FIRM Discussions

May 14, 2003 - May 23, 2003

---

Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?

---

Re(9): Another Jewish Film Producer
Posted on May 14, 2003 at 01:06:15 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Well, for one, pornography is not a crime, nor is producing it.

RESPONSE: Exhibit A. You are Jewish. You defend it. It is not a "crime" because Jews have been instrumental in decriminalizing it.

YOU SAY: 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.

RESPONSE: Sex is not pornography. They are very different things. You seem to defend "pornography" categorically. You are Jewish. You are "liberal." You are one stereotype after another, it appears. Such is the ideology that celebrates the denigration of both sex and women.

YOU SAY: Actually, the primary reason it exists historically is because it was bankrolled by the Italian Mafia, and still is largely today.

RESPONSE: Bullshit. The research about this is posted at the links posted earlier. Does the name Ruben Sturman ring a bell? Probably not. You don't want to know about him.

YOU SAY: 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.

RESPONSE: Read the material at the links I posted earlier so you know what you are talking about. Also read Robert Friedman's book THE RED MAFIYA. (He's kosher: he's Jewish).

YOU SAY: 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.

RESPONSE: I don't like porno. I don't like crime. I don't like the list of corruption I posted earlier. Jews dominate that stuff. You still haven't answered me: Why?

YOU SAY: It's interesting that you don't try to define Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and Black people in terms of the criminals amongst their people,

RESPONSE: Chinese don't rule Hollywood, modern art, the publishing world, etc. etc. etc. Think before you write, please.

YOU SAY: 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."

RESPONSE: What a conniver you are! I list Kings, dictators, people, Jews, etc. and you conclude that I say Jews aren't people. Thereby kings aren't people, etc. Ad nauseum.

Since you have no real argument, except smears, you must conjure something out of air to demonize me. Standard Jewish assaultive fare.

YOU SAY: 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.

RESPONSE: You haven't read the link I posted for you. I know that you won't. Perhaps others will.

YOU SAY: 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!

RESPONSE: My, my! You really are obsessed by Jews killing Christ! You keep bringing that up. It's a peripheral issue for me, except to the degree that guys like you condemn Christians for believing something that Jews have always believed too (Read Toledoth Yeshu).

I can turn this around on you, of course: Jewish identity blames all others for their own failings. It is not an INDIVIDUAL pathology, but a COLLECTIVE one.




Re(10): Another Jewish Film Producer
Posted on May 14, 2003 at 01:36:27 AM by Mitchell Levine

J.J., you said "people censor, Jews censor" as if those were mutually exclusive categories!

Also, this is another example of your bullshit philosophy that if you post a link to someone saying something on the Internet, then you've proved it. As if there's nothing untrue on the Internet!

There is no such thing as "collective failings." Failures are due to individuals; blaming someone for the failings of another because they have something they may or may not have in common is in error.

There is no evidence that Jews are any more responsible for crime than anyone else, in fact, all evidence points to the Jewish crime rate as being low. There are many more people committing crime with the color of your skin than there are Jews, even controlling for demographic size. That embarassing fact probably is at the root of your need to try to deflect blame on Jews.

Also, you really should explain how modern art is in any way a dereliction of society other than the fact that you may not be intellectually capable of appreciating it. Exactly how has Marc Chagal made the world a worse place?

Pornography is not a crime because it is sexual activity participated in and watched by consenting adults. And if you think I believe that you've never watched pornography for pleasure, you're insane. All you are doing is admitting your hypocrisy for all the world to see.

And I've never met anyone Jewish whom believed that Jews have any collective responisibility for the death of Christ, nor is that the position of the Talmud, which would certainly not support the concept of "collective blame," let alone for the death of Christ. That's strictly the province of traditional church teachings, and flakes like you.



Re(11): Another Jewish Film Producer
Posted on May 14, 2003 at 01:42:40 AM by Mitchell Levine

By the way, J.J., have you ever brought your hate show to Washington Square Park in New York? I met a guy I thought sounded like you a few years ago there.





Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 16, 2003 at 00:46:46 AM by Moshe the Goyim

Here's a Catholic defense agency's take on Jewish revision of the CBS mini-series about Adolf Hitler. Note that Kitman, Redstone, Brickman, etc. etc. are all Jews, all defenders of free speech in ignoring Catholic protests.

Jews are afforded special privilege throughout popular culture in policing depictions of Jews in the mass media.

So, Shelps. Is this Catholic group "anti-Semitic" for daring to point out the chronic (Jewis-enforced) dual standard that exists in the mass media?

http://www.catholicleague.org/news.htm

HITLER MINISERIES EXPOSES DOUBLE STANDARD,
Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, May 14, 2003


"On May 18 and 20, CBS will air “Hitler: The Rise of Evil.” Catholic League president William Donohue issued the following statement today on the miniseries:

'From the first announcement of this made-for-TV movie, Jewish groups have been up in arms. Some questioned why it was necessary to do a TV portrait of Hitler while others wanted it squashed. Given what Jews endured in Nazi Germany, their response makes sense. But what galls the Catholic League is the double standard that is at work. For example, when the Catholic League objected to the ABC show ‘Nothing Sacred,’ we were blasted by Marvin Kitman of Newsday for doing so. Yet when he first learned of the miniseries, Kitman declared—sight unseen—‘I am so against this Hitler movie in advance.’ Why doesn’t he take his own advice and lighten up—it’s just a flick! Just turn the channel! “What Jewish groups feared most was the possibility that the movie might ‘humanize’ Hitler. That is why they pressured CBS from the get-go: not until they were satisfied with the film would they back off. And they got what they wanted. The original script, met with disapproval, was scrapped altogether. A new screenwriter was hired and reliance on the Ian Kershaw biography of Hitler was scaled back. But this wasn’t all. CBS will even go so far as to issue public service announcements during the telecast to promote tolerance. The network will also make a generous donation to a Holocaust-related charity. These are the kinds of somersaults the networks are capable of doing. For some. “CBS is owned by Viacom, the same company that owns Showtime. Two years ago, we protested the incredibly anti-Catholic Showtime film ‘Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All.’ Not only did Viacom chief Sumner Redstone not respond to our concerns, the movie’s director, Marshall Brickman, justified the attack on Catholicism by saying the Church ‘deserves to be the butt of a couple of jokes.’ That’s quite an understatement, given the maliciousness of the film. “The bottom line from Hollywood is: Catholics deserve to be bashed and Jews deserve special treatment. All this from the dons of inclusiveness.”



Re(1): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 16, 2003 at 01:22:42 AM by Mitchell Levine

Brickman WAS being insensitive to Catholics with that.

However, the situations aren't precisely parallel: Sister Mary Ignatius never exterminated anyone. That's a slightly different taste barrier.

And I have a six-inch scar on my forearm from a nun in Catholic school


Re(1): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 16, 2003 at 01:33:35 AM by George Shelps

So, Shelps. Is this Catholic group "anti-Semitic" for daring to point out the chronic (Jewis-enforced) dual standard that exists in the mass media?

___Of course not! And they raise a legitmate point: Catholic-bashing ~is~
too widely tolerated in American society.

But Jewish groups have a right to
lobby for their points of view. It's
up to the network to stand firm if they
think they're in the right.

Listen, JJ, stop trying to hide your bigotry behind pointing out "double standards." Double standards and ethnocentricity are commonplace
and exist everywhere.




Re(2): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 16, 2003 at 02:17:39 AM by mg

YOU SAY: However, the situations aren't precisely parallel: Sister Mary Ignatius never exterminated anyone. That's a slightly different taste barrier.

RESPONSE: Jews ALWAYS decree that their life experience is SUPERIOR than all others. Their suffering is greater, "unique," special, different, more profound, more important. Jewish "taste" counts; everyone elses' pales in comparison. Isn't that so, Mr. Levine?

And if you've got a scar on your forearm from a nun (did she have bat wings?), I've got teeth marks on my back from a two-headed rabbi. Unique! Special! I'm STILL suffering from it! And I want reparations. Nothing can compare to this, I assure you.




Re(2): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 16, 2003 at 02:10:16 AM by mg

The point the Catholic League makes are the JEWISH double standards in the mass media AND its amazing POWER to enforce them. Jews, entrenched in Hollywood, shaft Catholics (and everyone else) regularly. This is the essence of the Catholic League complaint. Read it again.

Why do you incessantly refuse to face what is staring at you? Stop kissing Jewish butt and try to grasp what Christianity is -- DISTINCT from Judaism.

Why are you a puppet for Levine? Can't you think for yourself?



Re(3): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 16, 2003 at 03:21:14 AM by Mitchell Levine

Everyone claims their life experience is different, special, profound, etc. That's a human universal. That's why they say things like: "There's two types of people: Greeks and people who wish they were Greek"; "it's a black thing you just wouldn't understand"; "the Russian people have always suffered," and so forth. That's why the omnipotent, transcendant Hindu gods look remarkably like Indian mortals, and The Aryans named themselves "the noble ones." No one ever says: "my people are a bunch of boring, stupid, worthless piles of horsecrap whom have experienced little and accomplished nothing other than living off welfare and smoking crack."

The Sister Mary Ignatius character does not represent an actual historical figure whom did in fact exterminate millions, which is quite a separate matter of taste. Making fun of transsubstantiation is an entirely different broadcast risk than trivializing someone who brutally slaughtered viewers' relatives, thus slightly altering network perceptions of appropriate protocol and audience sensibilities. That's what the question is about, not who gets the most sympathy, Jews for their historical persecution, or you, for your maladaptive personality disorders.

By the way - NO ONE bitches and moans more about historical suffering than your co-racialists, and that atrocity isn't even within the memory of anyone alive today.

And the good nun's name was Sister Faith, and taught at McQuaid High in Rochester, NY.


Re(4): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 17, 2003 at 01:18:15 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Everyone claims their life experience is different, special, profound, etc. That's a human universal.

RESPONSE: But not everyone has the power to enforce their respective suffering ("Holocaust") as the benchmark for western civilization.

YOU SAY: That's why they say things like: "There's two types of people: Greeks and people who wish they were Greek"; "it's a black thing you just wouldn't understand"; "the Russian people have always suffered," and so forth. That's why the omnipotent, transcendant Hindu gods look remarkably like Indian mortals, and The Aryans named themselves "the noble ones." No one ever says: "my people are a bunch of boring, stupid, worthless piles of horsecrap whom have experienced little and accomplished nothing other than living off welfare and smoking crack."

REPONSE: No, but not every ethnic group prances around as the self-anointed "chosen people" with money and media to enforce its own self-promoting mythologies.

YOU SAY: The Sister Mary Ignatius character does not represent an actual historical figure whom did in fact exterminate millions, which is quite a separate matter of taste. Making fun of transsubstantiation is an entirely different broadcast risk than trivializing someone who brutally slaughtered viewers' relatives, thus slightly altering network perceptions of appropriate protocol and audience sensibilities.

RESPONSE: The issue is, was, and forever shall be Jewish censorship on this count, a convenience that no other ethnic group can match. There is also the Armenian genocide by the Turks, the Irish potato famine (inspired by the British), the Jewish-inspired communist destruction of tens of millions of people under Soviet rule, etc. etc. etc.

None of these are codified as a secular sacrament in the same way as Jewry's "Holocaust." And why is that? Because of Jewish collective influence in the mass media, government, advocacy groups, the education system (everyone's a "hater" except Jews, of course), etc., ad nauseum.

YOU SAY: That's what the question is about, not who gets the most sympathy, Jews for their historical persecution, or you, for your maladaptive personality disorders.

RESPONSE: The question is about Jewish censorship, as always, and their power to steer western culture down the roads that are most suitable to Jewish ethnocentrism.

YOU SAY: By the way - NO ONE bitches and moans more about historical suffering than your co-racialists, and that atrocity isn't even within the memory of anyone alive today.

RESPONSE: Who, or what, are you talking about? Please name exactly who you are defaming. Don't hide behind ambiguities.

YOU SAY: And the good nun's name was Sister Faith, and taught at McQuaid High in Rochester, NY.

RESPONSE: The rabbi with two heads was named Rabbi Robber. He ran a bookie joint and bagel fencing operation in Queens.



Re(5): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 02:13:10 PM by Mitchell Levine

Sorry, Jenks, but the Jews' status as The Chosen People is hardly "self-appointed" - it says so right in The Old Testament, which, as a "Christian," you should know.

The Holocaust IS a benchmark for human sufering, but no one claims it's the ONLY one. Your complaint was that Jews think that their life experience is special and unique, something which they quite simply share with everyone on Earth.

Your specific antisemitic bitch was about the Jews' supposed attitude of uniqueness: "Jews always think their suffering is worse than other peoples." That's what I was responding to. The Jews' mystical power to control everything is a separate issue.

Lots of media projects focussing on other peoples' suffering exist, hence ROOTS, Sarafina, millions of flicks on Vietnam, The Last Emperor, Ghosts of Mississippi, etc.

Stalin's purge was in no way inspired by Jews, and the U.S.S.R was the most anitsemitic of realms, even denying native-born Russians the status of citizen on the count of Jewishness. In that country, if your parents were Jewish, your nationality was "Jewish," even if you 're a third-generation Muscovite.

Blaming the Communist Revolution on the Jews is another of your lame,stupid, ignorant horseshit antisemitic myths, and it has been debunked so many times, it's ridiculous. Of course, the rule of the Tsars was so wonderful that I'm sure the Russians should greatly miss them.

Censorship is about a denial of rights, which you have not demonstrated in any way. Every group tries to steer society to their own benefit, just like you, for example, try to steer society to benefit moronic, bigoted assholes. Unfortunately for you, being a moronic, bigoted asshole, you are completely incompetent to do so, and will accomplish nothing. Racist whining on obscure websites is pretty much the most you'll ever achieve - unless your government benefits run out and prevent you from paying off AOL.

I'm sure you have a future on that high-rollin' bagel-fencing black market though.






Re(6): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 05:50:27 PM by George Shelps

Sorry, Jenks, but the Jews' status as The Chosen People is hardly "self-appointed" - it says so right in The Old Testament, which, as a "Christian," you should know.

___Not only that, but if the Jews
weren't the "Chosen People," then
Christians would not be able
to regard Jesus as the Christ---i.e.
the Messiah.

Of course, through Jesus---as Christians believe---all the peoples of the world
share in the Jewish "chosen-ness."




Re(6): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 11:42:22 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Sorry, Jenks, but the Jews' status as The Chosen People is hardly "self-appointed" - it says so right in The Old Testament, which, as a "Christian," you should know.

RESPONSE: Sorry. You're not talking to someone who thinks God wrote the Old Testament. Jews did.

YOU SAY: The Holocaust IS a benchmark for human sufering, but no one claims it's the ONLY one.

RESPONSE: Jewish convention holds that the Holocaust is "unique." This is documented at our web site at length, and I haven't got the time to post all the citations for you.

YOU SAY: Your complaint was that Jews think that their life experience is special and unique, something which they quite simply share with everyone on Earth.

RESPONSE: You never respond to what exactly I say. The issue is that Jewish power is such that their influence codifies the "Holocaust" as sacred for everyone.

YOU SAY: Your specific antisemitic bitch was about the Jews' supposed attitude of uniqueness: "Jews always think their suffering is worse than other peoples." That's what I was responding to. The Jews' mystical power to control everything is a separate issue.

RESPONSE: One of the keys to Jewish identity is a huge collective chip on the shoulder: "We Jews suffer from 'anti-Semitic' hatred, always.'

YOU SAY: Lots of media projects focussing on other peoples' suffering exist, hence ROOTS, Sarafina, millions of flicks on Vietnam, The Last Emperor, Ghosts of Mississippi, etc.

RESPONSE: There have been over 170 Hollywood films about the Holocaust. Please try and be rational with your arguments.

YOU SAY: Stalin's purge was in no way inspired by Jews,

RESPONSE: Of course it was, and we document this in detail at Jewish Tribal Review.


YOU SAY: and the U.S.S.R was the most anitsemitic of realms,

RESPONSE: This is Jewish obessessive myth. Some of Stalin's closest bodyguards were Jews, the number 2 man (just behind him) was Jewish, his daughter married a Jew, and there are even substantial rumors that Stalin's mistress was Jewish. And on and on and on. See the Jewish Tribal Review for citations about all this.

YOU SAY: even denying native-born Russians the status of citizen on the count of Jewishness. In that country, if your parents were Jewish, your nationality was "Jewish," even if you 're a third-generation Muscovite.

RESPONSE: Big deal. If your mother, her mother (i.e., one-fourth of your grandparents), her mother (mathematically even a smaller percentage of great-grandparents), and so forth were Jewish, and no one else was in your genealogical lineage was Jewish, then by traditional Jewish law you are Jewish. These racist games have a Jewish origin. And you know it.

YOU SAY: Blaming the Communist Revolution on the Jews is another of your lame,stupid, ignorant horseshit antisemitic myths,

RESPONSE: No. It is lame, stupid, and ignorant horseshit to dismiss the charge without offering any evidence that this is not so. We've documented this at length at Jewish Tribal Review.

YOU SAY: and it has been debunked so many times, it's ridiculous.

RESPONSE: No, it hasn't. Many, many JEWS reiterate your position here. But that's defensive propaganda. Jews flooded the Russian communist party. The details are at our web site.

YOU SAY: Of course, the rule of the Tsars was so wonderful that I'm sure the Russians should greatly miss them.

RESPONSE: Better to be replaced by Jewish-inspired communism, which murdered tens of millions of people, sure. Jews hated the Tsar because he tried to forcibly assimilate them into Russian culture and pull them out of the Yiddish subculture.

YOU SAY: Censorship is about a denial of rights, which you have not demonstrated in any way. Every group tries to steer society to their own benefit, just like you, for example, try to steer society to benefit moronic, bigoted assholes.

RESPONSE: Not true. I'm not trying to steer anything to benefit you.

YOU SAY: Unfortunately for you, being a moronic, bigoted asshole, you are completely incompetent to do so, and will accomplish nothing.

RESPONSE: Our web site is making really nice progress, thank you. We're hearing from thinkers across the political spectrum -- from Left to Right. And, yes, even Jews (granted only a trickle) who support the ideas at the web site.
You need to read the Jews to Islam web site, about a Jewish guy from New York who converted to Islam. Pretty interesting revelations.

YOU SAY: Racist whining on obscure websites is pretty much the most you'll ever achieve - unless your government benefits run out and prevent you from paying off AOL.

RESPONSE: We shall see what the future holds.

YOU SAY: I'm sure you have a future on that high-rollin' bagel-fencing black market though.

RESPONSE: Hey, you're stealing my line. Is nothing sacred to you?




Re(7): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 01:18:09 AM by Anonymous

Jenks, once again you desperately strain to make a remotely comprehensible rhetorical point despite your obviously debilitating intellectual limitations, and fail hilariously.

STOP TRYING TO THINK - you are simply not genetically equipped to do so! Get back to doing the only thing you can do with marginal competency: Posting stupid, rollicking piles of moronic horseshit on your inane hate site, and help discredit contemporary antisemitism by your unintentionally uproarious example as a self-parodying public laughing-stock.

For example, if you're a Christian, then the Bible says that the Jews were the Chosen People. You can not consistently deny the latter and profess the former. End of story. This is a matter of simple logical compatiblity. To try and bring this down to your conceptual level, a logical incompatiblity is when a person - in this case, that would be you - says one thing - like, for example, that the Jews are bad for saying they are the Chosen People - and then says something else - like that they are a Christian - that doesn't make sense because it contradicts the first thing they say - like, if you can still remember, that the Jews are bad because they say they're the Chosen People - because the Bible says so, which you putatively believe in, because you said you're a Christian!

Next, you could actually try reading the Bible! There's notes on the bottom of the page for when you get confused, and if all the hard words are too much for you, you can look at the pictures!

By the way, "Not true. I'm not trying to steer anything to benefit you." - I'm not a moronic, bigoted asshole, you are! PURE HILARITY!!!! Do you write for Woody Allen?

Oh wait - you can't, because Woody Allen writes for Woody Allen. And also you're an creatively untalented, pathetic loser, even by the standards of Jew-hating scum.

Remember, like Bernard Shaw would have said, had he enjoyed the opportunity to laugh his ass off at the incomparable jollity of your self-humiliating persona: "those who can do; those who can't, run retarded, incompetent hate sites."




Re(7): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 11:51:52 AM by George Shelps


Of course, the rule of the Tsars was so wonderful that I'm sure the Russians should greatly miss them.
RESPONSE: Better to be replaced by Jewish-inspired communism,

___As usual, you don't know what you're
talking about. The overthrow of the
Tsar had nothing to do with communism.

The March l918 revolution was a spontaneous uprising by the Russian
people who were finally fed up with
Nicholas's constant undermining of
the Duma (Parliament) and the losses
in World War I. A provisional government was installed with Alexander
Kerensky at the head.

But Kerensky refused to violate solidarity with the Allies and did not
pull Russia out of the war.

The Germans decided to help Lenin overthrow the provisional government.
They provided a special train to bring
Lenin to Moscow, where he began to
direct a coup d'etat against the Kerensky government. That ended
in the take-over of November, l918.

Lenin then paid the Germans back by
pulling Russia out of the war.

How did the Jews figure in all this?

which murdered tens of millions of people, sure. Jews hated the Tsar because he tried to forcibly assimilate them into Russian culture and pull them out of the Yiddish subculture.

___If they wanted to stay in their
subculture, that should have been their right. Was life under the Tsars such
a picnic?



Re(7): Catholics and the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 08:15:35 PM by mitchell levine

Although as an Eastern spiritualist myself, I don't share your faith with regard to the specific Christian doctrine, I certainly agree with you about the sharing of chosen-ness.

Since all the concept of the Chosen People means is that the Jews were selected amongst pagans to be the bearers of The Law, I really don't understand what everyone makes such a big deal about. It hardly entails a belief that God likes Jews better than everyone else, nor do the overwhelming majority of Jews believe that.

It's amazing how far people will stretch just to feel offended.





Marilyn Monroe
Posted on May 17, 2003 at 02:26:18 AM by mg

Marilyn Monroe is another who fell under the dominance of a string of Jewish analysts, and a Jewish world, including, most famously, Ralph Greenson (born: Romeo Greenschpoon) who was her therapist when she (allegedly) committed suicide. "Like many of his colleagues at the time," notes a Good Housekeeping review of a book by Donald Spoto about Marilyn,

"Greenson relied heavily on drug therapy for his patients, routinely
prescribing barbiturates and tranquilizers or having patients' other
doctors do so. He referred Marilyn to internist Hyman Engelberg
[also Jewish], who prescribed many of the medications Greenson
ordered for her. Greenson would also regularly meet with Marilyn
at his home and even asked his daughter to befriend her, disastrously
unprofessional tactics that increased Marilyn's dependency on him ...
Her friends noticed that the more Marilyn saw Greenson, the more
miserable she became ... Greenson encouraged Marilyn's deep
dependency on him (he was seeing her twice daily)." [GOOD
HOUSEKEEPING, 1993, p. 212, 214]

The incestuous nature of Hollywood life may be noted in Greenson's case: his sister Elizabeth "was married to Milton 'Mickey' Rudin, an entertainment attorney who was one of the town's major power brokers." [FARBER/GREEN, p. 93] Rudin was Jewish and also Monroe's lawyer. He was also an attorney and publicist for Frank Sinatra, who, early in his career, was also a patient of Ralph Greenson. [KELLEY, K., p. 208, 305]

Marilyn Monroe's publicist, Arthur Jacobs, was also Jewish. So were her agents at MCA, Jay Kanter and Mort Viner. Many of the directors of her films were also Jews (for example, Billy Wilder of Some Like It Hot and George Cukor of Let's Make Love). Natasha Lytess, her personal manager, and a woman she lived with at one time in Hollywood, was the subject of talk about Monroe's rumored lesbianism. Lytess was also Jewish, from Austria. [LEAMING, p. 31] In the quest for Monroe's career, says Barbara Leaming, "Marilyn's relationship with Nathasa was ... mutually exploitive." [LEAMING, p. 31] Milton Greene, also Jewish, a fashion photographer "with whom she'd reportedly had a fling during the late forties," was another early personal manager. [MCDOUGAL, p. 216] Charles Feldman was also once her agent.

Monroe, early in life, had resolved to sleep with anyone who could help her attain fame and fortune in Hollywood. Close friend Ted Jordan notes that she had "sex with anybody she thought might be able to advance her career." [JORDAN, p. 121] "It is clear," notes Anthony Summers in his biography of her,

"that Marilyn made judicious use of her favors. A key beneficiary,
reportedly, was the man who got Marilyn that vital first contract at
Fox -- Ben Lyon. According to writer Sheila Graham, Lyon had
been sleeping with Marilyn and promising to further her career...
Lyon called the casting director for Sol Wurtzel, a B-movie producer
of the time [and Monroe was awarded a small part in the 1947 film
Dangerous Years]." [SUMMERS, A., 1985, p. 35]

Garment millionaire Henry Rosenfeld was another Jewish sex partner on the road to fame. "She would join Rosenfeld at his home in Atlantic City for trips in his speedboat and for quiet evenings of talk and laughter." [SUMMERS, A., p. 45] Jewish mobster, and Hollywood powerbroker, Bugsy Siegel also had sex with Marilyn. [JORDAN, p. 84, 87] Ted Jordan (born Edward Friedman) even wrote a book about his early sexual experiences with Monroe -- they began on his fourth date with her when she was 17. Then known by her real name, Norma Jean, Monroe was soon sleeping with Friedman's uncle, Ted Lewis (original name also Friedman), who, "with his clarinet and distinctive style of old favorites, was among the hottest acts in show business." [JORDAN, p. 73]

"I learned," says Jordan,

"that at one point in their little backstage meeting, Ted had slipped
Norma Jean a piece of paper with his telephone number on it. Soon
they were meeting in hotel rooms whenever Ted was in town ... Soon
he was pulling strings for Norma Jean, trying to hook her up with an
agent who would do her the most good ... As Norma Jean had vowed
to me, whoever she had to fuck, she was prepared to do it. And, for
good measure, she did the same with [prominent, and Jewish, gossip
columnist] Walter Winchell." [JORDAN, p. 75]

Lewis, notes Jordan, "began an affair with the then-unknown model and introduced her to narcotics." [JORDAN, photo section] A key agent in accelerating Monroe's early career was Johnny Hyde (like many Hollywood Jews, born in Russia, and a veteran of vaudeville.) She was also his mistress -- he soon fell in love with her, and wanted to leave his wife for the actress. (He was 53, she was 23). Hyde, notes Ted Jordan, "not so coincidentally ... was Ted Lewis' personal manager." [JORDAN, p. 85] "In making Marilyn known," says Fred Guiles, "[Hyde] flexed a lot of muscle. The simple fact is that Johnny Hyde was the chief architect of her fame and her eventual legend." [GUILES, p. 147]

"By 1953," says Jordan,

"... [Monroe] could be virulently anti-Semitic (a prejudice that grew
as she got older). To my discomfort she would sometimes refer to
Joe Schenck, the mogul [and another sexual stepping stone], as 'that Jew
shit' and to other Hollywood personalities as 'Jew' this or that.
Occasionally I would have to remind her that I was half Jewish."
[JORDAN, p. 188]

The Hollywood world and its pressures of being a sex goddess of course destroyed her. Monroe's physician Hyman Engelberg and her therapist Romeo Greenson were the first to her death scene, reported to be a drug overdose, but they didn't call police for four hours. One investigative author, Donald Spoto, in a 1993 work, even burdens Greenson with the responsibility for killing her, directing that a female employee "administer [to Monroe] ... a fatal barbiturate-laced enema." (In this scenario, Greenson's motivation was that Monroe was trying to free herself from Greenson's influence and control, and had fired him.) [WOLFE, D., p. 99] In this scenario too, Monroe did not realize that this enema was abnormal. [SPOTO, D., 1993, p. 218] A friend of Monroe's recalls that she was beginning to feel that Greenson was "trying to substitute himself for everything she'd built up those past years. She decided he was anti-everything she wanted. She was radically turning on Greenson and Mrs. Murray, the woman he'd put with her, she felt, to spy on her." [STRASBERG, p. 250-251])

The famous movie star's alleged suicide has always been controversial, and there are various conspiracy notions about who would want her dead. Greenson's secret life is much clouded. As well as being a therapist, he was, like a number of Hollywood people, an activist Communist Party member; he was also part of its international Comintern. Whatever Greenson's role as a listener of movie star's confessionals, his communist ties have profound implications because Monroe had romantic affairs with President John F. Kennedy and knew a great deal about behind-the-scenes politicking, perhaps including plans against communist Cuba and Fidel Castro. Everything Monroe knew, per "opening up" in therapy, she undoubtedly told her psychotherapist. As Donald Wolfe notes:

"Once Marilyn Monroe became Greenson's patient, he became one of
the most important Comintern operatives in America; he had access
to the mind of a woman who often shared the bed with the president
of the United States and was an intimate of the attorney general
[Kennedy's brother, Robert] ... As Greenson has correctly stated,
Marilyn Monroe had a tendency to 'get involved with very destructive
people, who will engage in some sort of sado-masochistic relationship
with her.' Ironically, among these people was her psychiatrist
[Greenson], her physician [Engelberg], and her housekeeper, Eunice
Murray [who was appointed by Greenson to live with Ms. Monroe
and report back to him], who joined in a conspiracy to survey
Marilyn Monroe within a sphere of influence designed to gather
intelligence from her relationship with the president of the United
States and the attorney general." [WOLFE, D., p. 386]

Greenson, once noted his sister, Elizabeth, also had "strong ties to Israel." [KELLEY, K., p. 305]

continued) ...

Marilyn Monroe's road to psychoanalysis was directed upon her by the influential Jewish acting teacher, Lee Strasberg, who is usually credited with spawning the "method acting" genre, made famous by the likes of Marlon Brando and James Dean. Brando's first Jewish analyst, says the famous actor, early in his career, was Bela Mittelman, "the coldest man I've ever known ... [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 124] ... Acting afforded me the luxury of being able to spend thousands of dollars on psychoanalysts, most of whom did nothing but convince me that most New York and Beverly Hills psychoanalysts are a little crazy themselves, as well as highly motivated to separate patients from their money while making their emotional problems worse." [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 243] Brando was not much endeared to Lee Strasberg either, calling him "an ambitious, selfish man who exploited the people who attended the Actors Studio, and he tried to project himself as an acting oracle and guru. Some people worshiped him, but I never knew why.") [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 85]

Strasberg's daughter, Susan, notes that her father "sent numerous actors to psychiatrists, and many doctors sent their patients to class because they felt his work helped theirs in analysis." [STRASBERG, S., 31] Susan Strasberg herself used to argue with Marilyn Monroe about whether she or the famous sex goddess "needed therapy more." [STRASBERG, p. 138] As Barbara Leaming observes:

"It was said that the master teacher Lee Strasberg could open
inner doors that one scarcely knew existed. Some admirers called
him the Rabbi. Some compared him to a psychiatrist or a highly
judgmental Jewish father ... Strasberg focused on psychology.
He ran his workshop as though they were group therapy sessions...
Strasberg often advised actors to enter psychoanalysis in order
to put them in touch with emotionally-charged material they could
use in their work." [LEAMING, p. 156-157]

"Under [Lee] Strasberg's influence," note Stephen Farber and Marc Green, "Marilyn became an earnest devotee not just of method acting, but of Freudian analysis as well." [FARBER/GREEN, p. 83] Monroe's one-time husband, Jewish playwright Arthur Miller, also had his own Jewish psychoanalyst: Rudolph Loewenstein. [WOLFE, D., p. 307] Monroe even had sessions with Sigmund's Freud daughter, Anna, also a therapist, in London. [WOLFE, D., p. 300] "The significance of [Monroe's reliance on psychoanalysts] for psychoanalysis," notes Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, "was that Monroe left a substantial part of her estate to further the work of Anna Freud, whom she had seen briefly for analytic help in 1956 (Anna Freud wrote about her that she was paranoid with schizophrenic traits), and this bequest was undoubtedly achieved through her analysts, who were intimately connected to Anna Freud." [MASSON, J. M., 1990, p. 129]

As Masson, a former offical at the Sigmund Freud Archives, further notes about the ethical undercurrent of such funding:

"It is not, in fact, uncommon for analysts to solicit, usually through
roundabout methods, former patients for money to support analytic
projects. Chairs of psychoanalysis in medical schools at various
universities have been partially endowed through former patients.
There was also the case of the Centenary Fund, named for the
centenary, in 1956, of Freud's birth. [Marilyn Monroe's therapist]
Romi Greenson had organized this fund for psychoanalytic research
in Los Angeles ... I felt then, and still do now, that it is an exploitation
of the emotional relationship with a patient to solicit money, in whatever
form, directly or indirectly. It seems to me that the patient, or ex-patient,
is in no position, emotionally speaking, to refuse ... I find it wrong and
morally distasteful." [MASSON, J. M., 1990, p. 130]

Another Jewish Hollywood therapist, Judd Marmor (born Judah Marmorstein), candidly wrote an article in 1953 about the trap vulnerable patients would inevitably find themselves in under the control of a psychoanalyst. Its theme we have run across before, as being quintessentially "Jewish." Marmor's piece was entitled "The Feeling of Superiority: An Occupational Hazard in the Practice of Psychotherapy." "Marmor," note Stephen Farber and Marc Green, "pointed out the neurotic needs that may drive a person to become a psychiatrist -- a hunger for prestige as well as a desire to solve one's own internal conflicts." [FARBER/GREEN, p. 135] "[The] ego-seductive aspects [of the field of psychoanalysis]," noted Marmor, "tend to foster such defensive arrogance to a greater extent, perhaps, than do many other professions." [FARBER/GREEN, p. 135] A Monroe friend once stated that "I felt [Ralph Greenson] had a big ego, like a lot of doctors he wanted to be God, and of all the analysts in L.A. she found him. Inger Stevens was his patient too. She killed herself later." [STRASBERG, p. 250] As Greenson, Monroe's analyst, once claimed, "I can count Marilyn to do anything I want her to do." [WOLFE, D., p. 422]

FROM:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/24media1.htm




Frances Farmer
Posted on May 17, 2003 at 02:37:34 AM by mg

Yet another tragic Hollywood movie star "goddess" driven to a psychological abyss was Frances Farmer, one of the most famous film faces of the late 1930s and early 1940s. Farmer's demise is particularly disturbing. Ardent rebel and idealist, she was attracted to the largely Jewish New York communist world before she became a movie celebrity, even visiting Moscow in 1935. Attracted to serious theatre, in New York she was "escorted around the city by a delegation of local communist leaders and -- through an introduction written by [Jewish friend] Sophie Rosenstein -- [Farmer] got herself invited to a party given by members of her cherished left-wing Group Theatre" where she first met famous Jewish playwright Clifford Odets. [ARNOLD, W., p. 50] (Supposedly anti-capitalist and anti-materialist, the Group Theatre grew out of meetings at Harold Clurman's home. Eventually he, fellow Jew Lee Strasberg and "WASP shiksa" Cheryl Crawford were the Group's early directors. [SMITH, W., p. 213, photo] Clurman was also the aforementioned Stella Adler's husband.) William Arnold notes the illusory idealism of the famous (largely Jewish) Group Theatre: "The Group actors, far from being the artistic purists [Farmer] had always believed them to be, all seemed to want to go to Hollywood and make piles of money (which, eventually, most of them did)." [ARNOLD, W., p. 90]

Both Farmer's mother and sister Edith believed that such "communists" destroyed her. [ARNOLD, W., p. 94] (For her part, Frances despised her mother and placed enormous blame for her troubles upon her. In the third page of her biography she even quotes a "Jewish saying" about mothers, and bemoans her lack of a good one). [FARMER, p. 12] William Arnold, who interviewed sister Edith, notes that she believed "the Communists drove Frances crazy. [Edith] seemed particularly bitter towards the Group Theatre and its left-wing members who, she said, took criminal advantage of France's kind nature and then harassed her into insanity." [ARNOLD, W., p. 94] During the McCarthy-era communist probes, eight Group Theatre members were identified as members of a communist cell -- Joe Bromberg and Lewis Leverett were its "co-leaders." [SMITH, W., p. 157] (Generally speaking, Jewish left-wing radical Saul Alinsky once noted that "few of us survived the Joe McCarthy holocaust of the early 1950s.") [ALINSKY, S., 1971, p. xiii]

Farmer's rise to acting stardom was meteoric. Within two weeks of moving to New York City to live, and within weeks of returning from Moscow, she was signed by agent Shepard Traube who managed to get her hired by Paramount Pictures top talent scout in New York, Oscar Serlin. Although Farmer reached Hollywood stardom by age 21 (with the film "Come and Get It" in 1936), she returned to New York -- because of personal conviction to the legitimate theatre, and for little pay -- to star in Odet's play entitled Golden Boy. The largely Jewish cast, some with changed names, included Luther Adler, Morris Carnovsky, Phoebe Brand, Lee J. Cobb (born Lee Jacob), John Garfield (Garfinkel), Martin Ritt, Howard Da Silva, Robert Lewis, Michael Gordon, and Roman Bohmen. By now too, Farmer had begun a troubling affair with Odets, a married man -- a relationship that was to hasten her road to psychological destruction and a mental institution. In her autobiography, Farmer wrote that:

"Odets was a strange, almost ugly man, but he was everything I
could ever imagine, at the time, admirable in a man. He was a fiery,
fascinating intellect with strange sexual drives, and I reacted like a
smitten schoolgirl. I believed in him passionately ... I drowned myself
in his doctrines and political theories, and had he not severed the
affair, I probably would have followed him to his far-left politics...
Odets maneuvered me as he would a character in one of his plays.
He toyed with my attitudes and reactions. He was a psychological
button-pusher ... One moment he would marvel at my brilliance and
minutes later he would curse me for my stupidity. Sometimes, locked
with me in his apartment, he would plead like a schoolboy for
love and favors, and then, suddenly and with insulting accusations,
he would assault me as if I was a streetwalker ... He would insult
me in front of everyone, belittling my performance [in Golden Boy],
and he was satisfied only when he had reduced me to tears and set
me sobbing to my dressing room.
There were times after such incidents when he would not speak
to me for two or three days. At other times, he would force his way into
my dressing room and make a great point of not only locking the door
behind him, but further securing the room by propping a chair under
the doorknob, and then he would tear off his clothes and scream his
love and need for me with all the fire and passion of a Rococo Thespian.
He would threaten to take his life and mine, unless I loved him...
His sexual appetite was a complicated maze of weird manipulations.
He would deftly maneuver me to a point of fulfillment, then
withdraw and mock what he termed my base and disgusting desires.
After searing my feminine spirit in this bed of humiliation and
degrading me in every possible manner, he would begin again with
the shyness of an innocent lad and explore me with tender
fascination.
This was no ordinary man. He was a creature who pried open the
psyche with the intention of sticking it with pins. I cannot say that I
loved him; a more apt description would be a passionate hatred
coupled with a physical fascination. Whatever it was, it did much to
destroy me. Whereas I had once lived secure within myself, after
Odets I became a bundle of raw hesitant nerves, confused and
almost without purpose." [FARMER, p. 193-194]

"Looking back," notes Margaret Brenman-Gibson, "Group members, all of whom had watched the [Farmer-Odets] affair with unusual concern, agreed that this seemed to be the trigger for her life's descent, during which she became addicted to alcohol and to drugs, was jailed, reviled, beaten, and for seven years, institutionalized by her mother as a lunatic." [BRENMAN-GIBSON, p. 579] As one Group member recalled, Odets was "so kind and tender a man who obviously revered his dead mother and whose empathy with women could be so delicate, could nevertheless be so exploitively cruel with some women." [BRENMAN-GIBSON, p. 579] A Farmer wrote herself, "My artistic id was clobbered to shreds and the emotional trauma with Odets finished the job." [FARMER, p. 578] Institutionalized against her will, Farmer endured electroshock therapy, various drugs, and possibly a lobotomy.

She died in 1970. A decade later, Farmer's horrifying story was afforded renewed interest in Hollywood. Jewish producer/comedian Mel Brooks embarked on a movie project (Frances, starring Jessica Lange). Brooks' film featured a character named Harry York who "appears repeatedly to bed and befriend the doomed actress Frances Farmer in her downroad spiral through alcohol, despair and a Dickensian insane asylum." [HAMMER/PILCHER, p. 38] William Arnold, author of a biography of Farmer (Shadowlands) eventually sued Brooks and his partners (Jonathan Sanger and Marie Yates), charging that the York character was an invention in order to avoid linking the film's screenplay to Arnold's book. "The lawsuit," said People Weekly, "raises doubts about the business practices of Mel Brooks, whose company produced Frances -- and about the veracity of the film itself." [HAMMER/PILCHER, p. 38] The Harry York character was eventually declared by the Brooks team to be a real-life character, Stewart Jacobson, an ex-convict and convicted pimp who claimed to know Farmer as far back as high school. The outlandish assertions made by Jacobson (highlighted in his claim to have set up a Farmer affair with Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas), charged Arnold, was merely a contrivance for "stealing my book." "Mel Brooks is a crook and an incredible cheat," agreed producer Noel Marshall, who was scheduled to originally produce the film.



Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 18, 2003 at 11:33:54 PM by Cheevers

The Jewish Banana Republics: Israel and Hollywood:


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=293813

Survey: Israel yet to grasp concept of democracy, By Mazal Mualem, Haaretz (Israel), May 19, 2003

"More than half the Jewish population of Israel - 53 percent - is opposed to full equal rights for Israeli Arabs, according to a survey conducted last month by the Israel Democracy Institute. The general conclusion of the survey, which is dubbed the 'Israeli Democracy Survey' and will be conducted every year, is that Israel is basically a democracy in form more than in substance, and that it has yet to internalize fully the concept of democracy ... The current survey discovered the lowest support in the last 20 years for the assertion that democracy is the best form of governance: Only 77 percent of the respondents supported this premise - as compared to 90 percent in 1999. Israel is also one of the only four countries of the 32 listed in the study, in which most of the public believes that 'strong leaders can do more for the country than debates or legislation.' Prof. Asher Arian and Prof. David Nachmias, who conducted the survey, say that Israeli democracy is particularly vulnerable today because of the occupation, the intifada and the war on terror. Consequently, Israel scores relatively low on human rights and freedom of the press, which they say should be a warning sign. On freedom of the press, Israel scored 70 out of 100 - the minimum requirement for the press to be considered free. One of the reasons attributed to the dip in Israel's rating in this area, from 72 points in the mid-1990s, is the attitude of the authorities toward the foreign press since the onset of the intifada. In this respect, Israel is ahead of only Romania, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico and India. Concerning discrimination against minorities, Israel scored 3 on a scale of 0-4, and thus belongs to the bottom third of the 28 countries covered in the survey. In human rights violations, Israel (including the territories) also scores very high, leading the list together with South Africa. The only parameter in which Israel scored highest in a positive way regards the extent that political competition is open to everyone and enables governmental change. But the flipside of this achievement is frequent changes in the government and deep social rifts, reflecting instability and lack of social cohesiveness, according to the survey. Of 26 countries, only India beat Israel in terms of social gaps. Israel and Argentina share first place in the frequency of changes in governments - five in 10 years - and thus also share first place in terms of instability."


Re(1): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 19, 2003 at 01:10:07 AM by George Shelps

Mr Jaeger and Mr Cones: why do you
want this incessant anti-Jewish
propaganda to be associated with FIRM?




Re(2): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 19, 2003 at 02:17:35 PM by Moishe the Goyim

Since when is an article in an Israeli newspaper that documents an Israeli study about its lack of democracy "propaganda?"

The study wasn't produced by Saddam Hussein.

"Democracy" is a term that both Jewish-dominated Hollywood and the Jewish homeland have yet to understand.

If you call out for "democracy" in Hollywood, you are an "anti-Semite," isn't that right Mr. Shelps?

And if an Israeli newspaper declares that Israel doesn't know what democracy is, then this Jewish newspaper itself must be "anti-Semitic," no?


Re(3): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 19, 2003 at 04:10:55 PM by George Shelps



Since when is an article in an Israeli newspaper that documents an Israeli study about its lack of democracy "propaganda?"

The study wasn't produced by Saddam Hussein.

"Democracy" is a term that both Jewish-dominated Hollywood and the Jewish homeland have yet to understand.

If you call out for "democracy" in Hollywood, you are an "anti-Semite," isn't that right Mr. Shelps?

___Business and the arts are not
"democracies." One depends on money, the other on talent.

And if an Israeli newspaper declares that Israel doesn't know what democracy is, then this Jewish newspaper itself must be "anti-Semitic," no?

___The whole context has to be mentioned. It is your usual sleazy
method. You find an article critical
of Israel and/or Jews and then you
spin it to fit your bigoted view.

Your whole site works that way.


In this case, you caption the article,
"The Jewish Banana Republics: Israel
and Hollywood."

Nowhere in the article is there support
for the idea of Israel as a "banana
republic." That's YOUR (untrue) spin.

As a matter of fact, Israel is more democratic than all the Arab states combined---even if there is a built-in
bias in favor of Israel as a Jewish
homeland.


Re(3): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 08:40:54 AM by Ha'aretz Reader

Is Ha'aretz anti-Semitic?
Quite often, yes.





Re(4): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 19, 2003 at 08:56:46 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Business and the arts are not
"democracies." One depends on money, the other on talent.

RESPONSE: You are incredibly naive. There is no such thing as pure "talent," as if such a thing was distinct from "business."

YOU SAY: The whole context has to be mentioned. It is your usual sleazy
method. You find an article critical
of Israel and/or Jews and then you
spin it to fit your bigoted view.

RESPONSE: You are in ACUTE denial. Read the article. Your opinion is more valuable than a survey of Israelis? I am a "bigot" for posting the article, correct?

YOU SAY: Your whole site works that way.

RESPONSE: Jewish Tribal Review documents the side of things the Jewish Lobby doesn't want anyone to know. You are the "bigot," someone who refuses to face the ugly underside of Jewish racism and exploitation.

YOU SAY: In this case, you caption the article, "The Jewish Banana Republics: Israel and Hollywood."

RESPONSE: Sorry. I meant the Two Jewish Pillars of Democracy. Feel better now?
Let's ignore the article.

YOU SAY: Nowhere in the article is there support for the idea of Israel as a "banana republic." That's YOUR (untrue) spin.

RESPONSE: Sometimes I think that you must surely be a third grader who was held back for a couple years. You seem to be unable to deal with broad concepts.

YOU SAY: As a matter of fact, Israel is more democratic than all the Arab states combined---even if there is a built-in bias in favor of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

RESPONSE: Why is in implicit in your world view to hate Arabs? Why is support for Jews and Israel so kneejerk for you? Where did you go wrong in your blind, misguided religious obsession that Jews and Israel are your Mommy.




Re(5): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 19, 2003 at 11:35:45 PM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: Business and the arts are not
"democracies." One depends on money, the other on talent.

RESPONSE: You are incredibly naive. There is no such thing as pure "talent," as if such a thing was distinct from "business."

___You miss the point, deliberately.
Business and the arts are not democracies. The term is not applicable.

YOU SAY: The whole context has to be mentioned. It is your usual sleazy
method. You find an article critical
of Israel and/or Jews and then you
spin it to fit your bigoted view.

RESPONSE: You are in ACUTE denial. Read the article. Your opinion is more valuable than a survey of Israelis? I am a "bigot" for posting the article, correct?

___No, moron. You're a bigot for
adding the "banana republic" spin, which the article does not support. That's your own stupid bias talking.


YOU SAY: Your whole site works that way.

RESPONSE: Jewish Tribal Review documents the side of things the Jewish Lobby doesn't want anyone to know. You are the "bigot," someone who refuses to face the ugly underside of Jewish racism and exploitation.

___I'm familiar with a lot of negative
material you post on your site. I don't need you to collect it. Find something
else to do with your life besides
gunnysacking your hatred in public.

YOU SAY: In this case, you caption the article, "The Jewish Banana Republics: Israel and Hollywood."

RESPONSE: Sorry. I meant the Two Jewish Pillars of Democracy. Feel better now?
Let's ignore the article.

__More cheap sarcasm. Your spinmeistering is all over your site.
You add your own interpretation to the
articles, while pretending that you're
doing "research."

YOU SAY: Nowhere in the article is there support for the idea of Israel as a "banana republic." That's YOUR (untrue) spin.

RESPONSE: Sometimes I think that you must surely be a third grader who was held back for a couple years. You seem to be unable to deal with broad concepts.

___"Broad concepts," another name for
stereotypes and prejudice. Whatever
its defects in democracy, Israel is
~not~ a "banana republic."


YOU SAY: As a matter of fact, Israel is more democratic than all the Arab states combined---even if there is a built-in bias in favor of Israel as a Jewish homeland.


RESPONSE: Why is in implicit in your world view to hate Arabs?

___You're a liar. I respect Arabs.
It's too bad their leaders are so
backward that they can't provide
them with the level of democracy---even
if imperfect--that Israel has.

Why is support for Jews and Israel so kneejerk for you? Where did you go wrong in your blind, misguided religious obsession that Jews and Israel are your Mommy.

__I'm not Jewish and I think that
Jews can defend themselves adequately.

They don't need my help, nor do I
get any benefits from providing a
defense here.

I just can't stand lying stupid slandering scum like you and I continue to be amazed that Jim Jaeger doesn't
publicly repudiate you.



Re(6): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 00:18:43 AM by mg

YOU SAY: You miss the point, deliberately.
Business and the arts are not democracies. The term is not applicable.

RESPONSE: You seem to advocate an economic fascism: he who can pay, owns. He who can pay, dictates. He who has power, rules.

YOU SAY: No, moron. You're a bigot for
adding the "banana republic" spin, which the article does not support. That's your own stupid bias talking.

RESPONSE: Listen, Shelps. It appears you've kissed Jewish Butt long and passionately enough to develop a serious case of Cauliflower Lips. The Jewish Banana Republic exists, and you are its Resident Monkey. How much do they pay you? Whatever it is, it's not enough to whore your integrity and honor for guys like Levine and his Ideological Brothel.

YOU SAY: I'm familiar with a lot of negative material you post on your site. I don't need you to collect it. Find something else to do with your life besides gunnysacking your hatred in public.

RESPONSE: "Gunnysacking?" Did you find that in the dictionary -- or in Readers Digest Wordpower?

YOU SAY: Broad concepts," another name for stereotypes and prejudice. Whatever
its defects in democracy, Israel is
~not~ a "banana republic."

RESPONSE: OK, OK. There aren't any bananas in Israel. Shrunken heads, maybe.

YOU SAY: You're a liar. I respect Arabs. It's too bad their leaders are so backward that they can't provide
them with the level of democracy---even
if imperfect--that Israel has.

RESPONSE: Saying that Israel has an "imperfect democracy" is something akin to saying a "snake has a toothy smile."

YOU SAY: I'm not Jewish and I think that Jews can defend themselves adequately.
They don't need my help, nor do I
get any benefits from providing a
defense here.

RESPONSE: Then why do you continue to ram your head into the Information Wall. You're a Judeocentric religious bigot who despises the Palestinian cause. And, worse, you're Levine's puppet. You are a microcosm of the problem: you adhere to the Jewish Victimology tradition and defend Israel, lining yourself up for future goodies with the Power Elite.

Shame! Why don't you read the New Testament and do something really "Christian" for a change.

Oppressing the Palestinians in the name of Jewish racism isn't a Christian action.

YOU SAY: I just can't stand lying stupid slandering scum like you

RESPONSE: Scum? Moi? I'd take that over your growing reputation over the Internet: Shelps -- the Talking Cesspool.

YOU SAY: and I continue to be amazed that Jim Jaeger doesn't publicly repudiate you.

RESPONSE: Your position is exactly that of Israel's: "collective punishment." Because Jaeger doesn't jump in and take your side, he thereby is presumed to agree in total with whatever I say.

Even a child knows that silence is just silence. Your views are totalitarian, anti-democratic, censorial, ethnocentric, and bigoted.

You are First Clown in the Judeocentric Orchestra, dinging the bell on cue.



Re(7): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 02:54:05 AM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: You miss the point, deliberately.
Business and the arts are not democracies. The term is not applicable.


RESPONSE: You seem to advocate an economic fascism: he who can pay, owns. He who can pay, dictates. He who has power, rules.

___Are you a socialist? Capitalism
is based on the idea of ownership, haven't you heard? It's not a democracy. You don't own what I own.

YOU SAY: No, moron. You're a bigot for
adding the "banana republic" spin, which the article does not support. That's your own stupid bias talking.

RESPONSE: Listen, Shelps. It appears you've kissed Jewish Butt long and passionately enough to develop a serious case of Cauliflower Lips.

___You know nothing about me.

The Jewish Banana Republic exists, and you are its Resident Monkey. How much do they pay you? Whatever it is, it's not enough to whore your integrity and honor for guys like Levine and his Ideological Brothel.

___I notice how much you start sounding like the late George Lincoln Rockwell
whenever you're losing the argument...

YOU SAY: I'm familiar with a lot of negative material you post on your site. I don't need you to collect it. Find something else to do with your life besides gunnysacking your hatred in public.

RESPONSE: "Gunnysacking?" Did you find that in the dictionary -- or in Readers Digest Wordpower?

___Reading problems, moron?

YOU SAY: Broad concepts," another name for stereotypes and prejudice. Whatever
its defects in democracy, Israel is
~not~ a "banana republic."

RESPONSE: OK, OK. There aren't any bananas in Israel. Shrunken heads, maybe.

___Israel has no characteristics similar to the dictatorial nations of Latin
American which were once called "banana
republics."


YOU SAY: You're a liar. I respect Arabs. It's too bad their leaders are so backward that they can't provide
them with the level of democracy---even
if imperfect--that Israel has.

RESPONSE: Saying that Israel has an "imperfect democracy" is something akin to saying a "snake has a toothy smile."

___No, you have to learn to read before
we can discuss the meaning of words. First thing, you don't even know what
"democracy" means. It doesn't mean everything is decided by majority rule.
America is not this type of democracy
and never has been.

Most democracies protect minorities
from the tyranny of the majority. Not
all do so perfectly. In Israel, yes,
there is not a strong distinction between religion and politics. That's
an imperfection by American standards, but it does not invalidate their whole
system. Last time I checked, there
were Arab members of the Knesset.

I suppose you think that Saddam Hussein's Baath Party or the Iranian Islamic Republic or the
Saudi monarchy or the one party rule in
Egypt are examples of "democracy?"




YOU SAY: I'm not Jewish and I think that Jews can defend themselves adequately.
They don't need my help, nor do I
get any benefits from providing a
defense here.

RESPONSE: Then why do you continue to ram your head into the Information Wall. You're a Judeocentric religious bigot who despises the Palestinian cause.

___You're a liar. I favor a democratic Palestinian state with complete sovereignty. I don't support the
extreme wing of Likud. I support
the Bush plan for the region.


And, worse, you're Levine's puppet.

__False. I've disagreed with Levine
a number of times.


You are a microcosm of the problem: you adhere to the Jewish Victimology tradition and defend Israel, lining yourself up for future goodies with the Power Elite.

___I defend the truth. I am not a 100%
fan of Israel, but I despise liars
and the US is an ally of Israel, and
I defend our allies against slanderers
like you.

Shame! Why don't you read the New Testament and do something really "Christian" for a change.
Oppressing the Palestinians in the name of Jewish racism isn't a Christian action.


YOU SAY: I just can't stand lying stupid slandering scum like you

RESPONSE: Scum? Moi? I'd take that over your growing reputation over the Internet: Shelps -- the Talking Cesspool.

___Well, sometimes reading you does make me feel like I am in a cesspool.

YOU SAY: and I continue to be amazed that Jim Jaeger doesn't publicly repudiate you.

RESPONSE: Your position is exactly that of Israel's: "collective punishment." Because Jaeger doesn't jump in and take your side, he thereby is presumed to agree in total with whatever I say.

___If he cared about the pollution of
FIRM with your bigotry, he would
step in and repudiate you.


Even a child knows that silence is just silence. Your views are totalitarian, anti-democratic, censorial, ethnocentric, and bigoted.

___All that is required for evil to
succeed is to be silent and do nothing.

You are First Clown in the Judeocentric Orchestra, dinging the bell on cue.

___Oh, how witty!




Re(8): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 08:57:08 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Are you a socialist? Capitalism is based on the idea of ownership, haven't you heard? It's not a democracy. You don't own what I own.

RESPONSE: The issue then, as you underscore it, is a cabal of wealthy Jewish ethnocentric networkers who "own" too much for the good of everyone else. A system that subverts this kind of dominance looks good to me.

YOU SAY: You know nothing about me.

RESPONSE: Oh, but I do! You have a chronic case of Judeocentric Cauliflower Lips. When you speak, it is Mitchell Levine's voice that I hear.

YOU SAY: I notice how much you start sounding like the late George Lincoln Rockwell whenever you're losing the argument...

RESPONSE: That's odd. I was just going to say you sound exactly like Adolf Hitler, except his moustache is on your derriere. "Call a man a Nazi, and he must be one."

YOU SAY: Israel has no characteristics similar to the dictatorial nations of Latin American which were once called "banana republics."

RESPONSE: I've concluded you're a secretary for Ariel Sharon.

Read "The Israeli Connection" by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (a Jewish Israeli scholar in Haifa, Israel) to understand the closure between Israel and Third World Latin American Banana Republics:

"The extent of Israeli activities in the Third World is baffling to both friends and foes of Israel," wrote Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, a professor at Israel's University of Haifa, in 1987, ".... Mention any trouble spot in the Third World over the past ten years and, inevitably, you will find smiling Israeli officers and shining Israeli weapons on the news pages ... We have seen them in South Africa, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Namibia, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Chile, Bolivia, and many other places ... [HALLAHMI, p. xii].... Most of the details of these involvements are not known while they take place. So that reliance on open sources will inevitably lead us to underestimate the extent of the involvement. Consequently, present Israeli activities are probably much wider and deeper than what we have been told in public forums or the media." [BEIT-HALLAHMI, p. xiii]

YOU SAY: No, you have to learn to read before
we can discuss the meaning of words. First thing, you don't even know what
"democracy" means. It doesn't mean everything is decided by majority rule.
America is not this type of democracy
and never has been.

RESPONSE: In your world, "democracy" is when you and your Jewish henchmen Rule By The Dollar.

YOU SAY: Most democracies protect minorities
from the tyranny of the majority. Not
all do so perfectly. In Israel, yes,
there is not a strong distinction between religion and politics. That's
an imperfection by American standards, but it does not invalidate their whole
system. Last time I checked, there
were Arab members of the Knesset.

RESPONSE: My God, you are socially illiterate! Orthodox Judaism rules civilian infrastructure in the Jewish state. And I posted earlier the nightmare stories of the Arab Knesset members who faced all kinds of insult and threats. There are many political expressions that are banned in Israeli "democracy," including those that challenge the "Jewish nature" of the state.

YOU SAY: I suppose you think that Saddam Hussein's Baath Party or the Iranian Islamic Republic or the
Saudi monarchy or the one party rule in
Egypt are examples of "democracy?"

RESPONSE: All these places are the conseaquences of Western imperialism and intrigue.

YOU SAY: I defend the truth. I am not a 100% fan of Israel, but I despise liars
and the US is an ally of Israel, and
I defend our allies against slanderers
like you.

RESPONSE: Ah, so you ARE a puppet!

YOU SAY: Well, sometimes reading you does make me feel like I am in a cesspool.

RESPONSE: Think again. When you read what I say, it's like taking a good bubble bath. When you're finished with what I say, you slink back into the filthy morass.

YOU SAY: If he cared about the pollution of
FIRM with your bigotry, he would
step in and repudiate you.

RESPONSE: You know, in your Totalitarian, Thought Police world, by your logic, he should step in and delete everything you say because you're a religious bigot (one of the worst kind, because "faith" transcends logic and morality).

YOU SAY: All that is required for evil to succeed is to be silent and do nothing.

RESPONSE: Exactly so. And that's why there's a Jewish Tribal Review.

I SAID: You are First Clown in the Judeocentric Orchestra, dinging the bell on cue.
YOU REPLIED:Oh, how witty!
I SAY NOW: Thank you. But I was trying to butter you up with a compliment. You know, end the comment in an upbeat manner. Frankly, you're a minor leaguer with a tubby tin tuba that can only oink "Israel."




Re(9): Israel/Hollywood Democracy?
Posted on May 22, 2003 at 02:02:14 AM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: Are you a socialist? Capitalism is based on the idea of ownership, haven't you heard? It's not a democracy. You don't own what I own.

RESPONSE: The issue then, as you underscore it, is a cabal of wealthy Jewish ethnocentric networkers who "own" too much for the good of everyone else.

___Jews own what they able to pay for,
just like anyone else.


A system that subverts this kind of dominance looks good to me.

___Ah, but you're too late, the Soviet
Union fell in l989.


YOU SAY: You know nothing about me.



RESPONSE: Oh, but I do! You have a chronic case of Judeocentric Cauliflower Lips. When you speak, it is Mitchell Levine's voice that I hear.

___I don't know anything about Mitchell
beyond what he writes here. I agree
with most of what he writes but not all
of it. I have openly disagreed with him
several times. Try reading more carefuly.

YOU SAY: I notice how much you start sounding like the late George Lincoln Rockwell whenever you're losing the argument...

RESPONSE: That's odd. I was just going to say you sound exactly like Adolf Hitler, except his moustache is on your derriere. "Call a man a Nazi, and he must be one."

__Oh, stop whining because the truth hurts.



YOU SAY: Israel has no characteristics similar to the dictatorial nations of Latin American which were once called "banana republics."



RESPONSE: I've concluded you're a secretary for Ariel Sharon.
Read "The Israeli Connection" by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (a Jewish Israeli scholar in Haifa, Israel) to understand the closure between Israel and Third World Latin American Banana Republics:
"The extent of Israeli activities in the Third World is baffling to both friends and foes of Israel," wrote Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, a professor at Israel's University of Haifa, in 1987, ".... Mention any trouble spot in the Third World over the past ten years and, inevitably, you will find smiling Israeli officers and shining Israeli weapons on the news pages ... We have seen them in South Africa, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Namibia, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Chile, Bolivia, and many other places ... [HALLAHMI, p. xii].... Most of the details of these involvements are not known while they take place. So that reliance on open sources will inevitably lead us to underestimate the extent of the involvement. Consequently, present Israeli activities are probably much wider and deeper than what we have been told in public forums or the media." [BEIT-HALLAHMI, p. xiii]

___"Banana republic" is an outdated
term and Israel's influence is insignificant. And I don't support
Likud wholeheartedly.


YOU SAY: No, you have to learn to read before
we can discuss the meaning of words. First thing, you don't even know what
"democracy" means. It doesn't mean everything is decided by majority rule.
America is not this type of democracy
and never has been.

RESPONSE: In your world, "democracy" is when you and your Jewish henchmen Rule By The Dollar.

___You're an idiot or a socialist...not sure which. Democracy involves voting
for candidates in elections, not voting
how I can have access to someone else's
property.

YOU SAY: Most democracies protect minorities
from the tyranny of the majority. Not
all do so perfectly. In Israel, yes,
there is not a strong distinction between religion and politics. That's
an imperfection by American standards, but it does not invalidate their whole
system. Last time I checked, there
were Arab members of the Knesset.

RESPONSE: My God, you are socially illiterate! Orthodox Judaism rules civilian infrastructure in the Jewish state.

___But there's also opposition by
secular or Reform Jews to that rule.


And I posted earlier the nightmare stories of the Arab Knesset members who faced all kinds of insult and threats. There are many political expressions that are banned in Israeli "democracy," including those that challenge the "Jewish nature" of the state.

___That's why Israel was founded, moron.

England has an established Church, too.
Are you going to denounce England?


YOU SAY: I suppose you think that Saddam Hussein's Baath Party or the Iranian Islamic Republic or the
Saudi monarchy or the one party rule in
Egypt are examples of "democracy?"

RESPONSE: All these places are the conseaquences of Western imperialism and intrigue.

___Are you a Marxist? That sure sounds
like the classic Soviet line.

YOU SAY: I defend the truth. I am not a 100% fan of Israel, but I despise liars
and the US is an ally of Israel, and
I defend our allies against slanderers
like you.

RESPONSE: Ah, so you ARE a puppet!

__No, Israel is an ally, like England.

Like all the other members of the
"coalition of the willing" who backed
us in Iraq. I would defend any friend
of America if attacked.

YOU SAY: Well, sometimes reading you does make me feel like I am in a cesspool.

RESPONSE: Think again. When you read what I say, it's like taking a good bubble bath. When you're finished with what I say, you slink back into the filthy morass.

___Cyanide bubbles.


YOU SAY: If he cared about the pollution of FIRM with your bigotry, he would
step in and repudiate you.

RESPONSE: You know, in your Totalitarian, Thought Police world, by your logic, he should step in and delete everything you say because you're a religious bigot (one of the worst kind, because "faith" transcends logic and morality).

___I think good sanitation is probably the best reason for Jaeger to get some
cojones and denounce you.

YOU SAY: All that is required for evil to succeed is to be silent and do nothing.

RESPONSE: Exactly so. And that's why there's a Jewish Tribal Review.

___Don't need it. We already had the
Third Reich.

I SAID: You are First Clown in the Judeocentric Orchestra, dinging the bell on cue.


YOU REPLIED:Oh, how witty!


I SAY NOW: Thank you. But I was trying to butter you up with a compliment. You know, end the comment in an upbeat manner. Frankly, you're a minor leaguer with a tubby tin tuba that can only oink "Israel."

__Give this man a 5 cent cigar!








Ted Turner - Gerald Levin
Posted on May 19, 2003 at 09:36:22 PM by Moishe the Goyim

OK, Shelps. In honor of your intelligent insights, I'm going to post this article without mentioning the fact that Gerald Lewin is Jewish.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ceo/articles/0,15114,450917-3,00.html

TED TURNER.Gone With the Wind Ted Turner is a worried man, by Patricia Sellers, Fortune, May 26, 2003


"No matter how immersed he gets in the Turnerverse, he cannot completely
escape the debacle of AOL Time Warner. One reason is legal: He is named
in several lawsuits, along with other senior executives, as a party
to alleged accounting violations. Another is psychological: Turner is
obsessed with Jerry Levin, AOL Time Warner's former CEO. As Turner's
friends note, he'll be conversing on any subject--restaurants, bison,
ex-wives, whatever--and find a way to lash out at Levin. 'The biggest mistake I made was trusting Jerry too much,' Turner says. Turner and Levin had a long association, dating back to the late '80s. At that time Turner, overleveraged from his MGM acquisition, brought in a consortium of cable investors, including Time Inc., where Levin was a top executive. Turner says that Levin tried 'to keep me small' by twice denying him the chance to buy NBC. The worst affront, the one that makes him bilious to this day, occurred in 2000, a few months after Time Warner agreed to merge with AOL. Levin told
Turner he'd have to give up running CNN and his other beloved cable properties. Turner could stay as vice chairman, but he'd have no operating role. 'I should have left the company,' says Turner, 'but I loved everybody. I was a hero.' (Levin declines to comment.) Pushed aside, Turner took on the role of the angriest AOL Time Warner shareholder ... The dumbest deal of all, in Turner's view, was the AOL/Time Warner merger. "A total disaster!" he says. But Turner did nothing to stop it. He says now that he didn't really understand the Internet."





Re(1): Ted Turner - Gerald Levin
Posted on May 19, 2003 at 11:14:29 PM by Mitchell Levine

Yet another typically bullshit example of an ignorant attempt by you to use anything whatsoever to slander the Jews, regardless of how woefully inadequate it might be to the task.

Note that the only evidence available that Jerry Levin did anything wrong here is the simple fact he's Jewish, while Ted Turner isn't.

On this basis and this basis only, you make the completely erroneous assumption that Turner's complaints are thereby valid. Meanwhile, nowhere does the text of the article implicate Levin for actually having done anything illegal or immoral; it simply states that he denied Turner the opportunity to buy NBC - a business decision that the CNN and TBS multi-billionaire incredibly refers to as "keeping him small" - and made the highly reasonable request that he thereafter cease full-time management of his company's day-to-day operations.

Since Turner had no right to buy NBC, nor Levin any obligation to sell, moral or otherwise, and considering the fact that any conglomerate in the world would expect an exec in Turner's position to work full-time, the only logical foundation for Turner's complaint would be that Levin pushed for the AOL-Time Warner merger.

Many analysts at the time felt that this was a bold rapprochement to what was believed to be the "new economy," and would be the key move in the establishment of a techno-media empire. As Turner is allegedly guilty of "acccounting violations," and admits that he "did not understand the Internet," an ignorance which entirely reflects Turner's own failure to perform due diligence, the only possible charge you could level at Levin is that he did not have clairvoyant perception of the future Dot-com crash, which would indict pretty much the rest of the world as well.

Simply because Turner may bitch about Gerald Levin hardly means that he - and by extension, to your pathogenic mentality, all Jews everywhere - is guilty of any particular malfeasance.

This case study is indicative of two things: One, your bullshit philosophy that merely linking to some horsecrap on the web somehow "proves" your argument, as if there were nothing untrue on the Internet; and two, your complete cognitive inability to critically evaluate anything, or recognize your own limitations.

As long as something looks as if it might be unfavorable to any Jew anywhere, and therefore every Jew everywhere, you'll post it in a frenzy to prove "Jews are hustlers"; "Jews are racist"; "Jews hate Christians," etc. You don't care if it's true. You don't care if it's right. You don't care if it even makes sense. All that matters is your psychotic need to ventilate your personality disorders by attacking Jews.

The rest of the hoseshit posted on your site and this one is similar.




Re(2): Ted Turner - Gerald Levin
Posted on May 20, 2003 at 11:28:58 PM by mg

You insist that Levin's Jewishness is meaningless. Here's a little catalogue of the Warner Brothers fiasco, since Steve Ross' days at the helm (who had mob links), and then through Levin.

Note that Richard Clurman wrote a book about Warners takeover of Time, and he notes the "Honorable Menschen" Yiddish complexion of his new company.


Steve Ross (whose father changed his surname from Rechnitz, and whose former stepfather, William Paley, for decades controlled CBS) was widely known as a man of dubious ethics and caused consternation among many journalists at Time that such a man was about to take them all over. He has been an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a 1979 United States Justice Department case investing underworld money laundering operation in suburban New York City. His "top lieutenant" at Warners took the fall and admitted guilt; likewise, Warners' assistant treasurer (who handled Ross's personal accounts) was also convicted of fraud and perjury. [CLURMAN, p. 29] In earlier years Ross had merged his funeral home operation with a parking lot company, Kinney National Service, which had its own "unsavory reputation." "There were rumors that Kinney was mobbed up [i.e., tainted by organized crime]," notes Fred Goodman, "Caesar Kinney, Kinney's executive vice president and original owner of Kinney's parking lot business, was the son of Emmanuel Kinney, a well-known New Jersey gambler." [GOODMAN, p. 137-138] (In 1969 Ross and the Kinney company bought Warner-Seven Arts from Elliott Hyman for $400 million. [Sam Kinney had been head of production; Benny Kalmensan was the number two man.] For his part, Hyman's earlier company was Associated Artists Productions, which had purchased the entire pre-1948 Warners film library in 1956. Associated Artists' chairman was Louis Chesler, who, notes Andrew Yule, was a man "with established ties to Mafia boss Meyer Lansky. Nor was this AA's only shady connection. Its vice-president, Morris 'Mac' Schwebel, would later be convicted of criminal activity." [YULE, p. 176])

The 1989 merger of the two super companies, Time and Warner, also raised issues of conflict of interest. How could Time, Fortune, and other magazines now be expected to give honest reviews and evaluations of Warners movies, records, and other enterprises? Richard Clurman notes the fact, for instance, that an August 1991 Fortune article called "The Deal Decade: Verdict of the 80s" ... "sharply criticized leveraged excesses deal by deal, with the names and numbers of the dealmakers but it skipped one of the highest profiles of them all, the Time-Warners merger." [CLURMAN, p. 305]

Among the central negotiators in the mega-merger was the Jewish Vice-President of Time, Inc., Jerry Levin, "chief tactician for Time's merger with Warner," and Ed Aboodi, an Israeli-born "financial consultant" for Warners. Aboodi's reputation, says Clurman is that of a "shadowy mystery man ... [He] was an invisible mystery man to the world outside Warners until the Time-Warner deal." Investigative reporter Richard Clurman found no listing in any telephone directory for his Alpine Capital Company, which is housed in the Time-Warner building. "Aboodi says he has no telephone listing for Alpine because 'people know me and they know how to find me. I've never thought about it." [CLURMAN, p. 165] "Levin and Aboodi," says Clurman, "a Delphic-like oracle and a Talmudic-like exegetist, [are] quite a combination for an intricate modern business deal. Levin even spoke of the 'thaumaturgic (i.e., mystical) significance' of some of their meetings." [CLURMAN, p. 166] "While his peers have been unabashedly striving to scale the corporate ladder to attain the personal perquisite of power and wealth," notes Connie Bruck, "Levin has long maintained that he has been compelled by something far less mundane, almost mystical: a sense of obligation to bring to fruition the 'manifest destiny' of Time, Inc. and, now, Time Warner." [BRUCK, p. 55] Ultimately, the Chief Financial Officer, the General Counsel, and Secretary of the Board for the new company were all to come from Warners. [CLURMAN, p. 197-198] The new company committed up to $150 million to a fund managed by Aboodi's Alpine Capital company, as well as providing him his $8 million advisory fee.

By 1991 Time-Warner announced a deal with the largest of Japanese venture capital trading firms, C. Itoh, and Toshiba; this translated into a Japanese investment of another billion dollars. The massive mega-company then hired former Federal Communications Commission chairman Dennis R. Patrick and "two corporate 'image makers' who had worked at the White House" to help maneuver governmental regulatory policies. Time-Warner "also had on retainer an elegant pack of the most connected Washington lobbyists." [CLURMAN, p. 338] The new Time-Warner soon also acquired Sunset magazine, Lane Publishing, and 50% interest in Six Flags Amusement Parks.

"Time-Warner," wrote Richard Clurman in his book about the subject in 1992, "is a combination whose creations (magazines, books, movies, music, cable TV, and programming) are now exposed to the minds and emotions of more people than those of any other commercial enterprise on earth ... [CLURMAN, p. 33] [Time-Warner executives] frequently predicted that one day '5 or 6 media companies would dominate the world.'" [CLURMAN, p. 338]

After the big merger, ruefully notes Clurman, for twenty years a journalist and executive at Time, Inc., "in a bicoastal, cross-cultural anointing, Time's house organ [had a column on new executive titles] under the heading 'Honorable Menschen" [a Yiddish pun]. Within the same two weeks, Nick Nicholas [the co-chairman of Time-Warner, eventually dumped from that position], was given a American-Jewish Committee Human Relations Award in Los Angeles and Steve Ross was named Man of the Year by the Entertainment Division of the UJA [United Jewish Appeal] in New York." [CLURMAN, p. 314] (Steve Ross was "one of the role models" for Oskar Schindler in Stephen Spielberg's film Schindler's List. "To prepare [actor Liam Neeson] for the part, the director reportedly showed pictures of Ross ... a wheeler-dealer of legendary proficiency." [KELLMAN, p. 10] Schindler was also likened to another Jewish media mogul, Michael Ovitz, "on top of the mountain pulling strings in every fiefdom down below." [KELLMAN, p. 10]

When Steve Ross subsequently died of cancer, Gerald Levin replaced him as head of Time-Warner after a struggle for power, successfully firing presumed heir, Nick Nicholas. (Levin's son, Lee, is studying to be a rabbi at the Jewish Theological Seminary. [BOXER, T., 5-26-01] Soon Norman Pearlstine, formerly the head of the Wall Street Journal and Jewish, was installed as editor of Time magazine.




Re(3): Ted Turner - Gerald Levin
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 00:17:51 AM by Mitchell Levine

Once again we have an irrelevant pile of horseshit designed only to try and implicate the people in question for the "crime" of being Jewish.

You give no evidence of any kind that Jerry Levin has committed any offense, nor have you provided any substantiation of why Ted Turner has any legitimate grievance with him, or why your post had even the slightest validity. All you've done is make yet another ad hominem character asassination attempt against the Jews for the heinous transgression of being successful businesspeople.

The only purpose of all this is to try to incite hate, fear, and jealousy by posting a list of business execs with Jewish names. The single applicable charge leveled by the article is a simple concern that the Time-Warner merger might potentially cause a "conflict of interest," if the print subsidiaries had to review Warner Bros film releases. Not exactly a public crisis, and certainly not significantly removed from the case of Rupert Murdoch.

An executive is not generally supposed to be ashamed of being a "proficient wheel-dealer," as if that wouldn't be equally true of Turner himself anyways. I guess that's only shameful if you're a Jew.

And you're actually trying to elicit sympathy for Ted Turner for having courageously endured the unthinkable fate of never being able to buy NBC!

Just what the board needed - one more case study of your total lack of critical thinking skills.



Re(4): Ted Turner - Gerald Levin
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 00:28:09 AM by mg

The issue is not whether Ted Turner is a nice guy.

The issue you obfuscate is this: Jewish hegemony, Jewish power, and Jewish networking in the mass media world towards Judeocentric advancement -- which is everywhere verifiable.

I am presenting to you a series a facts in the same way that Jews have assailed the WASP power structure for decades.

You refuse to understand the obvious because YOU are an ethnocentric bigot who is riding the vast Jewish coattails.



Re(5): Ted Turner - Gerald Levin
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 00:58:33 AM by Mitchell Levine

There are no facts here whatsoever: You just posted it because Gerald Levin has a Jewish name! You have not been able to implicate him in any kind of transgression on the basis of your post other than simply being Jewish! As if that were somehow a crime. You specifically dumped it on the site as an example of evil, sinister Jewish treachery, and it has not the slightest evidence of that. What you call "bigotry" is refusal to let you slander and character asassinate the outgroups you irrationally hate, fear, and envy, as if people had no right to defend themselves against that kind of treatment, just because you're prejudiced.

You will post any kind of bullshit without the slightest concern for what it is if it sounds anti-Jewish. Either you're a moron, or you didn't even bother reading the Ted Turner post. It has no point whatsoever, other than trying to imply that Levin did something wrong because he's Jewish and Turner's not.

Everyone in business tries to network to attain advancement - that's why they go into business! Your manifest insinuation is that it's cool when Turner does it and uncool when Levin does it, just because he's Jewish. Well, that's bullshit. Unless, of course, the only point is to simply try to raise the public's consciousness about the fact that there are Jewish people in the business, as if after inventing it, they would have just disappeared, so gentiles that you aren't prejudiced against could take it over. Like that happens in any industry, or even should!




Ted Turner - Hollywood's Latest Victim
Posted on May 19, 2003 at 11:27:56 PM by James Jaeger

In his book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD!, John Cones talks about outsiders that come into the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry (such as Marvin Davis and Kirk Kirkorian) and meet their fate. Ted Turner is but the latest victim.

James Jaeger



Re(1): Ted Turner - Hollywood's Latest Victim
Posted on May 20, 2003 at 02:00:10 AM by Mitchell Levine

Yes, Jim, I'm sure that's every bit as coherent as your theory that crime is an evolutionary benefit to society, or that physicists should rule the nation!



Re(1): Ted Turner - Hollywood's Latest Victim
Posted on May 20, 2003 at 03:12:00 AM by George Shelps



In his book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD!, John Cones talks about outsiders that come into the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry (such as Marvin Davis
and Kirk Kirkorian) and meet their fate. Ted Turner is but the latest victim.

___Victim of whom? Ted is so erratic
they were wise not to let him be in
control. Besides, Richard Parsons
(not Jewish) not Jerry Levin is the
current chairman of AOL Time Warner.

By the way, James, when are you going
to repudiate JJ?



Re(2): Ted Turner - Hollywood's Latest Victim
Posted on May 20, 2003 at 09:17:21 AM by Mitchell Levine

Not to mention answer my question as to why, if this cause is so urgent, Mr. Cones refuses to post his book on the site so it can be read and assimilated... unless he was planning to quit his practice and live off the royalties?




John Cones' Free Book
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 00:03:19 AM by James Jaeger

Mitchell,

John has posted a free copy of his book on the web. It's at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm

James Jaeger




Re(3): Ted Turner - Hollywood's Latest Victim
Posted on May 20, 2003 at 11:58:59 PM by mg

Every night you pray that another day will pass with FIRM mired in obscurity.

Once its big break comes, the dam will be hard to put back up with your usual masking tape.


The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 20, 2003 at 00:48:22 AM by Bertie

Continuing the Judeocentric propaganda via the new Hitler miniseries, which further propagandizing viewers to Jewish victimology :


The Executive Producer of "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" is also Jewish: Peter Sussman, and he has a track record of sponsoring "Holocaust" films. So is the head of CBS (which is running
the mini-series): Leslie Moonves.

http://www.cbs.com/specials/rise_of_evil/about/about.shtml

Peter Sussman, CBS

"Peter Sussman is the Chief Executive Officer of the Entertainment Group at Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. and an Executive Producer on HITLER: The Rise of Evil. Alliance Atlantis's extensive body of work includes several films dealing with stories and events in connection with the Holocaust and World War II. Many of these films were executive produced by Mr. Sussman and they include the mini-series "Nuremberg" for TNT, nominated for four Emmy Awards (winner of one) and three Golden Globe Awards and the mini-series "Haven" for CBS, nominated for three Emmy Awards and winner of the 2001 Humanitas Award. Mr. Sussman
was also an Executive Producer of the award winning feature film "The
Quarrel," based on the celebrated Yiddish short story by Chaim Grade
entitled "My Quarrel with Hersh Rasseyner." Other Alliance Atlantis feature films on subjects relating to the Holocaust include "Sunshine," nominated for three Golden Globe Awards, including Best Film, as well as "Prisoner of Paradise," nominated for an Academy Award in 2003 for Best Feature Documentary. In addition,
Mr. Sussman executive produced the mini-series "Joan of Arc" for CBS, which was nominated for 13 Emmy Awards (winner of one), four Golden Globe Awards, and won the Television Critics Award for Best Movie, Mini-Series or Special."


Re(1): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 20, 2003 at 02:05:29 AM by Mitchell Levine

How could anyone stand for the American people being propagandized with the myth that the Nazis victimized Jews?

Obviously exterminating them was for their own good!

Thanks for clearing up that misconception!

Heil Victory!!!





Re(2): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 20, 2003 at 11:56:46 PM by Moishe the Goyim

YOU SAY: How could anyone stand for the American people being propagandized with the myth that the Nazis victimized Jews?

RESPONSE: As always, you are misrepresenting my point. It is not that you don't understand it, you are afraid of it. It's easier to twist something rational and moral into something "Nazi," isn't it? All you have to do is scream "Nazi" and you don't have to do anything else, right? You can blot out all moral exchange if you can just demonize my position.

But, ho! I will continue to guide your Judeocentric bigotry back onto my "Roadmap for Justice and Morality." I will continue to expose you for the moral fraud that you are.

My point is that the usual Jewish Hollywood cabal hyper-focalizes (new word) on its ethnocentric tradition which includes Hitler and the Holocaust, ad nauseum. Jewish power in Hollywood and the mass media guarantees an endless stream of movies about how Hitler treated the Jews, underscoring that everyone (like Shelps) must prioritize defending hidden Jewish chauvinism as a kind of public policy.

Jewish propagandists seek to teach that Jews are collectively saints, and anyone who criticizes Jewish racism, bigotry, networking, and ethnocentrism is a "Nazi." Hitler as a stick figure of evil epitomizes this. If Jews can lump anyone who criticizes the Jewish Lobby into the Nazi camp, they hope to totally squelch public discourse.
Sorry. YOU are far more totalitarian, bigoted, and biased than I.



Re(3): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 00:40:41 AM by Mitchell Levine

Yeah, your "roadmap" is for "justice and morality," just like Bush's re-election war is for "Iraqi Freedom"!

You actually sell yourself short for once: NO ONE is more totalitarian, bigoted, or biased then you. You're just a typical black antisemite who happens to have an ISP.

Completely undermining your bullshit is the fact that the mini-series is the number-one rated show on television, even in the midst of series and season finales, and basketball play-offs. And it didn't have half the advertising campaign the American Idol competition play-offs did.

As a unique human epitomization of irrational hate and malevolence, the figure of Hitler has a dark fascination for the public that would exist now and forever, even if his Final Solution had been successful.

You would be weaving polymorphous fantasies about "Jewish ethnocentricism" no matter what they ever did, because the single note of consciousness you possess is bitter prejudice and disassociative projection.

And the fact that you could ever have the balls to refer to anyone else as "biased," after that Ted Turner crap - so embarassing you haven't even bothered to reply - is really the best demonstration of your capacity for reality-testing and self-insight a dissenter could ask for.


Re(3): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 02:27:05 AM by George Shelps

Jewish propagandists seek to teach that Jews are collectively saints, and anyone who criticizes Jewish racism, bigotry, networking, and ethnocentrism is a "Nazi."

___You don't just "criticize," you
define Jews almost exclusively by these negative traits. EVERYTHING said about Jews on your site is designed to create
an impression of Jews as a malevolent
people. Such a design is not "criticism," it is propaganda.


Re(4): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 09:08:13 PM by mg

YOU SAY: You actually sell yourself short for once: NO ONE is more totalitarian, bigoted, or biased then you. You're just a typical black antisemite who happens to have an ISP.

RESPONSE: I am a lightening rod for everyone's personal bigotry. I've been called a white racist, a hated Muslim, a black antisemite, and one-eyed Chinaman who hates American food. I am the pure screen upon which those who hate the truth project their naked biases.

YOU SAY: Completely undermining your bullshit is the fact that the mini-series is the number-one rated show on television, even in the midst of series and season finales, and basketball play-offs.

RESPONSE: Judeocentrism has kept Hitler alive in the public mind for a long, long time now. Don't you think?

YOU SAY: As a unique human epitomization of irrational hate and malevolence,

RESPONSE: There is nothing "unique" about Hitler or the Holocaust. Jews use the word "unique" with everything that has to do with them. How else could it be for the "Chosen People?"

YOU SAY: the figure of Hitler has a dark fascination for the public that would exist now and forever, even if his Final Solution had been successful.

RESPONSE: Jews are OBSESSED with Hitler. He has become the pillar of Jewish identity, in much the same way Haman and Amalek champion Jewish saintliness against absolute Evil in Jewish tradition.

YOU SAY: You would be weaving polymorphous fantasies about "Jewish ethnocentricism" no matter what they ever did, because the single note of consciousness you possess is bitter prejudice and disassociative projection.

RESPONSE: Jewish neurosis defines modern day America, because they dominate so much of it. Jewish "prejudice" and "disassociative projection" is the essence of Jewish collective consciousness. And you know that.

YOU SAY: And the fact that you could ever have the balls to refer to anyone else as "biased," after that Ted Turner crap - so embarassing you haven't even bothered to reply - is really the best demonstration of your capacity for reality-testing and self-insight a dissenter could ask for.

RESPONSE: What are you talking about? I've posted plenty about Ted Turner. Do I have to ask him to go on over to your house for an autograph party?

Hey, Levine. I think you are the renewed Jewish manifestation of Adolf Hitler. Good argument, huh?






Re(5): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 11:15:20 PM by Mitchell Levine

As mentioned, the Chosen People sobriquet is established by the scriptures you've already claimed are the foundation for your religious beliefs.
So if you have any problems with it, you should really take it up with Jehovah.

Lots of people are fascinated by Hitler: Just ask your friends!

If you had ever been interned in Aushwitz, you would now be running, instead of your inane hate site, the 24-hr Holocaust Channel.

Hitler WAS unique - the most successful purveyor of genocide in historical times, and diabolically gifted enough to deceive and polarize an entire nation in racial hatred. Stalin killed more, but destroyed less.

Jews have no "collective consciousness," a phenomenon reserved for insects I'm told. Jews are an extremely diverse, unusually educated
group of people whom have a variety of different types of ties, ethnic, religious, and cultural, and don't share a single opinion, belief, or view
on virtually anything. Only psychotic racists like yourself seem to think otherwise.

Please find anyone who thinks that Portnoy's Complaint defines American identity more deeply than democracy, fast food, baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet, than I'll believe your typically idiotic, delusional thesis.

Obviously, I was referring to your most recent bullshit about Ted Turner and Gerald Levin, whose stupidity I conclusively demonstrated in an earlier post, which you haven't challenged, simply because you can't.

Despite the fact that there's no evidence I've ever charismatically mounted an ultra-nationalist fascist bureaucracy to systematically exterminate millions of racial Untermenschen, uniting the European Fatherland into a thousand-year Volkische Reich for blood and soil, then recruited delusive, socially dysfunctional boot-licking weasels like you to accomplish what I couldn't, your argument is actually the most intellectually accomplished you've ever made!



Re(6): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 01:33:26 AM by mg

YOU SAY: As mentioned, the Chosen People sobriquet is established by the scriptures you've already claimed are the foundation for your religious beliefs.
So if you have any problems with it, you should really take it up with Jehovah.

RESPONSE: No, I'll take it up with you. The origin of your own Jewish identity is the "Chosen People" claim. That's a fact. That's the very root of Jewish consciousness. That, pal, is where it came from.

YOU SAY: Lots of people are fascinated by Hitler: Just ask your friends!

REPONSE: I asked Ariel Sharon, and yeah, he's "fascinated" with AH.

YOU SAY: If you had ever been interned in Aushwitz, you would now be running, instead of your inane hate site, the 24-hr Holocaust Channel.

RESPONSE: Auschwitz (Auschwitz I as distinct from Birkenau) was originally founded to imprison (and kill) Polish (NOT Jewish) dissidents. YOu wouldn't know much about that. Nor care.

YOU SAY: Hitler WAS unique - the most successful purveyor of genocide in historical times, and diabolically gifted enough to deceive and polarize an entire nation in racial hatred.

RESPONSE: Hitler was unique in the way you're unique, or Ariel Sharon is unique. Or Emily Dickinson. Or Atilla the Hun. Or Willie Mays.

YOU SAY: Stalin killed more, but destroyed less.

RESPONSE: "Destroyed less?" So murdering millions doesn't count as "destroying?" You've got some curious standards. The Jewish-inspired communist government in fact was responsible for many times more murders than the Holocaust. Tens of millions, according to scholars on the subject. Etc.

YOU SAY: Jews have no "collective consciousness," a phenomenon reserved for insects I'm told.

RESPONSE: If you refuse me the right to make any generalization about "Jews," then what is your definition of them? They are mystical, are they not? Beyond concrete definition.

YOU SAY: Jews are an extremely diverse, unusually educated
group of people whom have a variety of different types of ties, ethnic, religious, and cultural, and don't share a single opinion, belief, or view
on virtually anything.

RESPONSE: Bullshit. They don't share "single opinion, belief, or view on virtually anything." You know that old adage, "Never say never?"

YOU SAY: Only psychotic racists like yourself seem to think otherwise.

RESPONSE: YOU are the "psychotic racist," and a "psychotic liar" too. Your portrayal of Jewry as being as "diverse" as the stars is absolute hogwash, and you know it. If we cannot make reasonable generalizations about Jewish identity, Jewish history, etc. then why have the word "Jew?" If there are no fair generalizations, how is a Jew different than a fruitfly? Or a watermelon? Or a Christian? Or an African American?

YOU SAY: Please find anyone who thinks that Portnoy's Complaint defines American identity more deeply than democracy, fast food, baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet, than I'll believe your typically idiotic, delusional thesis.

RESPONSE: Roth defines quite well the JEWISH dimensions of "being American," and we cite some of his quotes at our web site. Roth is the quintessential "Jewish" novelist, and he is everywhere defined as such by Jewish reviewers.

YOU SAY: Obviously, I was referring to your most recent bullshit about Ted Turner and Gerald Levin, whose stupidity I conclusively demonstrated in an earlier post, which you haven't challenged, simply because you can't.

RESPONSE: What a clown. Which is your cherished post? Post it again and I'll deconstruct it -- line by line -- as I usually do. (Your own habit is to ignore the avalanche of details on rain down upon you and response in grotesque generalizations: "Racist! You're stupid and wrong!"

YOU SAY: Despite the fact that there's no evidence I've ever charismatically mounted an ultra-nationalist fascist bureaucracy to systematically exterminate millions of racial Untermenschen, uniting the European Fatherland into a thousand-year Volkische Reich for blood and soil, then recruited delusive, socially dysfunctional boot-licking weasels like you to accomplish what I couldn't, your argument is actually the most intellectually accomplished you've ever made!

RESPONSE: Better a "boot-licking weasel" than a brown-nose spelunker dangling on a penis gourd like yourself.

But, see. This is where guys like you and Shelps lead me. I end up in the pigsty with you. Your constant spitting of chicken urine at me is disgusting, and I have to pull myself up out of your grimey turd sandwhich.

Please set the standards back up to the rung that afford some intellectual and moral decorum.



Re(7): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 02:41:17 PM by George Shelps


YOU SAY: As mentioned, the Chosen People sobriquet is established by the scriptures you've already claimed are the foundation for your religious beliefs.

So if you have any problems with it, you should really take it up with Jehovah.

RESPONSE: No, I'll take it up with you. The origin of your own Jewish identity is the "Chosen People" claim. That's a fact. That's the very root of Jewish consciousness. That, pal, is where it came from.

____Again, Levin is correct to say
that the Christianity is founded on the
idea of the Jews as a Chosen People. No "chosen-ness," no Christ.

It is as simple as that.

So your attack on the Jews is an attack
on Christianity as well.

That's why Hitler was going to destroy
the Christian Church (with its Jewish
Messiah) as soon as he won the war.

(Documentation found on Rutgers University website)

RESPONSE: Auschwitz (Auschwitz I as distinct from Birkenau) was originally founded to imprison (and kill) Polish (NOT Jewish) dissidents. YOu wouldn't know much about that. Nor care.

__Auschwitz was a concentration camp
before it was a death camp,yes. But it was converted into a death camp for the
purposes of the Final Solution.

RESPONSE: YOU are the "psychotic racist," and a "psychotic liar" too. Your portrayal of Jewry as being as "diverse" as the stars is absolute hogwash, and you know it. If we cannot make reasonable generalizations about Jewish identity, Jewish history, etc. then why have the word "Jew?" If there are no fair generalizations, how is a Jew different than a fruitfly? Or a watermelon? Or a Christian? Or an African American?

___You don't make "reasonable" generalations.

YOU SAY: Obviously, I was referring to your most recent bullshit about Ted Turner and Gerald Levin, whose stupidity I conclusively demonstrated in an earlier post, which you haven't challenged, simply because you can't.

RESPONSE: What a clown. Which is your cherished post? Post it again and I'll deconstruct it -- line by line -- as I usually do. (Your own habit is to ignore the avalanche of details on rain down upon you and response in grotesque generalizations: "Racist! You're stupid and wrong!"

___You deal with all
objections to your statements in the
same way, by paranoid whining.





Re(4): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 02:29:22 AM by George Shelps

just like Bush's re-election war is for "Iraqi Freedom"!

___Hate to break it to you, Mitchell,
but it was.

By the way, JJ agrees with you on this
particular point.


Re(4): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 08:58:16 PM by mg

What posted at the site ISN'T true?




Re(5): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 22, 2003 at 01:44:22 AM by George Shelps


What posted at the site ISN'T true?

___Your spin on the information...completely anti-Jewish.

You add your slimy smears to many of the
posts.



Re(5): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 22, 2003 at 02:51:50 AM by Anonymous

Yeah, right. Besides, I thought the rationale was WOMD elimination anyhow.

Putative Iraqi freedom is just an accidental dignity, if it exists at all.

JJ and I reach the same destination with rather different trip-ticks.



Re(6): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 22, 2003 at 06:31:42 AM by George Shelps


Yeah, right. Besides, I thought the rationale was WOMD elimination anyhow.

___You weren't listening. Weapons of
mass destruction was just one rationale.

We were technically at war with Iraq
ever since Saddam violated the original
cease-fire agreement time and time again.

There was never a peace treaty
because he couldn't even abide by
the deal we (mistakenly) gave him that
allowed his regime to survive in l99l.



Putative Iraqi freedom is just an accidental dignity, if it exists at all.
___Better to have Saddam and his mass murders and torture chambers then?

JJ and I reach the same destination with rather different trip-ticks.

___Both anti-Bush though.




Re(7): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 22, 2003 at 10:52:12 PM by Mitchell Levine

Is it better to have torture chambers? No. Do I believe that their destruction has anything to do with Bush's intent in aggressing? Again, no!

I don't deny the desirability for the Iraqi people of the blessing in disguise; but I do affirm cynicism regarding his motivations for providing it. And, as far as mass murders go, we probably just killed more of their nationals than Hussein did.

Maybe the hawks are right that sanctions would have killed even yet more eventually, but that's just a argument for ending sanctions, not waging war.

True, Jenks predicated his conclusion solely on the basis of his psychotic need to blame Jews for everything he dislikes - what more can you expect from that demented fool? - but it doesn't mean he didn't accidentally reach the correct conclusion. Like the tired, ancient cliche goes, "even a broken watch is right twice a day."



Re(8): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 01:08:00 AM by George Shelps



Is it better to have torture chambers? No. Do I believe that their destruction has anything to do with Bush's intent in aggressing? Again, no!

___And how exactly do you know that?


I don't deny the desirability for the Iraqi people of the blessing in disguise; but I do affirm cynicism regarding his motivations for providing it.

__I think your "cynicism" is without
any evidentiary foundation. Are you
saying Bush waged war and put American
lives in danger so that he could get
re-elected?


And, as far as mass murders go, we probably just killed more of their nationals than Hussein did.

___That's a lie.

Maybe the hawks are right that sanctions would have killed even yet more eventually, but that's just a argument for ending sanctions, not waging war.

___Saddam broke the armistice over and
over, threatened the region, and will eventually be shown to have been plotting to ally with al Qaeda. There's already some evidence found by British
journalists that documents a connection.


Re(9): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 02:29:41 AM by Anonymous

How do I know that? Obviously, I don't - that's why I said "I believe," and not "I know."

Do I believe that George Bush waged war and endangered the lives of American soldiers just to get re-elected? Yes, I do.

His father did exactly the same thing (luckily it didn't work). And given the fact that he was willing to commit electoral fraud and commit racist civil rights abuses to get elected the first time, why exactly am I supposed to believe otherwise?

That's a lie? No, it's not. For one, I said "probably." For another, it's what I in fact believe, so how exactly would that meet the definition of a lie, which certainly requires deceit as a primary characteristic? Even if I'm wrong that doesn't make it a lie; it would simply mean that I'm mistaken. Not to mention the fact that you have no idea who and how many we've killed, other than what you've received through the propaganda mill of a wartime press. I would expect that you'd know, "the first casualty of war is truth."





Re(10): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 02:39:59 AM by George Shelps



Do I believe that George Bush waged war and endangered the lives of American soldiers just to get re-elected? Yes, I do.

___Then that makes the President a war criminal.

His father did exactly the same thing
(luckily it didn't work). And given the fact that he was willing to commit electoral fraud and commit racist civil rights abuses to get elected the first time, why exactly am I supposed to believe otherwise?

___That's almost close to the level
of JJ's tripe.

Hey, JJ, don't ever say again that Mitchell Levine and I speak with one
voice!




Re(11): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 02:56:54 AM by Mitchell Levine

And that would make him the first President to be a war criminal? Ask Kissinger about that one.

Hardly. Bush's fraud in the 2000 election has been well-documented, as was his brother's electoral intimidation of Blacks, and other civil rights abuses in connection with the same. The fact that Janet Reno refused to prosecute does not mean that no crime was committed. Bush just had better connections at the time.

I hate to vindicate your final statement by apparently adopting J.J.'s rhetorical strategy of using references to third-party sources as an ad-hominem "proof" of my position, but read Dershowitz's book.

Yes, I understand that he's often a jackass, and primarily a loud-mouthed, sensationalist embarassment to the Jews, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to constitutional law.





Re(12): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 12:06:52 AM by George Shelps


And that would make him the first President to be a war criminal? Ask Kissinger about that one.

___Just disgusting..

Hardly. Bush's fraud in the 2000 election has been well-documented,

___Where? By Michael Moore? Virtually
all the recounts showed Gore still losing. You just don't like the system that the Founders set up. They didn't
want large states or big cities to
dominate a Presidential election, so
they set up the electoral vote system.

Gore had more votes because of his huge
majorities in 2 states...NY and CA. Take those 2 state out of both columns
and Bush wins by 2 million votes.

Bush won 30 states representing the majority of citizens in the country.

He was correctly elected.

And even if the Supreme Court hadn't
stopped the recount, the Florida
legislature was going to send Bush
electors to Washington. And the House,
being Republican, would have chosen
Bush anyway.

By all constitutional definitions, Bush
was the winner. You lefties just don't
like the constitution or the Supreme
Court when it doesn't go your political
way!


as was his brother's electoral intimidation of Blacks, and other civil rights abuses in connection with the same.

___Never demonstrated..except by the
left-wing majority on the Civil Rights
Commission.

The fact that Janet Reno refused to prosecute does not mean that no crime was committed. Bush just had better connections at the time.

___This is such garbage! Really, Mitchell. Where do you get off
criticizng JJ for his extremist views
when you're a political whacko youself!

I hate to vindicate your final statement by apparently adopting J.J.'s rhetorical strategy of using references to third-party sources as an ad-hominem "proof" of my position, but read Dershowitz's book.

Yes, I understand that he's often a jackass, and primarily a loud-mouthed, sensationalist embarassment to the Jews, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to constitutional law.

___I read his book. He's a political
partisan and his argument doesn't hold
up. The Florida Supreme Court over-stepped its bounds by changing the
Florida election law to give Gore another shot at winning the election.

I can't believe that there are Sore-Losermen still out there!

I agree with you that JJ is a Jew-hater
and a liar, but you're a Bush-hater.

Irrational political hating isn't as bad as anti-Semitism, but I am sickened
by such left-wing extremism, too.

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