated his anti-Jewish writings, and produced Davey and Goliath. How could I have anything bad to say about them? Re(15): Prime Example: the Jewish Censorial Ftration system Posted on May 16, 2003 at 01:41:30 AM by George Shelps My dear Mr. Shelps. As a Christian Zionist, if you took the time to educate yourself about Jewish conviction about Christianity, you'd quickly get out of bed with him. Jews loathe Christianity __I have known some that do, and I have known of Jews who respect and even privately mention Jesus in their prayers. There is no monolithic position on Christiantiy on the part of Jews, based on my personal experience and readings...you simply focus on the most hostile statements you can find for use on your hate site. Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 12, 2003 at 11:34:55 PM by MG Hot off the press from the April issue of Vanity Fair (which also includes articles about Jewish mogul Charles Feldman, etc.) Fraser-Cavasson, Natasha. Spiegel's Mighty Shadow, Vanity Fair, April 2003, p. 304 [Sam Spiegel was the producer of The African Queen, Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai, On the Waterfront, etc.] p. 308 "An avid Zionist, [producer Sam Spigel] left in 1920 for Palestine, where he met his first wife, Rachel 'Ray' Agronovich, with whom he had a daughter, Alisa. In 1927, Speigel walked out on his wife and daughter and sailed for the United States ... The following year, he was arrested by the Secret Service in Los Angeles and jailed on charges of illegal immigration and falsifying checks. In 1930, after a brief stint in MGM, he was deported to Poland. Over the next decade, he would hop from city to city, running into trouble with the law everywhere he went, but also producing movies in Berlin, Vienna, and London and forging connections to the international film community. In 1939 he illegally re-entered the United States from Mexico and settled in Los Angeles ... Much was made of the female company that was found at [Spiegel's] North Crescent Drive [home]. Orson Welles referred to the prostitutes he met there, and Marilyn Monroe was known to be one of the house 'gals.' In her memoirs, the actress Evelyn Keyes, John Hutton's third wife, mentioned seeing Monroe at Spiegel's, and it is possible that Spiegel introduced Monroe to her mentor, the agent Johnny Hyde, who was a close friend of the producer's ... 'He was an inspired pimp,' said the writer Budd Schulberg. 'He could create those very high-class mosh pits. Women were looking for acting jobs and it was knee up the ladder.'" p. 308, "Director Billy Wilder [also Jewish], who was a friend, called Spiegel 'a modern-day Robin Hood, who steals from the rich and steals from the poor.'" p. 320, "In September 1961, [Lawrence of Arabia director David] Lean finally finished the Jordan shoot and agreed to leave the desert, but he remained convinced that it was a mistake to go to Spain, and felt it had everything to do with too many Hollywood dollars going into Arab hands.' [Spiegel was the producer of Lawrence of Arabia.] p. 321, "Spiegel was intent on making Peter O'Toole the focus of Lawrence of Arabia's American promotion, and consequently refused to fly Omar Sharif to the U.S. But O'Toole balked when he heard the plan. 'He said, 'Bollocks,' and he meant it,' Sharif recalled. 'Omar is going and we're going together.'" Re(1): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 13, 2003 at 06:28:46 PM by Mitchell Levine Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Obviously, this guy is as representative of all Jewish producers (and, in your mind, I'm sure all Jews) just like Ken Lay and the rest of the rogue CEOs at Tyco, Global Crossing, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, etc. are of all gentiles. Oh yeah, I forgot: They didn't kill Christ! Re(2): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 13, 2003 at 08:44:37 PM by MG Alas, you are not reading my earlier posts. No surprise. Global Crossing was founded and headed by Gary Winnick. He is Jewish. Andrew Fastow and his wife are central players in the Enron scandal. They are Jewish. George Soros just caught for some naughtiness in France, etc. etc. etc. (Yes, we've got lists of some of this stuff at our web site. There's much, much more.) Tyco and the rest I'd have to research, but Jews, as 2.5% of the American population should (with all things being equal) be represented in about 1 in 40 major scandals. (For that matter, if Jews represented 1 in 40 major Hollywood players, they'd have their fair share.) Re(2): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 13, 2003 at 10:52:46 PM by George Shelps With respect to Sam Spiegel, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, which he produced, portrays the Arabs respectfully and sometimes nobly and heroically...and also shows how the Arabs were let down by the Allies after helping us defeat the Turks... Re(3): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 13, 2003 at 08:56:11 PM by Anonymous The head of the entire Enron scandal was non-Jewish and the overwhelming majority of the execs being prosecuted for the malfeasance are also non-Jewish, and you still try to blame the Jews. Typical. Re(3): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 13, 2003 at 11:08:14 PM by mg The article notes that Spiegel was 1) an avid anti-Arab Zionist, 2) corrupt, 3) a "pimp" of sorts. Director David Lean felt that Spiegel demanded the filming be cut short in Jordan because he (Spiegel) didn't want to give Arabs any more money. And it was Peter O'Toole who demanded that Egyptian Omar Sharif come to share in the awards gravy with him. Not Spiegel, who was an anti-Arab bigot. David Lean respected Arabs. Not Spiegel, who was interested in making a buck. (The article notes that Spiegel never even read up about T. E. Lawrence). The article underscores the fact that Lean and Spiegel were ALWAYS warring. Lean created the film. Spiegel was the "pimp." Re(4): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 13, 2003 at 09:48:57 PM by MG I QUOTE: "[FASTOW] was again named in the latest indictments that charge him with MASTERMINDING THE ACCOUNTING FRAUD that cost investors billions of dollars." http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-enron02.html Enron's crime family?, by William McQuillen, Chicago Sun-Times, May 2, 2003 "The U.S. widened its investigation into Enron Corp., adding 31 charges against ex-Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow and accusing his wife as well as former Enron Treasurer Ben Glisan and eight other former executives of taking part in a fraud that destroyed the company. The indictments bring the total to 19 in the government's probe of one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history, one that wiped out $68 billion in the energy trader's market value ... Fastow's wife, Lea Weingarten Fastow<, who also worked at Enron as it rose to become the seventh-biggest company in the United States, was accused of fraud, taking part in a money-laundering conspiracy and filing false tax returns. Her husband, who was indicted in October and has pleaded innocent, was again named in the latest indictments that charge him with masterminding the accounting fraud that cost investors billions of dollars. Fastow, 41, the highest-ranking Enron executive to be charged, was accused of 109 counts in the new indictment, up from 78 previous charges ... Lea Fastow, heir to a Houston grocery store and real estate fortune, met her husband during their first year at Tufts University." Re(4): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 14, 2003 at 00:59:28 AM by George Shelps The article notes that Spiegel was 1) an avid anti-Arab Zionist, 2) corrupt, 3) a "pimp" of sorts. Director David Lean felt that Spiegel demanded the filming be cut short in Jordan because he (Spiegel) didn't want to give Arabs any more money. __What does that have to do the fact that Spiegel produced a movie that presented the Arab cause in WW1 in a positive light? And it was Peter O'Toole who demanded that Egyptian Omar Sharif come to share in the awards gravy with him. ___Sharif won an Oscar from the "control group," O'Toole didn't. Not Spiegel, who was an anti-Arab bigot. David Lean respected Arabs. Not Spiegel, who was interested in making a buck. (The article notes that Spiegel never even read up about T. E. Lawrence). ___All producers are interested in "making a buck." It's a business position, not an artistic one. But here he "made a buck" with a film that is positive about Arabs. The article underscores the fact that Lean and Spiegel were ALWAYS warring. Lean created the film. Spiegel was the "pimp." __They were "warring" over costs, not the message of the film. Re(5): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 13, 2003 at 09:54:28 PM by MG If anyone wants some nice easy reading, and who doubts Jewish prominence in various sorts of fraudster realms, you'll find dozens of online links to articles about Jewish fraudsters at: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/criart.htm This category is Jewish fraudsters in the art world. Replace CRIART in the URL address with the following for more categories: crigov.htm crihist.htm criint.htm criisr.htm crim crime2.htm crime3.htm crimmisc.htm criruss.htm criporn.htm Shalom! Re(5): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 14, 2003 at 01:11:46 AM by mg I agree with you on one point: if Sam Spiegel could have made a buck making a positive film about Osama Bin-Laden, he'd do it. Re(6): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 13, 2003 at 11:25:57 PM by Mitchell Levine Now how about some links demonstrating that there aren't an equally proportionate number of "fraudsters" of every other description, or that Jews are any more likely to be fraudsters than anyone else, or that the theory that "if if a gentile does something wrong, it's just that individual's fault, but if a Jew does sonething wrong, it's all Jew's fault" is somehow justifiable? Or for that matter, that posting long lists of various real or imagined offenses you believe to be the fault of Jews accomplishes anything other than attempt to stigmatize all Jews for things done by a few and scapegoat a traditional social outgroup, as if you couldn't equally do that for any group of people, especially considering the fact that you could post even longer list of Jews who have done wonderful things for society like discover Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, and a vastly disporportionate number of other Nobel Prize-winning achievements, cure Polio, etc. Or that because Jewish achievements make you jealous that Jews are therefore any less entitled to their success, regardless of their differing religious heritage. Or that publishing long lists of Jews successful in, say, technology, means that Jews are statistically "over-represented" in that field or that statistical over-representation means that a minority "dominates" a particular field, regardless of the fact that they are still a minority in that field. Or that the Constitution guarantees that various fields of endeavour must be "porportionately" representative of the ethnic balance of the nation at large, thereby justifying quota systems. Or explain why "over-representation" by Jews in a field like technology is to be held as undesirable when apparently you have no concern about the Irish, for example, being "over-represented" in the police force, regardless of the fact that numerous police officers have been proven to be in violation of their duties with regard to minorities. Or why that Greeks are not to be feared because of their "domination" and "control" and "over-representation" in the food services field, especially given their "influence" in higher education with their organized propaganda systems called "drama" and "philosophy." Or, most especially, a link to whatever suggestions you feel would represent how you feel the situation should actually be dealt with. Re(6): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 14, 2003 at 02:41:06 AM by George Shelps I agree with you on one point: if Sam Spiegel could have made a buck making a positive film about Osama Bin-Laden, he'd do it ___As usual, when you're losing an argument, you fall back on cheap sarcasm. Truth is, the producing function in films is a strictly business proposition and to try to tar Spiegel for wanting to "make a buck" applies to every producer who ever made a film, Jewish or not. I should point out to you---since you're quite ignorant about films---that Spiegel's productions were often top-of-the-line. He produced John Huston's THE AFRICAN QUEEN, Elia Kazan's ON THE WATERFRONT, and Lean's BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI to name three classics besides LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Spiegel made a positive contribution to film history and doesn't deserve being slandered as a "pimp." Re(7): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 14, 2003 at 00:14:17 AM by mg Also read this about the history of "Jewish" crime, and how incredibly widespread it has been: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/09crime.htm and this about Jewish domination of the turn-of-the century international prostitution trade: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/10whsla.htm Why Jews? It's an interesting question isn't it? Why is it Jews who ran the prostitution trade, why do Jews dominate the American smut industry, why do Jews run Hollywood, why do Jews dominate the "Russian" mafia, why were Jews central in the construction of Las Vegas, why was it a Jew (Lansky) who created the greatest crime syndicate in American history, why Jews who were so influential in international communism, why Jews who dominated the communist totalitarian secret police (the "cheka"), why were Jews so influential in bringing the narcotics trade to America, and on and on and on. What's your answer, Mr. Levine? Coincidence? Oh, yes! I forgot those beloved Jewish Nobel Prize Winners, which are stapled like a mezzuzah over the door of virtually every Jewish household! THEY define the Jewish reality, not the porno barons. It is not the Irish who dominate the above, nor the French, the Senegalese, nor Guatemalans. Comparing disproportionate numbers of "Irish police" (you're from New York?) with disproportionate numbers of Jewish pornographers and Russian mafia figures isn't, uh, quite the same thing. In fact, they're on opposite poles of the spectrum. Yeah. Jewish scientists have done good things for society: like their central work in giving humankind the atom bomb (Teller, Oppenheimer, etc. etc.) Jews are hustlers, whether it's in making today's best-selling porno movie or climbing to the top in some "Nobel Prize" field, isn't that true, Mr. Levine? Jews like you refuse to face the profound current of dual morality intrinsic in the traditional Jewish moral system (one standard for Jews, another for non-Jews) and corruption that have buoyed their community throughout history. Are all Jews corrupt? Of course not. But if you want to understand "anti-Semitism" (which you don't) you will have to confront the profound Jewish influence in the ugly underbelly of much of society's evils. You want to cure the world of "anti-Semitism?" Reflect hard, Mr. Levine. Calling moralists "anti-Semites" and "Nazis" isn't going to cut it for much longer. Face honestly what must be faced. Then we can all come to terms with justice for everybody and move on. Re(7): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 14, 2003 at 11:48:42 PM by mg YOU SAY: As usual, when you're losing an argument, you fall back on cheap sarcasm. RESPONSE: What sarcasm? I'm serious. I am reiterating your fundamental premise: a producer makes films to make money. You agree with this. Where does "sarcasm" come from? YOU SAY: Truth is, the producing function in films is a strictly business proposition and to try to tar Spiegel for wanting to "make a buck" applies to every producer who ever made a film, Jewish or not. RESPONSE: Probably true. And most are Jewish. Spiegel had a long history as a scamster and crook. YOU SAY: I should point out to you---since you're quite ignorant about films RESPONSE: If you read Jewish Tribal REview's Mass Media section, you'd find that I am very knowledgeable about films. YOU SAY: ---that Spiegel's productions were often top-of-the-line. He produced John Huston's THE AFRICAN QUEEN, Elia Kazan's ON THE WATERFRONT, and Lean's BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI to name three classics besides LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. RESPONSE: Not only do I know this, I posted these films as examples of her work in my first post about him. Mr. Shelps, you are not even reading what I'm writing here, but are merely talking to your face in the mirror. That's not the way to grow. Except smaller. YOU SAY: Spiegel made a positive contribution to film history and doesn't deserve being slandered as a "pimp." RESPONSE: Director Billy Wilder (also Jewish) called him a "pimp." He was Spiegel's chum. I'll take his assessment over yours. Re(8): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 14, 2003 at 00:46:50 AM by Mitchell Levine I see, it's Jewish criminals and "porno barons" that are to be selected as the touchstone for characterizing Jews, and not Jewish scientists, doctors, writers, composers, philosophers, songwriters, engineers, and so forth. Well, for one, pornography is not a crime, nor is producing it. In fact, many people enjoy it, and while you may not - which I doubt highly - it doesn't change the fact that there is nothing identifiably "wrong" with it. Actually, the primary reason it exists historically is because it was bankrolled by the Italian Mafia, and still is largely today. And while Russian Jewish mobsters are some of the latest players on that scene, they do not compose anything even close to the largest proportion of mobsters, many more of whom are Italian, Asian, Black, and so on. In fact, most likely, the latter are responsible for a much larger proportion of society's "ills," by which J.J., of course, means anything he doesn't like, regardless of whether there is anything objectively immoral about it. Trying to blame society's ills on the Jews is a classic sign of trying to scapegoat an outgroup. It's interesting that you don't try to define Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and Black people in terms of the criminals amongst their people, of which there are many. This is a policy which you feel should be reserved for Jews, whom, according to your earlier post, you feel shouldn't even be regarded as "people." And, unlike every other segment of society, for whom it is perfectly acceptable to take pride in their group's heroes, it is a sign of "arrogance" when Jews do. What this appears to mean is that no matter what Jews do it is "wrong," and it is wrong exactly because it is being done by Jews. Why does anti-Semitism exist? Because people have a psychological need to blame others for their problems, and typically select outgroups on which to project them. And, of course, the Jews killed Christ! Re(8): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 15, 2003 at 02:13:21 AM by George Shelps YOU SAY: As usual, when you're losing an argument, you fall back on cheap sarcasm. RESPONSE: What sarcasm? I'm serious. I am reiterating your fundamental premise: a producer makes films to make money. You agree with this. Where does "sarcasm" come from? ___The sarcasm comes from your referencing Osama bin Laden. Since when does the desire to make money from movies---something the sponsor of this site has been trying to do for years--- automatically lead to making trashy pictures? Spiegel's movies were largely very distinguished films. YOU SAY: Truth is, the producing function in films is a strictly business proposition and to try to tar Spiegel for wanting to "make a buck" applies to every producer who ever made a film, Jewish or not. RESPONSE: Probably true. And most are Jewish. ___Yes, true. And are you opposed to film-making as a business proposition? Are you anti-capitalist? Spiegel had a long history as a scamster and crook. ___Maybe. But he still produced great and classic films. YOU SAY: I should point out to you---since you're quite ignorant about films RESPONSE: If you read Jewish Tribal REview's Mass Media section, you'd find that I am very knowledgeable about films. ___I can take only so much of your site at one go. But I will take a look at your alleged expertise. YOU SAY: ---that Spiegel's productions were often top-of-the-line. He produced John Huston's THE AFRICAN QUEEN, Elia Kazan's ON THE WATERFRONT, and Lean's BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI to name three classics besides LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. RESPONSE: Not only do I know this, I posted these films as examples of her work in my first post about him. Mr. Shelps, you are not even reading what I'm writing here, but are merely talking to your face in the mirror. That's not the way to grow. Except smaller. ___The fact that Spiegel produced these films speaks well for him. Are you prepared to concede that Spiegel was a first-class producer? YOU SAY: Spiegel made a positive contribution to film history and doesn't deserve being slandered as a "pimp." RESPONSE: Director Billy Wilder (also Jewish) called him a "pimp." He was Spiegel's chum. I'll take his assessment over yours. __I doubt that he meant it the way you mean it. Re(8): Another Jewish Film Producer Posted on May 15, 2003 at 02:53:07 AM by George Shelps If you read Jewish Tribal REview's Mass Media section, you'd find that I am very knowledgeable about films. ____I looked it over. It's just your standard collection of articles with a negative spin about Jews---which you call "research." I doubt that you're qualified to comment on film history. The truth is, the American movie industry is one of this country's greatest contributions to world culture in the 20th century, and Jews played a major part in creating it. Your attack on Sam Spiegel as "an anti-Arab" bigot disproves the "control group" hypothesis of FIRM, by the way. Because if Spiegel was part of this "control group," he never would have allowed such a pro-Arab movie as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA to be made. And don't cite the profit-motive as the reason. Making a movie about T.E. Lawrence, a story without a romantic angle to appeal to women, depicting a World War I story about an Englishmen leading Arabs to victory over the Turks, was hardly a commercial slamdunk. It took great commercial courage to allow David Lean to spend years on this project which starred an unknown Peter O'Toole.

| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |