FIRM Discussions

May 23, 2003 - June 5, 2003

---

Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?

---

Re(13): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 01:37:42 PM by Anonymous

No, George, bombing My Lai Hospital is disgusting. Expressing contempt for a politician whom subverted democracy to his own political ends is being an American.

Butterfly ballots, gerrymandering, and using your family's power to racially profile and intimidate is disgusting too. Since Florida election law was violated to take the legitimate title away from Gore, undercutting the popular majority, how was the Florida Supreme Court "out-stepping its bounds" by performing judicial review? That's exactly its function. There's nothing "irrational" about that in the slightest. I'm not the biggest Gore supporter in the world either, but he's certainly an improvement over this idiot.

You honestly believe that Michael Moore is the ONLY one who agrees? You really should get out more. Many other pundits and analysts sustained that reading of the events of November 2000; as people often do, with time, they simply lost interest and went with the political flow. Nothing further could be done, and no one wanted civil war. That doesn't make it right.

Although (based solely on your posts, of course) I respect you as an intelligent man of conviction, George, it looks like we're not going to agree on this one. I guess that's why you're not supposed to publicly discuss religion and politics, and pretty much all we ever discuss is religion and politics.

I will now retreat to my worker's collective and prepare dialectic re-education for the Great Leap Forward of the People's Revolution for Social Justice! UNGOWA!!!!


Re(14): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 07:28:32 PM by George Shelps



No, George, bombing My Lai Hospital is disgusting. Expressing contempt for a politician whom subverted democracy to his own political ends is being an American.

___Except that is a slander as bad as some of JJ's slander of the Jews.

Butterfly ballots,

___Created by a Democrat.

gerrymandering, and using your family's power to racially profile and intimidate is disgusting too. Since Florida election law was violated to take the legitimate title away from Gore, undercutting the popular majority,

___That is false.

how was the Florida Supreme Court "out-stepping its bounds" by performing judicial review? That's exactly its function.

___Wrong. A state court cannot "review"
a constitutional law. The constitution
specifically states that the state
legislatures have the right to set the
terms of Presidential elections. Since
it is a constitutional mandate, only
the Supreme Court may review a Presidential election law.

Which it did.

There's nothing "irrational" about that in the slightest. I'm not the biggest Gore supporter in the world either, but he's certainly an improvement over this idiot.

___Seems like most Americans disagree
with you about Bush.

You honestly believe that Michael Moore is the ONLY one who agrees? You really should get out more. Many other pundits and analysts sustained that reading of the events of November 2000; as people often do, with time, they simply lost interest and went with the political flow. Nothing further could be done, and no one wanted civil war. That doesn't make it right.

____You don't understand the constitution. We don't have popular
election of Presidents.

And we don't count ballots by what
the voter "might" have done. My mother
intended to vote for Bush but she forgot
to send in her absentee ballot. Should
her vote count? And if people can't mark a ballot properly, they don't deserve to have their voted counted.



Re(15): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 09:39:34 PM by Anonymous

As I said, despite my admiration for your character, principles, and knowledge of film, I really don't wish to debate this further, as we are never going to agree.

But, since you seem to insist, I suppose I'll oblige you. The analogy between myself and J.J. is grossly inaccurate: J.J.'s diatribes are expressions of hate and prejudice fueled by ignorant stereotypes directed at an entire ethnicity uniformly as a class. While you might not concur with my reading of the facts, that's at very least exactly what it is - my reading of the facts, and not a manifestation of my prejudice against any particular group, except possibly corrupt politicians, against whom we should all be prejudiced. There is no hatred in my communicated beliefs other than for what I believe is a legitimate subversion of our attempts at self-government. Of course, I'm sure you'll reply, that's what J.J. believes too, but he's an idiot whom is completely incapable of critically evaluating anything.

The fact that a Democrat designed those ballots is irrelevant, and you know it. They weren't created with the intent to defraud, it was a side-effect; but that doesn't change the fact that they still threw the count, and did not meet the applicable legislation. The idea that hundreds of Miami Beach Jews would have voted for Buchanan just certifies the incompetence of the methodology.

What your mother might have done is irrelevant, because forgetting to send your ballot in is voter error. Running a ballot that does not meet the regulations of the election code invalidates the procedure as a matter of law. The fact that it might have been designed by the party whose opponents benefited is completely immaterial. We do not decide the assignment of the most powerful executive office in our nation on that playground-like basis: we have laws that determine what happens, and those election laws were subverted by the Republicans.

The only reason the law was circumvented, and the election allowed to continue was that the Republicans used their influence in the area. It should have triggered a recount, or a new election, but pressure was brought to bear in Jeb Bush's state. A Democrat may have designed the thing, but that doesn't mean that no fraud was committed by the Republicans. Clear legislation existed as to how the situation was supposed to be handled, but because of partisan interference, that law was ignored.

Of course I understand that the Consitution sanctions electoral colleges as the means for presidential selection. The point is not that the popular vote should have been substituted for the electoral, but that the indications of the popular vote, while not technically decisive, still provide evidence that the Bush's manipulation of the process undermined the express will of the people.

Your dismissal out of hand of Dershowitz's arguments as "partisan," only underlines the fact that you have no way of discounting them rationally. Numerous African-Americans reported the various means by which they were denied their voting rights, including harassment by Florida state troopers through racial profiling, road blocks, physical intimidation, and even illegaly extending correctional expungement from voter registration logs to ex-cons charged with misdemeanors, instead of convicted felons only.

Rep. John Sweeney actually led a group of thugs that committed physical assault with the intent to "shut down" the manual recount, even chasing people into elevators by threatening them with violence in Palm Beach. He doesn't even deny it. Furthermore, what the State Supreme was ruling on was not what the law was, but whether the election law could be applied as inconsistently as it was. The fact that several of the high court justices whom eventually ruled had children employed associates in the Bushs' law firm that earned substantial fees (Florida taxpayers were billed $750,000 by just one firm alone) just provides additional confirmation of rampant corruption at work.

What most Americans believe is irrelevant as well. A large majority elected Nixon, condoned McCarthyism and blacklisting, and supported Vietnam for quite some time too.





Re(16): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 10:54:11 PM by George Shelps




As I said, despite my admiration for your character, principles, and knowledge of film, I really don't wish to debate this further, as we are never going to agree.

___I regret we had to go into this,too
but you attacked Bush and I am a Bush-admirer. You should have stuck
to the FIRM topics.

But, since you seem to insist, I suppose I'll oblige you. The analogy between myself and J.J. is grossly inaccurate:

___Not completely. He hates a whole
ethnic group, whereas you just
have contempt for the President
of the US and consider him a crook
and a war criminal....I consider both
views to be off-the-wall and irrational
and full of prejudice.


J.J.'s diatribes are expressions of hate and prejudice fueled by ignorant stereotypes directed at an entire ethnicity uniformly as a class.

__True.

While you might not concur with my reading of the facts, that's at very least exactly what it is - my reading of the facts, and not a manifestation of my prejudice against any particular group, except possibly corrupt politicians, against whom we should all be prejudiced. There is no hatred in my communicated beliefs other than for what I believe is a legitimate subversion of our attempts at self-government. Of course, I'm sure you'll reply, that's what J.J. believes too, but he's an idiot whom is completely incapable of critically evaluating anything.

____Yes, but your charge of subversion,
while not motivated by irrational
hatred, is still irresponsible.

The fact that a Democrat designed those ballots is irrelevant, and you know it.

___No, it's relevant---because the
problem was not corruption but
ballot design or stupidity....by
Democrats.

They weren't created with the intent to defraud, it was a side-effect; but that doesn't change the fact that they still threw the count, and did not meet the applicable legislation. The idea that hundreds of Miami Beach Jews would have voted for Buchanan just certifies the incompetence of the methodology.

___I think their age had something to do with the fact that they couldn't figure out a very simple ballot.


What your mother might have done is irrelevant, because forgetting to send your ballot in is voter error. Running a ballot that does not meet the regulations of the election code invalidates the procedure as a matter of law.

___Where's your evidence for that
statement? The ballot was published
in the papers and approved by everyone.

The fact that it might have been designed by the party whose opponents benefited is completely immaterial. We do not decide the assignment of the most powerful executive office in our nation on that playground-like basis: we have laws that determine what happens, and those election laws were subverted by the Republicans.

___Yes, and our ultimate lawgiving
institution is the Supreme Court---which ruled for Bush.

The only reason the law was circumvented, and the election allowed to continue was that the Republicans used their influence in the area.

___They did not. The Florida Supreme
Court was stacked with Democrats and
exerted the maximum of influence.

It should have triggered a recount, or a new election, but pressure was brought to bear in Jeb Bush's state. A Democrat may have designed the thing, but that doesn't mean that no fraud was committed by the Republicans. Clear legislation existed as to how the situation was supposed to be handled, but because of partisan interference, that law was ignored.

___Oh, nonsense. The legislature was
going to send Bush electors to Washington no matter what happened...
they had that constitutional right and they were going to use it.


Of course I understand that the Consitution sanctions electoral colleges as the means for presidential selection. The point is not that the popular vote should have been substituted for the electoral, but that the indications of the popular vote, while not technically decisive, still provide evidence that the Bush's manipulation of the process undermined the express will of the people.

___No, it is not evidence. And
how about the 100% turn-outs in some
urban wards..? Very unlikely. In
Philadelphia, the Democrats have been
stealing elections for decades.

Philadelphia provided the margin of
victory for Gore in PA.



Your dismissal out of hand of Dershowitz's arguments as "partisan,"

__Dersh's partisanship is rampant---when he isn't getting killers off the hook, that is.

only underlines the fact that you have no way of discounting them rationally.

___I discount the basic one that I
remember, that the Florida Court had
the right to extend the certification
deadline---which it did in a clear
attempt to steal the election for Gore


Numerous African-Americans reported the various means by which they were denied their voting rights, including harassment by Florida state troopers through racial profiling, road blocks, physical intimidation, and even illegaly extending correctional expungement from voter registration logs to ex-cons charged with misdemeanors, instead of convicted felons only.

___All allegations.

Rep. John Sweeney actually led a group of thugs that committed physical assault with the intent to "shut down" the manual recount, even chasing people into elevators by threatening them with violence in Palm Beach. He doesn't even deny it.

__Actually, I thought that was the moment when I knew the GOP was not going to allow the Democrats to steal another
election.

Furthermore, what the State Supreme was ruling on was not what the law was, but whether the election law could be applied as inconsistently as it was.

___No, it tampered with the ruling of
the state legislature, which it had
not the authority to do in the matter of
Presidential elections.

The fact that several of the high court justices whom eventually ruled had children employed associates in the Bushs' law firm that earned substantial fees (Florida taxpayers were billed $750,000 by just one firm alone) just provides additional confirmation of rampant corruption at work.

__Irrelevant. And the Bushes are
not lawyers (W is an MBA) so what
"firm" are you talking about?

What most Americans believe is irrelevant as well.

___Oh, really? And you're the one
who's squawking about frustrating
the will of the people in Florida!

A large majority elected Nixon, condoned McCarthyism and blacklisting, and supported Vietnam for quite some time too.

___All different matters.


Re(17): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 01:44:17 AM by mg

This is amusing: locked in a room for a week, Levine the leftie Jew and Shelps the Republican Christian Zionist would soon be at each other's throats on a thousand issues, discovering they loathe each other completely.




Re(18): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 02:59:55 AM by George Shelps



This is amusing: locked in a room for a week, Levine the leftie Jew and Shelps the Republican Christian Zionist would soon be at each other's throats on a thousand issues, discovering they loathe each other completely.

__Stop snickering. Despite our vast
differences, we both respect the Jewish
faith and people and consider you the
scum of the earth.




Re(19): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 11:23:54 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Stop snickering. Despite our vast differences, we both respect the Jewish faith and people and consider you the scum of the earth.

RESPONSE: Exchanges with you two are pretty much good for comic relief for the day.

So Levine, the Leftie Jew, and Shelps, the conservative Christian, unite to shout epithets at those who dare to point out the poignant issues of modern Jewish hegemony.

Shelps, in his own interpretation of his Christian faith, exemplifies the problem succinctly: he cannot express any rational thoughts on the subject of Judeocentrism because -- via his interpretation of his Christian faith --he is welded to Judeocentrism at the very bone.


Re(20): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 11:33:23 AM by Anonymous



YOU SAY: Stop snickering. Despite our vast differences, we both respect the Jewish faith and people and consider you the scum of the earth.

RESPONSE: Exchanges with you two are pretty much good for comic relief for the day.

___Then why bother?


So Levine, the Leftie Jew, and Shelps, the conservative Christian, unite to shout epithets at those who dare to point out the poignant issues of modern Jewish hegemony.

___Because you're not doing that.

You're demonizing Jews and selecting
everything negative you can find to
back that up.

That's the same thing that Southern
Klansmen did to blacks.


Shelps, in his own interpretation of his Christian faith, exemplifies the problem succinctly: he cannot express any rational thoughts on the subject of Judeocentrism

___Ethnocentrism is commonplace. It is
not restricted to Jews.

because -- via his interpretation of his Christian faith --he is welded to Judeocentrism at the very bone.

___Jesus was a Jew. His mother was
a Jew. He quoted Jewish scripture.
He claimed that he was the Jewish
Messiah, the King of the Jews. The
Romans wrote it on the cross.

An attack on Jews is an attack on
Christ. Period.





Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 00:19:14 AM by James Jaeger

From time to time I get criticized for complaining about Hollywood (FIRM) and not doing enough to try and improve things (MEC) -- or build a more competitive paradigm/company/situation/mousetrap.

For those of you who feel this way, I have posted a copy of MONEY MATTERS which I was recently on(1). If you care to watch the show, you will see some of my efforts to DO something about Hollywood rather than just criticize it.

A 27-minute broadband version of the show is at http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/movies/mm_jrj2.wmv and a 56K dial-up version is at http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/movies/mm_jrj1.wmv. I'm being interviewed by a stock broker with Merrill Lynch and a money manager with Devon Financial Group. Constructive criticism welcome.

James Jaeger

------------------
(1) I was on MONEY MATTERS last year so this new show should not to be confused with that one. Also see a related show with one of our partnering companies, Patrick McShane of ICDC Wireless.com, at http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/movies/mm_icdc2.wmv





Re(1): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 22, 2003 at 04:53:24 AM by Mitchell Levine

Great show, Jim, but don't you think you should have warned us that the opening seg was THE MOST BORING THING EVER FILMED?!!!!

Good work going five minutes without talking about Jews!



Re(2): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 03:35:56 PM by James Jaeger

>Great show, Jim, but don't you think you should have warned us that the opening seg was THE MOST BORING THING EVER FILMED?!!!!

Sorry, but I didn't have any control over the show. I found what Dave and Mike were saying to be very interesting. But then maybe you're just not interested in the subject of investing.

>Good work going five minutes without talking about Jews!

I guess that's a real compliment coming from you Mitchell. Thanks. :)

James


Re(3): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 04:28:47 PM by Mitchell Levine

Fair enough!








Re(2): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 01:34:32 AM by mg

YOU TOO! (?)

Whoops! YOU can't go a sentence without stating the "J" word.





Re(3): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 09:50:05 PM by Mitchell Levine

Like YOU"RE one to talk, Jenks?!!!



Re(3): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 01:53:58 PM by Anonymous

Like YOU"RE someone to talk?!!!





Jews Cause "Anti-Semitism"
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 00:49:49 AM by Moishe the Goyim

Jews systematically mystify hostility to Jewish racism and chauvinism as "anti-Semitism." Below is an Israeli who has the guts to admit that Jews CAUSE anti-Semitism, the same way they're causing it in Hollywood: omnipresent Jewish subversion of the non-Jewish status quo.


http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=12796&intcategoryid=5

No matter its origins, anti-Semitism, like any disease, needs to be fought,
By Hillel Halkin, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 20, 2003

"When we ask ourselves whether anti-Semitism is essentially one
thing or many, just as when we ask ourselves whether or how it will
cease — when we ask, in other words, what must change to make it cease
— are we not really asking whether the real cause of anti-Semitism is
to be found in the Jews or in the world? Before anyone protests that
even to inquire whether the Jews might be the cause of anti-Semitism
is an abject capitulation to the anti-Semites, I would remind you that
the belief that they are the cause of it has been traditionally shared
by anti-Semites with Jews. Why are the Jews like the fruit of the olive tree? ask the rabbis in the Midrash. 'Because,' they answer, 'as all liquids mix with each other, but the oil of the olive does not, so Israel does not mix with the Gentiles . . . And as the olive does not yield its oil unless it is crushed, so Israel does not return to God unless it is crushed by affliction.' Being chosen and set apart exacts a double
price. It makes an envious and indignant world persecute the Jews and
it makes a pedagogical God allow this to happen. Historically, this
is the normative Jewish point of view. Classical Zionism, too, viewed
the Jews as the cause of anti-Semitism ...

Zionism understood the Jews’
misfortunes differently from rabbinic Judaism, which made it more optimistic
about overcoming them. And yet there is in all self-blame a peculiar sort of optimism that helps to explain why, starting with the biblical prophets, there has been so much of it among Jews; for if you are the cause of your own suffering, you have the ability to rectify it, as you do not if it is caused by something or someone outside you ...

If anti-Semitism has a single cause — the Jews — it is a dragon that can
be slain. If it has many causes — as many as the world has fears, hatreds
and phobias — it is a hydra: Cut off one head and it will grow another.
Is that, then, what we are asking when we ask whether the new anti-Semitism
is or is not just the old one all over again: whether we are fighting
a dragon or a hydra? ...

[A. B.] Yehoshua is writing a book, too. In it he maintains that the ultimate reason for anti-Semitism is the Jews themselves. Although
this does not, needless to say, excuse or justify prejudice against
them, the Jews have throughout their history, Yehoshua believes,
baffled and exasperated the world. They have done this by taking two ideas that were their contribution to civilization and by which civilization subsequently organized itself — the idea of monotheistic universalism and the idea of national particularism — and fusing them in a way that has subverted both, thus ironically making them in the world’s eyes the symbolic enemy of humanity and of the nation alike. It is this fusion, or confusion, Yehoshua argues, that has enabled the Arab
states to turn a political and territorial conflict with Israel into
a successful anti-Semitic campaign, since Israel’s failure to distinguish
clearly between religion and nationality — that is, between Jewishness and Israeliness — makes it an anomaly among democracies and exposes it to charges of racism and discrimination."



Re(1): Jews Cause
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 01:23:56 AM by Mitchell Levine

Jenks, yet another example of your boundless intellect!

Next, you can expand the conceptual base of your ground-breaking theory to tell us how Blacks cause racism, gays cause bashing, and housewives make their alcoholic, red-neck husbands beat them!


Re(2): Jews Cause
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 01:43:15 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Jenks, yet another example of your boundless intellect!

RESPONSE: Alas, the "intellect" you defame is that of an Israeli Jew. Go call the Israeli author an "anti-Semite" for laying blame where blame should be: on Jewish racism, chauvinism, and ethnocentrism.

YOU SAY: Next, you can expand the conceptual base of your ground-breaking theory to tell us how Blacks cause racism, gays cause bashing, and housewives make their alcoholic, red-neck husbands beat them!

RESPONSE: You did not read the article posted, nor do you care about any facts that counter your precious illusions.

Your secular Jewish "religion" is exposed here: you believe -- like most Jews -- that all of the historical hostility against Jews (across class, geography, and history) has no basis in factual reality.

You live in a dream world. The problem is that this Jewish dream world controls way too much of modern reality.




Re(2): Jews Cause
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 01:48:27 AM by Mitchell Levine

And then, of course, you'll sequel your masterstroke of exegesis with an explanation of how racism, gay-bashing, and housewives being beaten by their alcoholic, redneck husbands are actually the fault of Jews!




Re(3): Jews Cause
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 11:20:53 AM by George Shelps

Your secular Jewish "religion" is exposed here: you believe -- like most Jews -- that all of the historical hostility against Jews (across class, geography, and history) has no basis in factual reality.

___Like most bigots, you miss the
point.

Even there was some justification for
hostility, that doesn't mean you defame, persecute and kill a group. You are
attempting justify all three of these
evils.

What did the Jews do to justify the
Roman conquest of your country? They
were expelled from their land and Jerusalem was decimated and thus began
their long history of wandering. There
was no justification for this, they
were fighting for their freedom against
the tyranny of Rome.

Being a country-less people in exile
automatically put them at odds with
a world dominated by another religious
faith. Conflict was inevitable.




What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, Part 1
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 10:21:47 PM by Moishe the Goyim

What you won't see in the Hitler mini-series, part 1:

Pre-Nazi Germany is yet another of the dramatic examples of the rise of Jewish economic influence and control in European countries, in this case violently ended by the Nazi destruction of German Jewry. Jews numbered at most about one per cent of the German population between 1871 and 1933, and this percentage had been steadily declining [GORDON, p. 8] but by the end of the eighteenth century, "a high proportion of the landed and liquid wealth in Prussia was in the hands of either nobles or Jews." [HERTZ, p. 36] By 1908, 12 of the 20 richest Berliners were of Jewish ancestry, as were 11 of the 25 richest people in Prussia. [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 208] Of the top 200 Prussian millionaires, 55 were Jewish. Of the top 800, 190 were of Jewish extraction. [MOSSE, p. 30] 41% of Prussian iron and scrap iron firms, and 57% of other metal businesses were owned by Jews. [GORDON, p. 11] Although Jews in 1903 were only 0.74% of the labor force in Prussia, 27% of all Prussian lawyers were Jews, as were 10% of apprenticed lawyers, 47% of magistrates, and 30% of all higher ranks of the judiciary. [GORDON, p. 13]

By the 1930s, 46% of German Jews were self-employed. [KOTKIN, p. 43] In 1932, six million Germans were unemployed. [RUBENSTEIN, R.L., p. 117] In the town of Sonderburg, in the Rhineland area of Germany, "of the five largest employers, two were Jewish firms; in one case, the Jewish-owned mill employed hundreds of Gentile workers -- as many as 20 percent of the working adult labor force. In a very real sense, the Gentile community depended on Jews for employment and for retail goods." [HENRY, F., p. 52]

Gentile fortunes in Germany and its environs were based in landownership and agriculture; Jewish fortunes were founded upon banking and finance. [MOSSE p. 206] In Berlin, by the eighteenth century, "the income of Jews in the middle of the Jewish tax scale would be about three times higher than the average Berliner. The middle of the Jewish tax scale would thus be approximately equal to the top ten per cent of Berlin households." [LOWENSTEIN] The average income of Jews in pre-Nazi Germany was 3.2 times higher than the rest of the population. [NIEWYK, p. 16] "At the end of the eighteenth century 400 Jewish families formed one of the wealthiest groups in Berlin ... In Bavaria, in 1808, 80% of government loans were endorsed and negotiated by Jews." [ARENDT, p. 17] By 1914 the Jews of Berlin -- 5 per cent of that city's population -- paid over a third of its taxes [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 13] and there were "a large number of domestic servants in the two most important Jewish areas of Berlin during the 1920's." [GORDON, p. 15]

In 1923, 150 of the 161 privately-owned banks in Berlin were Jewish; [GORDON, p. 11] "In Berlin alone," notes Jewish author Edwin Black, "about 75% of the attorneys, and nearly as many doctors, were Jewish." [BLACK, p. 58] "All the major Berlin department stores -- Wertheim, Herman Tietz, N. Israel, KaDeWe," says Jewish author Peter Wyden, "were the properties of Jews. All the principal newspaper publishers and thirteen of the drama critics were Jews. Garment manufacturing, a major industry, was generally known to be in Jewish hands." [WYDEN, p. 21] "In Germany," says Nachum Gidal, "Jews above all developed the setting up of department stores, the manufacture and ready-made ladies and gentlemen's clothing, the tobacco, leather, and fur industries and the new film industry." [GIDAL, p. 17]

By 1823, the Bavarian government owed 23% of its public debt to Jews; as early as 1818, there was growing complaint about excessive Jewish influence in Germany. One German writer, Garlieb Merkel, noted that while the "German peoples had, in many years of political disaster lost their precious political rights and had diminished in stature, [Jews] had increased their wealth at a terrifying rate. They knew how gain equality with Christians everywhere and they zealously set about developing this equality into further privileges." "This statement of Merkel has some truth in it," says scholar Jacob Katz, "Jews had exploited, economically and socially, the new status they had achieved in the past generation." [KATZ, From, p. 94] With formal emancipation, the Jews of Berlin, complained Merkel, "now bought up every house afforded for sale in the main streets and filled the cities with their shops. The Jews had long dominated in financial deals and trade in bills. Now they led in occupations such as the book trade ... Almost all the country homes on both sides of the Tiergarten, the Berliners only place of recreation, had passed into Jewish hands ... The Jews has made their gains at the expense of other citizens." [KATZ, From, p. 94-95]

The Jewish-French intellectual, Bernard Lazare, noted in 1894 that:

"In Germany [Jewish] activity was exceedingly great. They were at the
bottom of legislation favourable to the carrying on of banking and
exchange, the practice of usury and speculation. It was they who profited
by the abolition, in 1867, of the ancient laws limiting the rate of interest.
They were active in bringing about the enactment of the law of June
1870, which exempted stock companies from government supervision.
After the Franco-German War, they were among the boldest speculators,
and at a time when German capitalists were carried away by a passion for
the creation of industrial combinations, they acted a no less important
part than had the Jews of France, from 1830 to 1848. Their activity
persisted until the financial panic of 1873, when the country squires and
the small traders who had been ruined by the excesses of this Grunder
Periode in which the Jew had played the most important part, gave
themselves up to the most violent anti-Semitism, such, indeed, as
proceeds only from injured interests." [LAZARE, p. 166]

With the rise of consolidated corporations in the late 1800's and early 1900's, says W. E. Mosse, a Jewish scholar, "a picture emerges of a number of [German] companies with significant Jewish representation in the top positions, which constitutes something of a network with certain common features and common interests." [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 219] For those men with "multiple board memberships" in a variety of major companies, 18 men had more than 21 board positions each. Of these 18, 10 were Jewish. [MOSSE, p. 257] "The distribution of these Jewish board members among major companies shows a distinctive interlocking pattern." [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 253]




Part 2
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 10:22:59 PM by mg

This typical business formulation had been evidenced in the German elite some years earlier when Jews tried to gain acceptance into Masonic lodges. Jacob Katz notes that

"Members of the lodge were expected to communicate with each other
on equal footing. Jews, so the complaint ran, tended to cluster together
whenever they appeared in the lodge, creating a subgroup, a clique.
Similar observances were made in other quarters as well. I do not think
this accusation was a figment of their imagination with no basis in fact.
Jewish historical experience, as well as Jewish concepts and practices,
created a mentality functioning as a factor of cohesion among Jews and
thereby as a barrier between them and non-Jews." [KATZ, RoGH, p. 5]

Many German Jews were known to have, at least officially, converted to Christianity. Like the Spanish Marranos, this was often merely expeditious. As the German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine observed, baptism was "the ticket of admission into German culture." [VARON, p. 10] Heine himself, notes Nahum Goldmann, "was a very good Jew at the end of his life and [his] conversion to Christianity was only a formality." [GOLDMANN, N., 1978, p. 66] Popular German Jewish author Emil (born Cohen) Ludwig's "conversion to Christianity had been merely an effort to buy the respect of Germans." [MOSSE, G., 1985, p. 26] "Often one submitted [to baptism]," notes Adam Weisberger, "as an opportunistic matter of convenience ... A Jewish origin was a handicap but one which baptism could remedy." [WEISBERGER, A., 1997, p. 48] (Even in America, noted James Yaffe, reflecting a theme, "Serge Koussevitzky, Eugene Ormandy, and Pierre Monteux, all Jews, had to convert to Christianity in order to reach the top of the symphony world.") [YAFFE, J., 1968, p. 52]

Even among the wealthy assimilationists to German society in the Jewish communities "mixed marriages were the exception rather than the rule and the Jews continued to live a life apart. They interacted with non-Jews in their professional lives, but very seldom in private." [TRAVERSO, p. 15] This model even parallels the wealthy German-Jewish situation in the United States in the same era: "The social solidarity [in America] was no way better exemplified and furthered than by the tendency -- common to all unified elite -- to intermarry ... [SUPPLE, p. 80] ... German-Jewish investment banking [in the U. S.] in the late 19th century ... was ... based upon the proliferation of kinship groups ... it seems possible to say that the German-Jewish groups had a strategic role to play in the providing of capital from Germany for American industrial development." [SUPPLE, p. 84-85] By 1937 nine of America's richest 60 families were Jewish, including the Guggenheims, Lehmans, Warburgs, Kahns, Schiffs, Blumenthals, Friedsams, Rosenwalds, and Baruchs. [GOLDSTEIN, D. p. 101] Stephen Birmingham notes that the insularity of the wealthy Jewish strata in America: "For forty-five years after its founding in 1867, Kuhn, Loeb, and Company had no partners who were not related by blood or marriage to the Loeb-Kuhn-Wolff family complex. For nearly fifty years after Goldman, Sachs was founded, all partners were members of the intermarried Goldman and Sachs family. The Lehmans hardly seemed to need intermarriage at all: until 1924, nearly 75 years after the firm was founded, all the partners were named Lehman." [BIRMINGHAM, p. 9-10]

By 1907-08 Jews had a conspicuous presence in the corporate sector of the German economy. Despite representing only one per cent of the German population, 20 per cent of the largest companies had a "substantial" Jewish involvement. A further 16 per cent had "significant' Jewish management. [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 273] Examing the very largest companies, W. E. Mosse notes that over two-thirds of such firms had a "significant Jewish component." Of the most powerful corporate organizations in Germany, only 7.7 per cent were "without some degree of Jewish participation." [MOSSE, p. 273, 274] In 1913, fifteen Jews held 211seats on boards of German banks; by 1928 this number was 718. In that same year Jews represented 80% of the leading members of the Berlin stock exchange. Five years later the Nazis expelled 85% of all stockbrokers because of "race." [GORDON, p. 12]

In the pre-World War II Weimar Republic of Germany that fell to the Nazis, 11% of Germany's doctors were Jews, and 16% of its lawyers. [MOSSE, p. 26] By 1909-10, about one-fourth of the teachers at German universities were of Jewish descent. [GORDON, p. 13] As elsewhere, an expediential prerequisite for advancement was at least superficial conversion to Christianity. "Those who were baptized," says Nachum Gidal, "were then eligible to be appointed to professional chairs." [GIDAL, p. 17] "In the spring of 1933," notes Anthony Heilbut, "Hitler shocked the world by dismissing from their jobs the titans of German scholarship, the vast majority of whom were Jewish." [HEILBUT, p. 23] (Adolf Hitler's family doctor had been Jewish. Hitler's sister was even once employed by the Mensa Academica Judaica in Vienna. Hitler was awarded a medal of honor for his deeds in Wold War I; the award was reportedly expedited by a Jewish army officer, Hugo Gutmann.) [GOLDBERG, M., 1976, p. 38-39]

Almost 80% of department and chain store business in pre-war Germany were Jewish, 40% of wholesale textile firms, and 60% of the wholesale and retail clothing business. By 1895, 56% of German Jews were involved in commerce; correspondingly, only 10% of non-Jewish Germans were in this field. [TRAVERSO, p.15] By the 1930s, Jews controlled 90% of the world's fur trade, reflected in an important yearly auction in Leipzig. [BLACK, p. 131] "Jews were also important in the wholesale metal business and retail grocery business." In Upper Silesia more than half of the local industry -- coal, iron, steel, petroleum, et al -- was owned or directed by Jews before 1933. [NIEWYK, p. 13-14] "The coal and iron industry of Upper Silesia," says Sidney Osborne, "-- the second largest in Germany -- was almost the exclusive creation of a handful of Jews." [OSBORNE, S., 1939, p. 18]

This area included the Jewish-owned iron company owned by Mortiz Friedlander, Sinai Levy and David Lowenfeld; the "well-known iron and steel works, Bismarkshutte" which was founded by two Jewish merchants; an "extensive iron pipe and tube works" owned by Mortiz Hahn and Simon Huldschinsky; the Upper Silesian Iron Industry (with branches Tubenhutte and Baildonhutte); "one of the largest enamel works" in Germany; Ferrum, and iron and steel firm; the Upper Silesian Zinc Foundries company; the "coke-oven industry Gluckauf; the Upper Silesian Coke and Chemical Works; and coal mining (Otto Friedlander). [OSBORNE, S., 1939, p. 18] "Other important industries in Jewish hands," adds Sidney Osborne,

"were leather, textiles, and cigarette factories, the Portland cement and
lime industry, and important iron and lumber interests. This account
of Jewish enterprise in Upper Silesia is given with some particularity
because it was more or less typical of what was going on in other
industrial regions of Germany." [OSBORNE, S., 1939, p. 19]



Re(1): Part 3
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 10:24:16 PM by mg

]

"The Hirsch copper works in Halberstadt ...," notes Nachum Gidal, "[became] the most important copper and brass works in Europe. The works was still owned by the Orthodox family until 1933. In the basic materials industry, Fritz von Friedlander-Fuld (1858-1917) was outstanding with his Silesian enterprises ... [comprising] a group of major firms. Friedlander-Fuld was responsible for building up the coke industry in Germany ... Closely linked with the coke industry was the petroleum industry, led by general director M. Melamid ... The founder of the Silesian iron industry (Caro-Hegenschedt) was George von Caro ... His brother Oskar Caro ... is regarded as the founder of the German enamel industry. Mortiz von der Porten ... spearheaded the aluminum sector in Germany." [GIDAL, p. 266] Wilhelm Von Gutmann's Gebruder Gutmann Industries "was the largest single factor in the coal industry of the Austro-Hungarian empire." [GREENBERG, M., p. 70] Philip Rosenthal founded "the most famous porcelain factory in Selb in Bavaria." [GIDAL, p. 267] Albert Balin "played an outstanding part in the building up of the German merchant fleet ... Under his guidance [the Hamburg-America line] developed into Europe's leading shipping company." Walter Rathenau was president of the "Siemens works, the largest electricity company in Germany." [GIDAL, p. 266-268]

In the 1930s, notes Ian Kershaw, during Nazi efforts to politicize the German peasants against Jews in the Alzenau district,

"Jewish-owned cigar factories dominated local industry ... Jews in fact
owned most of the twenty-nine factories, with a combined work force
of 2,206 women and 280 men ... In the countryside ... the main issue
was the remaining dominance in many areas of the Jewish cattle
dealer, the traditional middle-man and purveyor of credit for untold
numbers of German peasants ... [As late as 1935,] the wholesale
cattle trade in Ebermannstadt was ... still 'to a good ninety percent'
in Jewish hands." [KERSHAW, p. 241-242]

Jews were likewise dramatically over-represented in every sphere of academic enterprise, from philosophy to science. "Jews were also the most influential critics of drama, art, music, and books as well as the owners of the most important art galleries and theatres." [GOLDBERG, p. 26] In the Berlin of 1930, 80% of the theatre directors were Jewish and they authored 75% of the produced plays. [MACDONALD, p. 125] Many prominent actors, actresses, and moviemakers were Jewish. Some Jewish scholars, like Walter Laquer, have even went so far as to claim that without Jewish influence the culture of the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic "would not have existed." [TRAVERSO, p. 12] "Jews," says Laqueur, "were prominent among Expressionist poets, among the novelists of the 1920's, among the theatrical producers and, for a while, among the leading figures of cinema." [LAQUER, p. 73] "Jewish names," notes Nachum Gidal, "were numerous among the pioneers of film and the film industry," [GIDAL, p. 370] including Paul Davidson and Herman Fellner who founded "the first German film company." [GIDAL, p. 370]

Frederick Grunfeld romanticizes the Jewish road from an economic base to enormous influence upon German popular culture:

"The shoe-factory generation regularly produced and nurtured a brood of
scribes, artists, intellectuals. Else Lasker-Schuler was the daughter of an
investment banker, Carl Sternheim the son of a banker and newspaper
publisher, Walter Benjaim of an antique dealer, Alfred Neumann of a lumber
merchant, Stefan Zweig of a textile manufacturer, Franz Kafka of a
haberdashery wholesaler, Herman Bloch of a cotton-mill owner; Theodore
Lessing and Walter Hasenclver were sons of doctors and grandsons of
manufacturers, and so on, in an orderly and predictable procession from
the department store into the library, the theatre and the concert hall. " [GRUNFELD,
F., 1996, p. 28-29]

Most of the members of the famously influential "Frankfurt School" of politics, philosophy, and culture were also Jewish -- Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, and many others. Frederick Grunfeld argues that these people did not really experience anti-Semitism in pre-Nazi Germany. Why? "All of these privileged witnesses ... came from well-to-do families of the upper middle class, for whom money had always been a talisman against the cruder forms of prejudice." [GRUNFELD, F., 1996, p. 17]


Although such people were from affluent families, socialism and communism were often the worldviews they championed. "What today we are apt to call Weimar culture," notes Jewish scholar Werner Mosse, "was largely the creation of left-wing intellectuals, among whom there was such a disproportionate number of Jews that Weimar culture has been called, somewhat snidely, an internal Jewish dialogue." [MOSSE, W., 1985, p. 22] "In twentieth century Germany where the Jews formed less than one percent of the nation's population," observes Istvan Deak,

"Jews were responsible for a great part of German culture. The
owners of three of Germany's greatest newspaper houses; the editors
of the Vossiche Zeitung and Berliner Tagleblatt; most book publishers;
the owners and editors of the Neue Rundschau and other distinguished
literary magazines; the owners of Germany's greatest art galleries were
all Jews. Jews played a major part in theatre and in the film industry as
producers, directors, and actors. Many of Germany's best composers,
musicians, artists, sculptors, and architects were Jews. Their
participation in literary criticism and in literature were enormous:
practically all the great critics and many novelists, poets, dramatists,
and essayists of the Weimer Republic were Jews ... If cultural
contributions by Jews were far out of proportion to their numerical
strength, their participation in left-wing intellectual activities were
even more disproportionate." [DEAK, p. 28]

By the 1920s German critics like Theodore Fritsch, Hans Blucher, and Adolf Bartel were influential in the growing German complaint that German culture was dominated by Jews. [TRAVERSO] A German Jew, Moritz Goldstein, had poured fuel on the issue of Jewish dominance by writing a much-discussed article in 1913 in which he wrote that Jews essentially ran German culture, from an almost complete monopoly of Berlin newspapers and dominance of German theatre, music, and literature. [LAQUER, p. 74] "German cultural life seems to be passing increasingly into Jewish hands," Goldstein wrote, "... We Jews are administering the spiritual property of a nation which denies us our right and our ability to do so." [GRUNFELD, F., 1996, p. 21] Even in the nineteenth century the German composer, and nationalist, Richard Wagner, was horrified to realize the large number of Jews in his audiences, as well as in the receptions for him afterward. [TRAVERSO, p. 12]


Re(2): Part 4
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 10:25:16 PM by mg

Although Jews, as 1% of the German population, represented a negligible electoral power, by the early twentieth century their economic and social impact was considerable in the political sphere. Jewish-funded lawyers, for instance, were instrumental in securing fines against, or jail terms, for right wing politicians, often for disorderly conduct charges or libel. [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 27] Even "the police commissioner of Berlin during part of the period of Nazi agitation for power was a Jew, Dr. Bernhard Weiss." [GOLDBERG, M. H. 1979, p. 121] "In 1933," says Anthony Heilbut, "[Jews] were only five hundred thousand of Germany's sixty-four million people, and one-third of these lived in Berlin. Jews had infiltrated many areas of German life, particularly the media, through the newspapers they owned and edited, as well as the movies they wrote and produced." [HEILBUT, p. 25] Before World War I, two of the most important German newspapers -- the National-Zeitung of Berlin and the Franfurter Zeitung -- were owned and edited by Jews. [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 25] 13 of 21 daily newspapers in Berlin in the 1870's were Jewish-owned, among them the only three that focused on political satire. [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 25] In the pre-Nazi era of the Weimar Republic, three of Germany’s important newspapers were Jewish-owned -- the Vossiche Zeitung, the Berliner Tageblatt (founded in 1872 by Rudolf Mosse and Georg Davidsohn) and the Frankfurter Zeitung (Heinrich Simon/Leopold Sonnemann). (The eventual president of the World Zionist Organization, Nahum Goldmann, began writing for the Frankfurt paper when he was 15 years old). [GOLDMANN, N., 1978, p. 16] The newspapers Grenzboten and Ostdeutsche Post were also owned by a Jewish media mogul, Ignaz Kuranda. [ROTH, C., 1940, p. 142] The two largest publishing houses in Germany -- the Ullstein, and Mosse companies -- were also owned by Jews, as were a number of smaller ones. [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 26] Rudolf Mosse, the founder of the Mosse company, and a colleague also began "building up an advertising bureau which soon overtook the former leaders, the English advertising agencies, and had 275 branches worldwide." [GIDAL, p. 272] In the late 1800s Leopold Ullstein "launched the Berliner Morgenpost, which built up a circulation of six hundred thousand, the largest in Germany, but perhaps his most dramatic breakthrough came with the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung which by 1894 had a circulation of two milion ... Ullstein had five sons, all of whom developed different branches of his enterprise. By the 'thirties they were not only the biggest newspaper group in Germany, but they also published books, magazines, dress patterns and music. They also had their own news agency, picture service, film studio and even a zoo to serve their children's papers." [BERMANT, C., 1977, p. 70]

The Jewish-owned Landhoffs book publishing firm was also a "book trade dynasty," [LOTTMAN, p. 51] as was the Springers company. "Not just the principals of the [Springers] firm," notes Business History, "but many of the distinguished scientists among their authors and editors were Jewish.' [SHAW, C., p. 214] Leading "avante garde" publishing firms included the Jewish houses of S. Fischer, Kurt Wolff, Georg Bondi, Erich Reiss, and the Malik Verlag. [LAQUER, p. 73] "Bote and Bote was Germany's largest music publisher and ran a concert agency as well ... Both Rutter and Loening in Frankfurt am Main and the Deutsche Verlegsantalt in Stuttgart were founded by Jews, as were the later publishing houses of Erich, Reiss, Brandus, and a number of specialist presses." [GIDAL, p. 35]

With the rise of German fascism, in 1933 a retired United States Department official, Edward House, told a new ambassador to Berlin: "You should try to ameliorate Jewish suffering. [The Nazis] are clearly wrong and even terrible, but the Jews should not be allowed to dominate economic or intellectual life in Berlin as they have for a long time." [GROSE, p. 97-98] Anthony Heilbut notes a joke that was a favorite of Albert Einstein's, "in which an émigré asks a friend if he is homesick for Berlin, and the other replies: 'What for? I'm not Jewish.'" [HEILBUT, p. 46]

Jews were also vastly over represented as editors and reporters in German journalism. "Unfortunately," says Sarah Gordon, "many of them tended to use their works as vehicles to oppose or criticize prevalent German values." [GORDON, p. 14] Among these critics of German society was Kurt Tucholsky, "whose biting satire made him a hero of the more cosmopolitan segments of the German middle class. The son a successful Jewish businessman-lawyer, Tucholsky flayed Germans and German values mercilessly. By the late 1920s, he had decided that Germany was hopeless and that middle-class Germans were either idiots or positively evil." [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 85] Germans, assessed prominent Jewish pianist Arthur Rubinstein in the 1930s, "are not a musical people. They accept the heavy, pedantic music of Pfitzner, Reger and Bruckner with their long-winded 'developments,' just as they enjoy a stodgy meal of sauerkraut and sausages." [SACHS, D., 1992, p. 21]

On one hand, Jews were increasingly perceived to have strangleholds on the German social, cultural and economic system. On the other, in the political field, Richard Rubenstein notes that

"Marxism was seen by conservative Europe as Jewish in origin
and leadership, a view that was reinforced in Germany by the
three successive left wing regimes that succeeded the Bavarian
royal house of Wittelsbach from November 7, 1918 to May 1,
1919, at the end of World War I. In Munich, the city that did
more than any other to give birth to [Hitler's] National Socialism,
and in the era in which Hitler first joined the miniscule party, a
series of politically naive, left-wing Jewish leaders attempted
ineffectually to bring about an enduring socialist revolution
in Catholic, conservative Bavaria." [RUBENSTEIN, p. 113]

"As Robert Michel pointed out in his classic Political Parties," note Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter,

"Jews at that time [late 1800s] were playing a key role in socialist
parties in almost every European country in which they had
settled in any numbers." [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 84]

In Germany, thse inlcuded Daniel deLeon, a Sephardic Jew who headed the Socialist Labor Party. DeLeon "attempted to conceal his Jewish background, pretending that he was descended from an aristocratic family of Catholic background." [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 95]

At the influential Die Weltbuhne left-wing intellectual journal in pre-Hitler Germany, 42 of 68 writers "whose identity could be established" were found to be of Jewish descent. Two more were "half-Jews" and three others were married to Jewish women. But, notes Isak Deak, "only a few of the Weltbuhne circle openly acknowledged that they were Jews ... Die Weltbuhne was in this respect not unique; Jews published, edited, and to a great part wrote the other left-wing intellectual magazines ... Jews created the left-wing intellectual movement in Germany." [DEAK, p. 24-25, 29]



Re(4): Part 5
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 11:32:23 PM by George Shelps

Very diligent summary, but what's
your point? For over a 1000 years
Jews were ghettoized, they contributed
very little and they were not prominent.

Then gradually they emerged during the Enlightenment. There was a lot of pent-up energy there and they surged into prominence.

Good for them!

But for all their power, they were
still destroyed by Nazism.


Re(5): Part 5
Posted on May 26, 2003 at 00:04:53 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Very diligent summary, but what's your point? For over a 1000 years Jews were ghettoized, they contributed very little and they were not prominent.

RESPONSE: This is not so. This is myth. Jews originally CHOSE "ghettoization" (i.e. enforced separation from Christians). Compared to the average non-Jew throughout Europe, Jews were better off (again, they dominated usury and were instrumental beneficiaries in the rise of capitalism).

YOU SAY: Then gradually they emerged during the Enlightenment. There was a lot of pent-up energy there and they surged into prominence.

RESPONSE: This "pent-up energy" of exploitation has always been evidenced throughout Jewish history.

YOU SAY: Good for them!

RESPONSE: ?!

YOU SAY: But for all their power, they were still destroyed by Nazism

RESPONSE: Not so. Look at you. As a Christian Zionist, you are OWNED by Judeocentrism. When you speak, you speak from the Jewish root. The lessons of history have been learned by no one. Least of all you.




Re(6): Part 5
Posted on May 26, 2003 at 02:19:33 AM by Anonymous

Sorry, but no one who lived in the Jewish Ghettos felt they were "better off." They weren't even protected any further, as the case of the pogroms in both Russia and Poland demonstrates. Enforced separation by ghettoization was hardly something desired by the Jewish population, whom would have much preferred not to have to live in a goddamn ghetto!

Your interpretations of history are ridiculous, and the fact that you might occasionally be able to find an anomaly like Shakak to state otherwise is completely belied by the vast consensus of historical opinion.

Your "crucial source" strategy of finding a single reference, often distorted and quoted completely out of context, to back your antisemitic bullshit is similar to the holocaust deniers in its bogus methodology: only quote sources that seem to support your preconceived hateful thesis, and ignore all contradictory evidence which doesn't get the job done.

And people who lived in the ghetto WERE the exploited. Also, your claim to reject communism is rather undercut by your idea that the rise of capitalism is somehow exploitationist. Apparently, your gameplan here is to pin either capitalism or communism (or anything else you can somehow exploit regardless how inappropriate), if it, once again, gets the job of prejudicially attacking Jews done. Truth and logical consistency are not an issue to you.



Re(6): Part 5
Posted on May 26, 2003 at 03:46:09 AM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: Very diligent summary, but what's your point? For over a 1000 years Jews were ghettoized, they contributed very little and they were not prominent.
RESPONSE: This is not so. This is myth. Jews originally CHOSE "ghettoization" (i.e. enforced separation from Christians).

___Who cares whether they "chose" it
or not. The point is, until they entered non-Jewish society full-blown,
they were not the major players they
eventually became.


Compared to the average non-Jew throughout Europe, Jews were better off (again, they dominated usury and were instrumental beneficiaries in the rise of capitalism).

___I am in favor of the rise of capitalism. I am a capitalist.

But Jews were never prominent in
the major social and culture arenas
until after the Enlightenment, despite
their efforts in limited areas prior
to that.

YOU SAY: Then gradually they emerged during the Enlightenment. There was a lot of pent-up energy there and they surged into prominence.

RESPONSE: This "pent-up energy" of exploitation has always been evidenced throughout Jewish history.

___Your summary gives very little
evidence of that. What it shows is
Jewish aspiration to succeed. That's
commendable. You should try it instead
of running a putrid website.

YOU SAY: Good for them!

RESPONSE: ?!

__Yeah, I like to see talented and intelligent people succeed.

YOU SAY: But for all their power, they were still destroyed by Nazism

RESPONSE: Not so

___I am talking about European Jewry,
you moron. The same Jews you were
discussing were gassed by Hitler.


Look at you. As a Christian Zionist, you are OWNED by Judeocentrism. When you speak, you speak from the Jewish root.

___Hah! Just ask my Jewish friends.
I have arguments with them that have
caused serious breaches over the years!

I alienated a friend because I disagreed
with the Netanyahu point of view
about the Palestinians.

I obviously disagree majorly with Levine--except about your evil activities.

So don't give me that shit about
"kissing Jewish butt."


The lessons of history have been learned by no one. Least of all you.

___You know, you really are insane.



Re(7): Part 5
Posted on May 27, 2003 at 10:41:51 PM by mg

One of the privileges Jews enjoyed throughout Europe until relatively modern history was that they didn't have to serve in the local military organizations. "During the continuous wars of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries," wrote Baron, " ... the Jews were neutral and suffered few losses. If they had been combatants they might have lost more than in all the pogroms." [LIBERLES, p. 42] Yet Medieval Jews were allowed the extremely significant privilege of carrying weapons, a privilege equal to knights and one to which all commoners (the overwhelming majority of the population) were forbidden. [GOLDBERG, p. 123] Baron also noted that, while there were certainly Jews who suffered poverty, the surrounding Christian population was worse off. And if the Jewish ghettos were, as widely claimed, abject holes of enforced degradation, "is it not remarkable that the most typical Ghetto in the world, the Frankfurt Judengasse, produced in the pre-Emancipation period the greatest banking house in history?" [LIBERLES p. 45]

"The Jews," says Israel Shahak,

"in spite of all the persecution to which they were subjected, formed
an integral part of the privileged classes ... Jewish historiography,
especially in English, is misleading on this point inasmuch as it tends
to focus on Jewish poverty and anti-Jewish discrimination ... The
poorest Jewish craftsman, peddlar, landlord's steward, or petty cleric
was immeasurably better off than a serf [most of the non-Jewish
population]. This was especially true in those European countries
where serfdom persisted until the nineteenth century, whether in a
partial or extreme form: Prussia, Austria (including Hungary), Poland,
and the Polan lands taken by Russia. And it is not without significance
that, prior to the beginning of the great Jewish migration of modern
times (around 1889), a large majority of all Jews were living in those
areas and that their most important social function there was to
mediate the oppression of peasants on behalf of the nobility and
the Crown." [SHAHAK, p. 52-53]

Jews in Eastern Europe understood the people around them as, categorically, persecutors. And "the Jews saw their persecutors as an inferior race," noted World Zionist Organization President Nahum Goldmann, "Most of my [physician] grandfather's patients [in Lithuania] were peasants. Every Jew felt ten or a hundred times the superior of these lowly tillers of the soil; he was cultured, learned Hebrew, knew the Bible, studied the Talmud -- in other words he knew that he stood head and shoulders above these illiterates." [GOLDMANN, 1978, p. 13]

"It would never have occurred to us," said one Jewish immigrant to the United States, "that the Gentile world [in Eastern Europe] was happier ... On the contrary, we considered our world happier and finer." "We thought they were unfortunate," says another, "We were above them, this was the feeling [towards peasants]." [MORAWSKA, p. 17] In the face of the commonly cherished belief among modern Jews that their brethren of Eastern Europe were terribly and uniformly impoverished, it is a fact that Jews were doing so well (relative to the non-Jews around them) that non-Jewish servants in Jewish households were common.

Apart from racist folk tales, Zborowski and Herzog note that most Jewish children in Eastern Europe learned fragments of the surrounding non-Jewish culture via the Gentile servants in their homes. "These impressions [of non-Jewish life]," the scholars write, "[were] available not only to the children of the rich, for [Jewish] women of modest circumstances who worked in a store or at the market often had the help of a [non-Jewish] peasant girl in the house." [ZBOROWSKI, p. 155] "[Jewish life] was certainly better than the life of the Russian peasant," remarks Howard Sachar. [SACHAR, p. 215]

"We were luckier than most of our fellow-Jews in being able to afford 'servants,' if that is the real name for them," declares Chaim Weizmann, an immigrant from the "Pale" of Russia, an agitator for how bad Jews had it in his place of birth, and the first president of modern Israel, "... [My second servant] who outlived the first and was with us for something like thirty-five years, was a lovable peasant by the name of Yakim ... He had learned to sing, after a fashion, the Jewish national anthem, Hatikvah; and in moments of enthusiasm would cry out: 'Come, little ones, let us sing Tikvah!'" [WEIZMAN, C., 1949, p. 22]

Elsewhere, Weizman adds:

"The teachers and governing authorities of the schools within the Pale [an area of Russia] were typical Russian officials, and as such, not free from corruption. So the rich Jew would use his gold to pave the way for his boy to enter the school ... There were occasions when a rich Jew would hire ten non-Jewish candidates (at times rather oddly selected) to sit for the entrance examination at the local school, and thus make room for one Jewish pupil -- needless to say his own son or a protege." [WEIZMAN, C., 1949, p. 31]


"Even when the Jewish common people were known to be desperately poor," adds Albert Lindemann, "as in Austrian Galicia or parts of the Jewish Pale of Settlement in tsarist Russia, their overall per capita wealth still seems to have been greater than that of non-Jews, mostly peasants, among whom they lived." [LINDEMANN, Esau's, p. 21] "On the whole," says sociologist Stephen Steinberg, "Eastern European Jews [prior to immigration to America in the late nineteenth century] were unquestionably poor, though decidedly better off than the surrounding peasant population." [STEINBERG, p. 97]

What, one wonders, is to be read between this relativity of being "poor?" How poor could Jews have really been if they were "decidedly better off" than the non-Jewish peasants (who were most of the Eastern European population), even hiring Polish servants for their homes?

Another part of Jewish popular mythology is that the Jews were forced against their will into ghettos in Europe. The widely-believed accusation that Jews were forcibly segregated, particularly into ghettos, is a distortion of historical fact. In the Middle Ages most Christian towns themselves had walls, gates, and locks for protection from outsiders. The enclosed Jewish ghetto was, in origin, a Jewish construction, conceived for both protection and self-segregation from the taint of non-Jewish ways.

"In the thirteenth century," writes Max Weinrich, "segregated living quarters for Jews were made compulsory. The fact of the matter is that separate Jewish streets had existed all along ... If the Jews lived together long before segregated living quarters were imposed upon them, then their segregation must have been voluntary. It was. Living apart, no matter how bizarre it may appear in the light of present day concepts and attitudes, was part of the 'privileges' accorded to the Jews in conforming with their own wishes." [WEINRICH, p. 105]

As president Nachum Goldmann of the World Zionist Organization notes:

"It is wrong to say that the goyim forced the Jews to separate themselves
themselves from other societies. When the Christians defined the
ghetto limits, Jews lived there already." [GOLDMANN, N., 1978, p. 66]

For centuries Jews isolated themselves from their surrounding non-Jewish neighbors except, of course, for the necessities of commerce. "Had the Jews not possessed a deep-rooted conviction of the truth of their religion," says Jacob Katz, "and had they not actively sought to maintain their separate identity, the tendencies inherent in medieval conditions would inevitably have ended by breaking down the social barrier erected by Jewish ritual." [KATZ, Ex, p. 40] "In Orthodox Judaism," wrote anthropologist Maurice Fishberg in 1911, "a Jew must not eat at the same table with a Gentile, nor any food prepared by the latter; must not eat or drink from dishes, with spoons, forks, knives, etc. which have been used by a Gentile; must not drink wine with the container of which has been touched by a Christian, Mohammadan, or heathen ... I know Jews to feel nauseated and even vomit when told that the food they have consumed was not kosher. ... It was the intense tribal spirit engendered by his religion which kept the Jew from intimate contact with the Gentiles, more than the laws promulgated by Christian states for the purpose." [FISHBERG, p. 536]

"We [Jews] formed the ghetto ourselves," wrote the Zionist leader Vladamir Zabotinsky, " ... voluntarily, for the same reason for which Europeans in Shanghai established their separate quarter, to be able to live their own way." [KORBANSKI, p. 8] "The Ghetto was rather a privilege than a disability," notes J. O. Hertzler, "and sometimes was claimed by the Jews as a right when its demolition was threatened." [HERTZLER, p. 73] Boas Evron cites the work of fellow Israeli scholar, Yehezkel Kaufmann, in noting that

"the popular assumption that external anti-Jewish pressures forced
group identify and exclusivity on the Jews is unconvincing, since
historical evidence shows that Jewish exclusivity and aloofness
preceded outside hostility and were thus its cause, not its result ...
Jewish communities were always borne by host societies ... They
never shared in political, military, administrative, or technological
responsibilities." [EVRON, p. 53]





Re(1): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 26, 2003 at 00:17:42 AM by Mitchell Levine

Once again, your moronic bigotry makes itself evident.

The strongest charge that any of this bullshit has to offer is that Jews had successful businesses and were influential critics and academics. This would be a very damning charge if there were anything wrong with having successful businesses or being an influential critic or academic.

That theory could be countenanced if there was any evidence that those businesses were criminal in nature, or that those critics were incompetent. The only evidence that was true is that the people in question were Jewish - not exactly a sufficient criterion. Even if it were true, as you have no way of demonstrating, that some of them were criminal, it would hardly indict all or most of them as being criminal, any more than the fact that many crack dealers are black implies that "black people are criminals."

We can therefore comfortably state that the entire line of reasoning is antisemitic bullshit based on a double standard: if a gentile does something it's OK, but if a Jew does it it's somehow "bad" by definition. There is no evidence of any kind that having successful Jewish businesses in your country is undesirable in any way. That there are Jewish criminals and wrongdoers follows from the simple fact that Jews are human beings, and a fraction of such people exist in every demographic group. It does not indict the entirety of that group if they are non-Jews, so it therefore follows that the same is true for Jews as well. If your theory that Jews must be considered a plague because they are in some factually undemonstrable way "racist" or "ethnocentric," although you have never had any way to prove that, is to be accepted, then I would have to imagine that the German people's acceptance of Hitler's theory that imperialist hyper-expansionism into their neighbors' countries was OK because they were the "Master Race" would have to be seen as a little "racist" and "ethnocentric" as well. Therefore, using your argument, ALL Germans must be evil and don't deserve sympathetic treatment in any way.

There's nothing wrong with having a successful legitimate business, and that it might make other people jealous is really irrelevant. The fact that many of the above-mentioned businesses were financial in nature is unsurprising, because laws had been put into place forcing Jews to work as lenders, due on the one hand to the Church's condemnation of money-lending predicated on the Gospels, and the state's economic necessity for it on the other. The bottom line is that the traditional Jewish value placed on rationalism and education produces a lot of successful people in business, just like it does in the rosters of Nobel laureates and elsewhere. That wouldn't be considered shameful on the part of any other group - for example, no one complains of Italians pride in Da Vinci, Gallileo, and Michelangelo - and thereby shouldn't be so for Jews either.

In fact, German antisemitism was primarily rooted in antisemitic theological teachings promoted by many European churches, and circulated culturally since the time of the Middle Ages. It was based on nothing that the Jews ever did, except not choosing the majority religion, and it would have existed no matter what Jews did. It will also exist no matter what Jews do in the future. Unfortunately, that's simply part of being a minority in a majority, as you should know by being part of a minority yourself

The German government lied about the country's progress in WWI, and when they lost, a traditional scapegoat was produced to blame it on by the means of the legend of the "stab in the back" - a theory for which there is no foundation, other than wounded national pride. Combined with the economic devastation resulting from the excessive penalties assayed by the League of Nations at Versailles, it left a cultural weakness a charismatic demagogue could exploit.

Trying to make Hitler's "case" for a rational basis to genocide, especially considering that the single most characteristic feature the Nazis possessed was irrationality, and further complaining that he's somehow been unfairly "demonized" for exterminating millions, makes it more than a little disingenuous for you to claim that you aren't sympathetic to him.


Re(2): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 27, 2003 at 10:26:53 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Once again, your moronic bigotry makes itself evident.

RESPONSE: Once again YOUR "moronic bigotry makes itself evident.

YOU SAY: The strongest charge that any of this bullshit has to offer is that Jews had successful businesses and were influential critics and academics.

RESPONSE: Not so. A reasoned view of German history finds that Jews, as 1% of the Weimer Republic population, were taking over German culture. This was discussed by both German critics AND Jewish critics of the time. Jews CONTROLLED popular discourse to the increasing resentment of many non-Jews. Any IMBECILE would recognize the implicit problems in this scenario (especially when Jews are so incredibly ethnocentric and self-aggrandizing).

YOU SAY: This would be a very damning charge if there were anything wrong with having successful businesses or being an influential critic or academic.

RESPONSE: These citations are only the tip of the iceberg. I suggest you also peruse our citations about Jewish domination of the international prostitution trade in this era, with strong roots in central and eastern Europe.

See: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/10whsla.htm

The cumulation of ALL such things (Jewish dominance of such a criminal trade, dominance of journalism, the mass media, etc. etc) created enormous inter-ethnic tension. It takes your MORON to not grasp the implicit problems in such a scenario. If MONEY rules everything, as it seems to (and as you celebrate as a fine expression of "democracy," it is no wonder that Jews continue to have problems throughout history as they BUY so much of influential mediums in the nations they reside. Also o the detrement of the majority peoples within whom they live.

YOU SAY: That theory could be countenanced if there was any evidence that those businesses were criminal in nature, or that those critics were incompetent.

RESPONSE: Nonsense. You could take your argument and apply it to colonialism or imperialism: Those that have, rule. Those that are adept at seizing power are destined to rule. It seems to me that the Jewish community has been historically brilliant in "colonizing" cultures to their ethnocentric needs.

YOU SAY: The only evidence that was true is that the people in question were Jewish - not exactly a sufficient criterion. Even if it were true, as you have no way of demonstrating, that some of them were criminal, it would hardly indict all or most of them as being criminal,

RESPONSE: The issue is not just being "criminal" (although there were plenty of Jewish criminals in the Weimar Republic). The issue is that any minority group, ANYWHERE, is going to run into problems when they hold profoundly disproportionate power.

Again, the issue is more akin to cultural colonialism.

YOU SAY: any more than the fact that many crack dealers are black implies that "black people are criminals."

RESPONSE: No. But the "fact" that there are many Black crack dealers has social, political, and cultural meaning. And it is perfectly legitimate to investigate WHY, if your assertion is correct, this is so.

YOU SAY: We can therefore comfortably state that the entire line of reasoning is antisemitic bullshit based on a double standard: if a gentile does something it's OK, but if a Jew does it it's somehow "bad" by definition.

RESPONSE: Yours is the Judeocentric "bullshit." And the double standard is this: It's OK for Jews to deconstruct and destory WASP culture in the name of democracy and multiculturalism. But it is an absolute taboo to do the same to growing JEWISH hegemony in Western culture, particularly in America. Why? Jewish organizations looked at what happened in Germany and embarked on a massive social engineering policy in America towards toxifiying ANY investigation into Jewish power in America. Today, if you post historical facts like I do that expose Jewish power (current and historic) bigots like you condemn me (!) for some kind of immorality.

YOU SAY: There is no evidence of any kind that having successful Jewish businesses in your country is undesirable in any way.

RESPONSE: Nonsense. Jewish Tribal REview examines the "undesireable" effects of Jewish power, at length.

YOU SAY: That there are Jewish criminals and wrongdoers follows from the simple fact that Jews are human beings,

RESPONSE: No argument here, although you pray that I would.

YOU SAY: and a fraction of such people exist in every demographic group. It does not indict the entirety of that group if they are non-Jews, so it therefore follows that the same is true for Jews as well.

RESPONSE: Where did you learn "logic?" No one is saying that every Jew is Meyer Lansky. I am saying that Meyer Lansky was Jewish, as was greatest crime Syndicate in American history, and as is the current "Russian" mafia, etc. etc. etc.

It is perfectly legitimate (and increasingly necessary) to ask why. You toxify and censor anyone who dares to investigate Jewish power and influence in American culture, which is phenomenal.

YOU SAY: If your theory that Jews must be considered a plague because they are in some factually undemonstrable way "racist" or "ethnocentric,"

RESPONSE: "Plague" is your word.

YOU SAY: although you have never had any way to prove that,

RESPONSE: The issues I am interested in are noted in detail at Jewish Tribal Review. Such issues are echoed, in microcosm, at this FIRM web site and the Jews of Hollywood. It is the same story. It is the same problem. It is a recurring problem in history, and Jews have latched onto this device (the accusation of antisemitism) to pathologize open, reasoned, and moral inquiry into the underside of alleged Jewish saintliness.

YOU SAY: is to be accepted, then I would have to imagine that the German people's acceptance of Hitler's theory that imperialist hyper-expansionism into their neighbors' countries was OK because they were the "Master Race" would have to be seen as a little "racist" and "ethnocentric" as well.

RESPONSE: The "Master Race" idea is an echo of the "Chosen People" concept. It's not my particular insight. Others have recognized this obvious parallel as well.

YOU SAY: Therefore, using your argument, ALL Germans must be evil and don't deserve sympathetic treatment in any way.

RESPONSE: No. But MANY Jews have that opinion about Germans to this day. As you know. I see no problem with investigating why Aryan fascism arose in German culture, the same way I see no problem in investigating the recurring example of rising Jewish cultural and economic hegemony in many places in the world. What is it in the Jewish people that establishes this phenomenon? (Sorry, there's a lot more to it than Jews "are just smart" or "studious" or "entrepreneurial." It involved Jewish collective ethics, ethnocentrism, various forms of Jewish nationalism, Jewish ideas about money, etc.

YOU SAY: There's nothing wrong with having a successful legitimate business, and that it might make other people jealous is really irrelevant.

RESPONSE: If a justice-seeking slave is "jealous" of his master, and that is all you understand, then call me "jealous" if it salves your self-delusional soul.

YOU SAY: The fact that many of the above-mentioned businesses were financial in nature is unsurprising, because laws had been put into place forcing Jews to work as lenders, due on the one hand to the Church's condemnation of money-lending predicated on the Gospels, and the state's economic necessity for it on the other.

RESPONSE: THis is Jewish legend, and it is absurd. "Jews were forced into becoming rich." True, usury was condemned by the Church as being immoral. USury (in Hebrew, "nesek," BITING) is also condemned in the Torah, but ONLY if usury is performed upon other Jews. Ripping off non-Jews for interest has always been kosher.

YOU SAY: The bottom line is that the traditional Jewish value placed on rationalism and education produces a lot of successful people in business, just like it does in the rosters of Nobel laureates and elsewhere.

RESPONSE: Absolute horeshit. Jews are so chronically ashamed of their own dual moral standard exploitation of others thorughout history that they lean on all these noble legends. Therefore, Jews are saints, the Germans were demons, and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is an "antisemite," which, to you, is the most corrupt ideology on the planet. BECAUSE SUCH A PERSON PROFOUNDLY THREATENS YOUR MYTHIC JEWISH IDENTITY, WHICH -- DEVOID OF ITS TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS BASE -- IS TOTALLY ONLY RELIANCE UPON THE "ANTI-SEMITE" FOR DEFINITION. In other words, Jew=good; critic of Jew=bad. There are you nuances, or value shades, in these standard Jewish equations.

That wouldn't be considered shameful on the part of any other group - for example, no one complains of Italians pride in Da Vinci, Gallileo, and Michelangelo - and thereby shouldn't be so for Jews either.




Re(3): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 28, 2003 at 00:38:50 AM by Anonymous


RESPONSE: Not so. A reasoned view of German history finds that Jews, as 1% of the Weimer Republic population, were taking over German culture. This was discussed by both German critics AND Jewish critics of the time. Jews CONTROLLED popular discourse to the increasing resentment of many non-Jews. Any IMBECILE would recognize the implicit problems in this scenario (especially when Jews are so incredibly ethnocentric and self-aggrandizing).

- Idiot-boy, Jews couldn't be taking over German culture, becuase they WERE Germans! The fact that other Germans might refuse to accept them as fellow countrymen because they didn't share their religious beliefs DIDN"T revoke their citizenship. The correct formulation of the thought would have to be then that Jews were taking over Christian culture - an impossiblity in a country with a state church. You once again fail to provide any statistical evidence that shows that all or even most Jews are any more "self-aggrandizing" or "ethnocentric" than any other group. You are just trying to promote a typically ignorant stereotype.

RESPONSE: Nonsense. You could take your argument and apply it to colonialism or imperialism: Those that have, rule. Those that are adept at seizing power are destined to rule. It seems to me that the Jewish community has been historically brilliant in "colonizing" cultures to their ethnocentric needs.

- Sorry, neither colonialism nor imperialism apply to the case of being a businessperon or a critic as those are political actions undertaken leaders chosen by a referendum. Whomever is the best business person or most perceptive critic will be the most successful - and that's determined by the public in a capitalist society. If they don't like it, they don't buy or don't listen, and that doesn't follow a religious quota system. If the media was so all-powerful, either the Nazis never would have taken power, or the media couldn't have been "controlled" by the Jews - it's once again a matter of logical consistency.


RESPONSE: Yours is the Judeocentric "bullshit." And the double standard is this: It's OK for Jews to deconstruct and destory WASP culture in the name of democracy and multiculturalism. But it is an absolute taboo to do the same to growing JEWISH hegemony in Western culture, particularly in America. Why? Jewish organizations looked at what happened in Germany and embarked on a massive social engineering policy in America towards toxifiying ANY investigation into Jewish power in America. Today, if you post historical facts like I do that expose Jewish power (current and historic) bigots like you condemn me (!) for some kind of immorality.

-Bullshit yourself. If "WASP culture" was "destroyed" by democracy and multiculturalism, then it SHOULD have been destroyed because this country, as defined by the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, IS a multicultural democracy, NOT a WASP homeland! The fact that they might make a up a numerical majority means nothing: as a WASP Supreme Court justice definitively stated, "this is a nation of laws, not a nation of men." And the supreme law of our nation defines this as such, not a land where the desires of the many outweigh the rights of the few. If you don't like it, move to Europe.

You don't post facts, you post a bunch of crap ripped from any source possible whether validated, in-context, or not, that you think you can use to defame Jews. Many people on this site have pointed out numerous historical and logical errors and hidden agendas in your posts. Your only concern is to attack Jews - You don't care what the truth is anymore than the Institute for Historical Review does. And trying to spread hate is immoral!




Re(4): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 28, 2003 at 00:52:09 AM by Mitchell Levine

RESPONSE: Where did you learn "logic?" No one is saying that every Jew is Meyer Lansky. I am saying that Meyer Lansky was Jewish, as was greatest crime Syndicate in American history, and as is the current "Russian" mafia, etc. etc. etc.

It is perfectly legitimate (and increasingly necessary) to ask why. You toxify and censor anyone who dares to investigate Jewish power and influence in American culture, which is phenomenal.

-Sorry again, but to establish that the largest crime syndicate in American history was Jewish, you'd have to explain how people with names like Luciano, Perraino, Luchese, Tartaglia, Gravano, Gotti, and Gambino were Jewish. Lansky and Siegel had hands in, but they hardly RAN organized crime. You'd have a very hard time convincing any historian of the subject, the FBI, or Mario Puzo otherwise. While the Russian Mafia have Jewish ties and are players on the scene, groups like the Tongs, Yakuza, Jamican posses, Dominicans, and so forth are doing rather well, too, besides the well-entrenched Italian Mafia. The Russian mobsters, it must be said, however, are the best organized and educated. The latter quality, unfortunately, can be used for either good or ill.

No one is "censoring" you, despite George Shelps' repeated requests to Jaeger and Cones that they do so. Responding to your posts with criticism and arguments does not constitute censorship; it's just using my freedom of speech to respond. You have no right to racistly pontificate unopposed.

Everyone in this nation has the right to whatever power they can legitimately wield without trampling on the rights of others, as the marketplace of ideas and the
Bill of Rights will bear. What their race, religion, place of national origin, and so forth, are is simply irrelevant. The majority has no necessary right to dominate the majority, other than though the vote. Y

RESPONSE: The "Master Race" idea is an echo of the "Chosen People" concept. It's not my particular insight. Others have recognized this obvious parallel as well.

- Even yet more stupid horseshit! The idea that the Jews were the people chosen to bring monotheism to world in no way correlates to the idea that Jews are a superior race of beings - particularly because Jews are not a race, and membership is open to anyone - whose destiny it is to rule the world by exterminating everyone racially different and annexing their countries for lebensraum. The vast majority of Jews everywhere DO NOT believe that they are superior to non-Jews!

RESPONSE: No. But MANY Jews have that opinion about Germans to this day. As you know. I see no problem with investigating why Aryan fascism arose in German culture, the same way I see no problem in investigating the recurring example of rising Jewish cultural and economic hegemony in many places in the world. What is it in the Jewish people that establishes this phenomenon? (Sorry, there's a lot more to it than Jews "are just smart" or "studious" or "entrepreneurial." It involved Jewish collective ethics, ethnocentrism, various forms of Jewish nationalism, Jewish ideas about money, etc.

-Once again, until you can find peer-reviewed, double-blind research studies objectively and independently establishing that "Jewish ethics" and "Jewish ethnocentricism" are any different than any other group of people, the only thing that these concepts can represent are stereotypes. Posting a few articles with people with Jewish-sounding names that are accused of things that you somehow think might be "bad," usually just allegations and often completely out-of-context, proves nothing.

YOU SAY: There's nothing wrong with having a successful legitimate business, and that it might make other people jealous is really irrelevant.

YOU SAY: The fact that many of the above-mentioned businesses were financial in nature is unsurprising, because laws had been put into place forcing Jews to work as lenders, due on the one hand to the Church's condemnation of money-lending predicated on the Gospels, and the state's economic necessity for it on the other.

RESPONSE: THis is Jewish legend, and it is absurd. "Jews were forced into becoming rich." True, usury was condemned by the Church as being immoral. USury (in Hebrew, "nesek," BITING) is also condemned in the Torah, but ONLY if usury is performed upon other Jews. Ripping off non-Jews for interest has always been kosher.

- This is so factually ignorant that the mind just boggles: in the Middle Ages and Rennaisance when modern economic states arose, Christian nations needed lenders at a profit to survive. Christ forbids lending money at a profit in the Gospels, and indeed laws were put into place forcing Jews to do so to avoid censure from the Church, beginning with the Hapsburg dynasty onward, as any introductory European history text will verify. Oftentimes monarchs would expell all Jews as a class just to get out of their promissary obligations.

By the way, there's nothing inherently immoral about lending money at a profit within the legal limits. If you think it's too expensive, don't borrow. There's no logical reason a business should have to lend you money without profit, just because you desire it. Other than the biblical sanction, there's no rational basis for saying they "ripped off" anyone.

RESPONSE: Absolute horeshit. Jews are so chronically ashamed of their own dual moral standard exploitation of others thorughout history that they lean on all these noble legends. Therefore, Jews are saints, the Germans were demons, and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is an "antisemite," which, to you, is the most corrupt ideology on the planet. BECAUSE SUCH A PERSON PROFOUNDLY THREATENS YOUR MYTHIC JEWISH IDENTITY, WHICH -- DEVOID OF ITS TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS BASE -- IS TOTALLY ONLY RELIANCE UPON THE "ANTI-SEMITE" FOR DEFINITION. In other words, Jew=good; critic of Jew=bad. There are you nuances, or value shades, in these standard Jewish equations.

-That's nothing but a simple projection. What you wish to establish is the equation: Gentile = good, Jew = bad, and you support that by slandering Jews for doing what everyone universally does, or all Jews everywhere for something that might have been done by a few. You simply cannot get past the idea that if a non-Jew does something wrong it's just that individual's fault, but if a Jew does something wrong, it's all Jew's fault. Also, you once again make grandiose pronouncements about what constitutes "Jewish Identity," with absolutely no proof whatsoever. When you can provide statistical evidence from double-blind psychological research abstracts then begin proselytising. Until that time, you are just trying to spread stereotypes, as you have no basis to claim clairvoyant insight into the Jewish psyche. Post a few links to articles on a website proves nothing. People form their identities as a response to many stimuli. You are quite simply incapable of thinking outside of anything but the most vulgar of stereotypes.



Re(5): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 28, 2003 at 11:59:00 PM by George Shelps

No one is "censoring" you, despite George Shelps' repeated requests to Jaeger and Cones that they do so.

___No, wrong, Mitchell. I asked Jaeger and Cones to repudiate him the same way you and I doing.

I am warning them because they are allowing their discussion board to be
tainted by his bigotry.



Re(5): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 00:13:15 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Sorry again, but to establish that the largest crime syndicate in American history was Jewish, you'd have to explain how people with names like Luciano, Perraino, Luchese, Tartaglia, Gravano, Gotti, and Gambino were Jewish.

RESPONSE: There are a number of books about Jewish crime. Any ethnic group has criminals, but Jews have been maestros at it; Jews ran much of the underworld throughout Europe, from fencing operations to pawn shops. Arthur Rothstein helped raise organized crime in America to a new level. Jews are even credited with bringing the narcotics trade to America.

YOU SAY: Lansky and Siegel had hands in, but they hardly RAN organized crime.

RESPONSE: Lansky was THE man in the "Syndicate." That's not news to anyone who reads anything about him but those who wish to dissimulate this fact.

YOU SAY: You'd have a very hard time convincing any historian of the subject, the FBI, or Mario Puzo otherwise.

RESPONSE: Not so. We've got links to plenty of material about all this at our web site. Detroit's all-Jewish Purple Gang was especially violent.

YOU SAY: While the Russian Mafia have Jewish ties and are players on the scene, groups like the Tongs, Yakuza, Jamican posses, Dominicans, and so forth are doing rather well, too,

RESPONSE: There is no comparison. These groups are not power-house crime points in America. The reason the "Russian" mafia is so well-entrenched in America today is because of the Jewish Lobby's influence on immigration legislation to favor Russian Jews to U.S. shores. With all these "persecuted Jews" rode the "Russian" mafia.

YOU SAY: besides the well-entrenched Italian Mafia. The Russian mobsters, it must be said, however, are the best organized and educated. The latter quality, unfortunately, can be used for either good or ill.

RESPONSE: Please. Be serious. The "smart" Jews of the Russian Mafia will use their fine education social good. Tell me more about Boris Berezovsky.

YOU SAY: No one is "censoring" you, despite George Shelps' repeated requests to Jaeger and Cones that they do so. Responding to your posts with criticism and arguments does not constitute censorship; it's just using my freedom of speech to respond. You have no right to racistly pontificate unopposed.

RESPONSE: YOU are the racist, you are the bigot, and your posting of dribble here is what Theodore Herzl called "noise" -- necessary smokescreens to conceal Jewish propaganda.

YOU SAY: Everyone in this nation has the right to whatever power they can legitimately wield without trampling on the rights of others, as the marketplace of ideas and the
Bill of Rights will bear. What their race, religion, place of national origin, and so forth, are is simply irrelevant.

YOU SAY: A crock. Jewish ethnocentric power is relevant to all Americans -- white, Black, Muslim, Asian, etc.

YOU SAY: The majority has no necessary right to dominate the majority, other than though the vote.

RESPONSE: Democracy is "majority rules." You apparently have forgotten that in the wake of Jewry 2.5% of America's population and corresponding dominance in so many fields. No one votes about Jewish dominance. It is concealed. The way you try to conceal it.

YOU SAY: Even yet more stupid horseshit! The idea that the Jews were the people chosen to bring monotheism to world in no way correlates to the idea that Jews are a superior race of beings - particularly because Jews are not a race, and membership is open to anyone - whose destiny it is to rule the world by exterminating everyone racially different and annexing their countries for lebensraum. The vast majority of Jews everywhere DO NOT believe that they are superior to non-Jews!

RESPONSE: YOu are either a liar or misinformed. Examine classical Jewish texts and you will find the Jewish aim for world sovereignty. See Maimonides, for instance.

YOU SAY: Once again, until you can find peer-reviewed, double-blind research studies objectively and independently establishing that "Jewish ethics" and "Jewish ethnocentricism" are any different than any other group of people, the only thing that these concepts can represent are stereotypes.

YOU SAY: Your position is propagandistic legion. World Jewry has been profoundly active as a collective in asserting its will, particularly with regard to Israel. Again, what is a Jew? If it is forbidden to generalize about Jews, then how are they different than African-Americans, or Pakistanis? Or a loaf of bread?

YOU SAY: Posting a few articles with people with Jewish-sounding names that are accused of things that you somehow think might be "bad," usually just allegations and often completely out-of-context, proves nothing.

RESPONSE: We aim to open public discourse about what you forbid. Better these issues hide in shadows, no?

YOU SAY: This is so factually ignorant that the mind just boggles: in the Middle Ages and Rennaisance when modern economic states arose, Christian nations needed lenders at a profit to survive.

RESPONSE: Jewry can only see itself as "victims." So the fact that Jews have oppressed Christian peasants for centuries -- especially via usury -- is explained away by you as the "need" of Christians.

YOU SAY: Christ forbids lending money at a profit in the Gospels,

RESPONSE: Yes. Christ and his disciples were renegades from traditional Judaism.

YOU SAY: and indeed laws were put into place forcing Jews to do so to avoid censure from the Church, beginning with the Hapsburg dynasty onward, as any introductory European history text will verify.

YOU SAY: Nonsense. Jews were "forced" into usury the same way a banker might dive into a money pile.

YOU SAY: Oftentimes monarchs would expell all Jews as a class just to get out of their promissary obligations.

RESPONSE: This is the only thing you've stated that has any semblance of truth, but you twist it. Jews were kicked out of numerous towns, provinces, and countries over the centuries because they had driven huge numbers of people into debt, often with excessive interest demands.

YOU SAY: By the way, there's nothing inherently immoral about lending money at a profit within the legal limits.

RESPONSE: Traditional Christianity condemned usury as immoral. Islam condemns "loaning for interest" as immoral. And Judaism condemns it also, BUT ONLY IF THE USURY IS AIMED AT FELLOW JEWS.




Re(6): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 29, 2003 at 02:53:02 AM by Mitchell Levine

I'm not denying that, George, or implying any wrongdoing on your part.

I'm using Jenk's "definition," as opposed to the actual meaning, of the term "censorship."

In that fool's deranged mind, pointing out the logical fallacies, historical inaccuracies, methodological ineptitude, and general hateful bullshit he promotes constitutes "censorship."

It has nothing to do with any actual denial of his constitutional right to speak.

It seems to me that Cones and Jaeger feel that, as long as people insist on using their board for purposes other than those they've proscribed, don't expect them to jump in and referee.
Or maybe all the posts make the site look active, I don't know.

I like the way Cones posts a list of potential topics for people to discuss at the entry to the board like vertical integration and new channels for independent distribution, when all anyone has ever talked about are Jews.

I guess he's got nothing to lose by being optimistic.


Re(6): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 11:29:47 PM by Mitchell Levine


Jenk's, please have someone affiliated with your site that possesses intellectual ability ghostwrite your posts, in case there is anyone. Refuting your stupid bullshit is just getting too easy to be entertaining. Specifically with regard to your latest bathetic idiocies:

There are a number of books about Jewish crime. Any ethnic group has criminals, but Jews have been maestros at it; Jews ran much of the underworld throughout Europe, from fencing operations to pawn shops. Arthur Rothstein helped raise organized crime in America to a new level. Jews are even credited with bringing the narcotics trade to America.

- PLEASE STOP YOUR PATHETIC ATTEMPTS AT THINKING! You are genetically incapable of doing do so! Just go back to discrediting antisemitism by your ludicrous example as a hilariously incompetent public laughingstock.

The Mafia originated in Sicily as the Black Hand, which is why it's called "the Mafia," an Italian word for "family." It was run, and continues to be run today, by six Italian families, all of whom have their point of origin in the Sicilian Laundry Co. Today, they have extensive networks in trade unions, construction, excavation, trucking, and waste disposal, all industries in which Jews play little to no role whatsoever. They live by a code called "Omerta," and are known to have made large contributions to the Vatican and various Catholic charities. Am Yisrael Chai!

There are a number of books about Jewish crime. Any ethnic group has criminals, but Jews have been maestros at it; Jews ran much of the underworld throughout Europe, from fencing operations to pawn shops. Arthur Rothstein helped raise organized crime in America to a new level. Jews are even credited with bringing the narcotics trade to America.

- Sorry, but all demographic evidence demonstrates that the Jewish crime rate is unusually low, and was so even during the period of the Jewish Ghetto. The idea that Jews are responsible for the narcotics trade is even stupider: the few Jews that were involved with organized crime, like Lansky and Siegel, were strictly opposed to expanding into the drug market, because they believed that it would lose them favor with their connections in politics. In Medieval Europe, because guild membership was entirely closed to Jews, as well as numerous other forms of discrimination, few means of making a living were left available. People of that time simply played the hand they were dealt.

Since virtually every study ever done of Jews in contemporary America has found that over 90% are employed in white collar capacities, it seems reasonable to ask why the lawyers, doctors, college professors, engineers, accountants, writers, and legitimate businesspeople that make up the vast majority of the community should be smeared as somehow responsible for a tiny minority of criminals? If the above list of majoritarian Jews are to be seen as "criminals," as well, an extraordinary amount of evidence would have to be available to support that, which there isn't, unless it's a crime not accept the majority religion. The various posts on your site intending to provide such, ignoring the fact that most of their content is worthless bullshit, wouldn't be anywhere near sufficient to do that, as even 1% of American Jewry is a figure on the order of magnitude of 60,000 people. Anecdotes don't mean shit. Provide some peer-reviewed double-blind research abstracts indicting Jews as being statistically more likely to be criminals and your thesis will have intellectual merit. Don't and it won't.

In fact, even given the vastly larger number of Italian Mafiosi, it's ridiculous to characterize the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Italians as being "criminal." The much smaller percentage of Jews involved in crime, which is certainly in line with the 2.5% of the general population they make up or probably less, should therefore be accorded the same.

If the rest of the ethnic criminals are such small-time players, then please tell me whom you know that ever bought crack from a Jewish dealer?

YOu are either a liar or misinformed. Examine classical Jewish texts and you will find the Jewish aim for world sovereignty. See Maimonides, for instance.

- Yes, if you believe that The Protocols of Elders of Zion is a "classic Jewish text," which you probably do.

Democracy is "majority rules." You apparently have forgotten that in the wake of Jewry 2.5% of America's population and corresponding dominance in so many fields. No one votes about Jewish dominance. It is concealed. The way you try to conceal it.

- Democracy is certainly NOT majority rules, and the Framers explicitly said so: a democracy is a state in which laws are made by representatives duly elected by the people UNDER the rule of the Constitution. Anyone who wants to can pursue making their dreams a reality absolutely without regard to their race, religion, or ethnicity, within the bounds of the law. In a constitutional democracy like America -without question the express intent of the Founding Fathers - the desires of the many DO NOT outweigh the rights of the few, or even the one. That's what equal protection is about, which is why the Bill of Rights begins with "Congress shall establish no religion, nor prohibit free excercise thereof." The law of a capitalist democracy is "to each according to their talents." Whether you happen to be prejudiced against them or not is completely irrelevant, as is the percentage they make up of the population. That's why quota systems for college admissions were ruled unconstitutional. That goes for all other spheres of endeavor as well, which is one of the reasons why no one tries to divest the Irish from law enforcement, nor the Greeks from shipping. If you don't like it, move to Europe.

Traditional Christianity condemned usury as immoral. Islam condemns "loaning for interest" as immoral. And Judaism condemns it also, BUT ONLY IF THE USURY IS AIMED AT FELLOW JEWS.

- I see. Very logical. So home ownership is a national sacrament, but the banks that mortgage them are sinners. Well, apparently it doesn't bother the Catholic Church too much when they mortgage their property, because they're the largest landowner in the world.


another Jewish producer
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 10:14:59 AM by moishe the goyim

So let's see. Insofar is Mel Brooks is Jewish, the fraudsters in "The Producers" are Jewish, the people who play the shysters are Jewish, and this story is based upon a "real-life" producer, what are the chances the real-life fraudster who bilked old ladies out of their money was Jewish?


http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=0&aid=D7RBJOEG0_story

'The Producers' Premieres in L.A., Earthlink (from Associated PRess), May
30, 2003

"Mel Brooks brought his singing Broadway bandits West as
a new production of his show-business satire 'The Producers' premiered with Jason Alexander and Martin Short starring as the conniving theater impresarios. Alexander took over Thursday night as Max Bialystock, a lowlife theater producer who convinces the meek accountant Leo Bloom, played by Short, to help him cheat elderly investors by creating a surefire flop called 'Springtime for Hitler.' 'We had
a great time tonight, we really did,' Alexander said after the show. 'Sometimes it's like climbing a mountain but tonight it was walking
on air.'

The story started as a 1968 movie with Zero Mostel as Bialystock and Gene Wilder as Bloom, but is perhaps
best known as the Broadway stage show that won a record 12 Tony Awards
in 2001 with former stars Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. ...

The story, Brooks has said, was inspired by a real-life experience he had working for a producer who would sleep with elderly women as a pretext for talking them out of their wealth."

Re(1): another Jewish producer
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 11:18:01 AM by George Shelps

So let's see. Insofar is Mel Brooks is Jewish, the fraudsters in "The Producers" are Jewish, the people who play the shysters are Jewish, and this story is based upon a "real-life" producer, what are the chances the real-life fraudster who bilked old ladies out of their money was Jewish?

___Jenks, I have to say that you've gone
from being an evil slandering troll to
laughable with this quote. You take
a comedy-satire about a Jewish producer
written and directed (on film) by
a Jewish comedian, and try to pervert
it into more evidence supporting your
bigoted line against the Jews.

Pathetic.


Re(2): another Jewish producer
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 01:34:35 AM by Mitchell Levine

And The X-Men 2 is proof that Jewish mutants are trying to take over the world as revenge for the Holocaust!





Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 12:49:32 AM by John Cones

Getting Back to Basics

While the discussion here often ranges far and wide, sometimes it is important for us to be reminded of the basic problem that prompted the discussion in the first place. Based on the research posted at the FIRM site, it has become clear that Hollywood movies over the years have contained consistent patterns of bias. Whole populations of people have been consistently portrayed in a negative and/or stereotypical manner (e.g., Arabs), liberal political positions are favored and an anti-religious tone prevails. This same research has also demonstrated that these consistent patterns of bias are caused by two factors: (1) movies tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers and (2) there is an extreme lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood, that is, the people in the positions of power with respect to greenlighting Hollywood movies tend to share a similar background. From a sociological point of view, that background can best be described as politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. Third and fourth generation individuals representing those characteristics occupied most of those positions at the time of the FIRM research (early 1990s) and no persuasive evidence has been presented here or elsewhere that suggests any significant change in the makeup of that Hollywood insiders’ group to date. The FIRM research (excerpts also posted here at the FIRM site) demonstrates further that this narrowly-defined group gained and has maintained its power in Hollywood through the consistent use of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices (see "337 Reported Business Practices of the Major/Studio Distributors"). Thus, Hollywood is hardly a free marketplace of ideas or a merit system. It is a sophisticated system controlled by insiders for the purpose of exploiting outsiders and keeping most of the money generated by such activities for the benefit and use of this insider group. This unfortunate situation is detrimental for a democracy since as our U.S. Supreme Court has stated: "the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas." And, as we all know, ideas are often powerful motivators of human conduct. In addition, in a democracy based on the ideal of a free marketplace of ideas, any significant medium for the communication of ideas controlled by any narrowly-defined group can only diminish the strength of such a democracy. So, let’s all work together to bring about real and meaningful diversity at all levels in Hollywood. That’s the ultimate goal of FIRM.

John Cones



Re(1): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 02:39:05 PM by George Shelps


Getting Back to Basics

While the discussion here often ranges far and wide, sometimes it is important for us to be reminded of the basic problem that prompted the discussion in the first place. Based on the research posted at the FIRM site, it has become clear that Hollywood movies over the years have contained consistent patterns of bias. Whole populations of people have been consistently portrayed in a negative and/or stereotypical manner (e.g., Arabs), liberal political positions are favored and an anti-religious tone prevails. This same research has also demonstrated that these consistent patterns of bias are caused by two factors: (1) movies tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers

___Executives don't make movies, film-makers do. Are you going to tell
me that Mel Gibson or Arnold Schwarzenegger are controlled by the
studios? George Lucas, maker of the
biggest Hollywood hits, is an independent who releases through Murdoch's Fox.

and (2) there is an extreme lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood, that is, the people in the positions of power with respect to greenlighting Hollywood movies tend to share a similar background. From a sociological point of view, that background can best be described as politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. Third and fourth generation individuals representing those characteristics occupied most of those positions at the time of the FIRM research (early 1990s) and no persuasive evidence has been presented here or elsewhere that suggests any significant change in the makeup of that Hollywood insiders' group to date.

___Are you kidding? Only Paramount
can be said to have significant Jewish
ownership. The largest shareholders
of Disney are the Disney family members.
Roy E. Disney was the one who brought
Michael Eisner in to run the company
and save it for the family investors.


The FIRM research (excerpts also posted here at the FIRM site) demonstrates further that this narrowly-defined group gained and has maintained its power in Hollywood through the consistent use of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices (see "337 Reported Business Practices of the Major/Studio Distributors"). Thus, Hollywood is hardly a free marketplace of ideas or a merit system. It is a sophisticated system controlled by insiders for the purpose of exploiting outsiders and keeping most of the money generated by such activities for the benefit and use of this insider group.

__Then how do you explain most of the
movie studios are public companies?


This unfortunate situation is detrimental for a democracy since as our U.S. Supreme Court has stated: "the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas." And, as we all know, ideas are often powerful motivators of human conduct. In addition, in a democracy based on the ideal of a free marketplace of ideas, any significant medium for the communication of ideas controlled by any narrowly-defined group can only diminish the strength of such a democracy.

___Business and art are not part of
the system of democracy. If business
becomes monopolistic, you have anti-trust laws, but otherwise you can't
require changes at the top on the
grounds that the top managers of the
movie business are democratically
unrepresentative.


So, let's all work together to bring about real and meaningful diversity at all levels in Hollywood. That's the ultimate goal of FIRM.

___Then you should openly repudiate
JJ/Jenk's attacks on Jews. That's not
an example of "working together."







Re(2): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 02:57:11 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Executives don't make movies, film-makers do. Are you going to tell
me that Mel Gibson or Arnold Schwarzenegger are controlled by the
studios?

RESPONSE: Shelps, stop kissing Jewish Butt. And get up off your knees, like a man. Shame!

Mel Gibson is currently risking his film career (read: alienating Jews) by doing a self-financed film about Jesus which includes the traditional Christian notion that "Jews killed Christ." Gibson's father has been trashed already as a fundamentalist Catholic and "Holocaust denier" by the Jewish Lobby. (Note the New York Times' trashing of Gibson and his upcoming movie -- we've got links to articles about all this at Jewish Tribal Review).

Schwartzenegger? "Even those who might not like Jews," says Barry Rubin, "have to accept their power and win their favor. In June 1991, the Simon Wiesenthal Center held a fifty-thousand-dollar-a-table dinner to honor movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, who reportedly contributed five million dollars to build its Museum of Tolerance. Present were Jewish
executives heading virtually every movie studio including Disney, whose late founder refused even to hire Jews. The Austrian-born actor's father may have been a Nazi Party member and the actor himself was a friend of Kurt Waldheim, Austria's ex-Nazi President, but Schwarzenegger also needed the favor of these powerful men."

In 1996 Schwarzenegger learned a bit about Jewish censorial power when he dared to consider to make a film about a real life character, a Nazi captain named Osterman who refused to kill a group of British prisoners during World War II. His interest came in the wake of Jewish director Steven Spielberg's colossal hit Schindlers List, where a Nazi saves Jews. Scheduled to begin shooting in ten weeks, the director of Schwarzenegger's project backed out of the film. "Other directors,"noted the London Sunday Times, "have privately admitted they are avoiding a film that might offend the powerful Jewish lobby in Hollywood ... According to Hollywood reports, Joel Schumacher, who is directing the latest Batman film, offered Schwarzenegger a short word of advice about making the film, 'Don't.'" [HARLOW]




Re(3): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 08:00:04 PM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: Executives don't make movies, film-makers do. Are you going to tell
me that Mel Gibson or Arnold Schwarzenegger are controlled by the
studios?

RESPONSE: Shelps, stop kissing Jewish Butt. And get up off your knees, like a man. Shame!

___Stop kissing your own ass first. Get
a life apart from running a hate site.

Mel Gibson is currently risking his film career (read: alienating Jews) by doing a self-financed film about Jesus which includes the traditional Christian notion that "Jews killed Christ."

__Wrong. He is following the Gospels
as written, which show that Jews and
Romans were both involved in the crucifixion. And he is risking his career because the movie is not going
to be in English but reportedly in
Latin and Aramaic (the language of
Jesus), with subtitles. A movie
like that is an "art" film and is always
risky

Besides, you're too obsessed with hate
to respond to the point I was making.

Indeed, you made the point for me, that is, that film-makers as well as movie
executives influence the point of view
of a movie...Gibson is making the movie
from HIS point of view.

Gibson's father has been trashed already as a fundamentalist Catholic and "Holocaust denier" by the Jewish Lobby. (Note the New York Times' trashing of Gibson and his upcoming movie -- we've got links to articles about all this at Jewish Tribal Review).

__I read all that, don't need to go view your moronic site. Journalists have
been attacking Gibson for years because of his conservatism. You might remember he was attacked for his views on gays.

But they're not able to prevent him
from making the film.

Schwartzenegger? "Even those who might not like Jews," says Barry Rubin, "have to accept their power and win their favor. In June 1991, the Simon Wiesenthal Center held a fifty-thousand-dollar-a-table dinner to honor movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, who reportedly contributed five million dollars to build its Museum of Tolerance. Present were Jewish
executives heading virtually every movie studio including Disney, whose late founder refused even to hire Jews.

__This is untrue. He even had a Jewish
chief financial officer.

The Austrian-born actor's father may have been a Nazi Party member and the actor himself was a friend of Kurt Waldheim, Austria's ex-Nazi President, but Schwarzenegger also needed the favor of these powerful men."

___Giving to Jewish causes is standard in Hollywood...what does that prove
about the content of movies?



In 1996 Schwarzenegger learned a bit about Jewish censorial power when he dared to consider to make a film about a real life character, a Nazi captain named Osterman who refused to kill a group of British prisoners during World War II. His interest came in the wake of Jewish director Steven Spielberg's colossal hit Schindlers List, where a Nazi saves Jews.

___No, wrong. Oskar Schindler pretended
to be pro-Nazi.

Scheduled to begin shooting in ten weeks, the director of Schwarzenegger's project backed out of the film.

___Oh, and what about Wolfgang Peterson,
German born director of THE PERFECT STORM and AIR FORCE ONE...he made a movie called DAS BOOT, which presented
German submariners sympathetically...how come he is a top Hollywood director now?

And who was the director who quit
the project?

"Other directors,"noted the London Sunday Times, "have privately admitted they are avoiding a film that might offend the powerful Jewish lobby in Hollywood ... According to Hollywood reports, Joel Schumacher, who is directing the latest Batman film, offered Schwarzenegger a short word of advice about making the film, 'Don't.'" [HARLOW]

___Yeah, I'm sure Arnold is going to
listen to a minor player like Schumacher
who made a lousy Batman film.






Re(4): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 00:05:36 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Stop kissing your own ass first. Get a life apart from running a hate site.

RESPONSE: Mr. Shelps, I'm not a contortionist like yourself. How you manage to wear Jewish Butt like a pair of horse blinders I haven't yet figured out.

YOU SAY: Wrong. He is following the Gospels as written, which show that Jews and Romans were both involved in the crucifixion.

RESPONSE: Here's where you can pick another fight with Levine. Jews forbid the notion that Jews had anything to do with "killing Christ." In case you haven't heard, that's a manifestation of Christian "anti-Semitism." So, Shelps, YOU are an anti-Semite, it appears. Shame!

YOU SAY: And he is risking his career because the movie is not going
to be in English but reportedly in
Latin and Aramaic (the language of
Jesus), with subtitles. A movie
like that is an "art" film and is always risky

RESPONSE: True, but Gibson flirts with alienating Jews for depicting anything about "Jews killing Christ."

Gibson walks on thin ice because his film is in Aramaic? Hmmmm. I don't think that's all. Here's a nice case of Jewry telling (warning) Gibson what he CAN'T portray in his film:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20030307_754.html

LA Rabbi Asks Mel Gibson to Reconsider Jesus Film, ABC News, March 7, 2003

"A prominent Jewish leader on Friday asked actor Mel Gibson to make
certain that his new film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ does
not portray the Jews as collectively responsible for the crucifixion. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he was concerned because an article to be published in the New York Times Magazine portrays Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic opposed
to the reforms of Vatican II. Heir said, 'Obviously, no one has seen 'The
Passion' and I certainly have no problem with Mel Gibson's right to believe as he sees fit or make any movie he wants to. What concerns me, however is when I read that the film's purpose is to undo the changes made by
Vatican II.' He said that Vatican conclave was convened to deal with several critical issues, including the rejection of the notion that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. 'If the new film seeks
to undo Vatican II ... it would unleash more of the scurrilous charges of deicide directed against the Jewish people, which took the Catholic Church 20 centuries to finally repudiate,' he said ... Discussing his film in a recent TV interview, Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. He said, "It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth.'"

YOU SAY: Besides, you're too obsessed with hate to respond to the point I was making.

RESPONSE: True, I "hate" your stupidity but that's about it. Well, I also "hate" to see anyone (like yourself) grovel before the Jewish Lobby and squeak like a puppet with a Jewish hand up his behind, but hey, it's your life.

YOU SAY: Indeed, you made the point for me, that is, that film-makers as well as movie executives influence the point of view of a movie...

RESPONSE: Not quite. Gibson's efforts to branch out on his own to do a film that Jews would never finance threatens his career.

YOU SAY: Gibson is making the movie from HIS point of view.

RESPONSE: Yes, and you make MY point: in order to make HIS "point of view" he has to leave the Jewish Hollywood network and pay for this film out of his own pocket.

YOU SAY: I read all that, don't need to go view your moronic site. Journalists have been attacking Gibson for years because of his conservatism. You might remember he was attacked for his views on gays.

RESPONSE: So?

YOU SAY: But they're not able to prevent him from making the film.

RESPONSE: No, but depending upon what the film depicts, "they're" able to ruin his career. If Gibson is perceived as an "anti-Semite," he's finished. That's the problem FIRM faces. People in the film business can't publicly state their support for it: it would mean the ends of their Hollywood careers.

YOU SAY: This is untrue. He even had a Jewish chief financial officer.

RESPONSE: If Disney had a Jewish "chief financial officer," you AGAIN make MY point. They're as populous in Hollywood as grass on a lawn.

YOU SAY: Giving to Jewish causes is standard in Hollywood...

RESPONSE: No kidding! Been to any Armenian, Dutch, Kenyan, or Vietnamese "causes" in Hollywood lately?

YOU SAY: what does that prove about the content of movies?

RESPONSE: Hmmmm. Put on your thinking cap and try not to pop any blood veins. Your question is sort of like: "Who's buried in Grant's tomb?"

YOU SAY: No, wrong. Oskar Schindler pretended to be pro-Nazi.

RESPONSE: Is this the best you can conjure in your struggle towards negation?

YOU SAY: Oh, and what about Wolfgang Peterson, German born director of THE PERFECT STORM and AIR FORCE ONE...he made a movie called DAS BOOT, which presented German submariners sympathetically...how come he is a top Hollywood director now?

RESPONSE: I don't know the films, nor the circumstances. Maybe his wife is Jewish?




Re(4): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 00:08:40 AM by Mitchell Levine

As a point of fact, Mr. Gibson's film is entirely in Latin and Aramaic WITHOUT subtitles of any kind. That's certainly a risky and really very exciting and commendable career move.

Actually, I'm looking forward to seeing it.




Re(5): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 00:23:10 AM by Mitchell Levine

Jews forbid the notion that Jews had anything to do with "killing Christ." In case you haven't heard, that's a manifestation of Christian "anti-Semitism."

- Wrong! Jews would deny that ANYONE would be "guilty" of the death of Christ, other than the specific individuals involved.

A rational reader of the Bible would realize that the "guilt" for the death of Christ, in Christian terms, would have to be assigned to Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, for whom "original sin" is thereby said to be due.

The death of Christ is, within the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, said to be foreordained by God to mitigate sin and lead to salvation for all, according to his will.

Trying to collectively blame all Jews everywhere for that, a completely extra-biblical concept, is an irrational excuse to create a scapegoat from a traditional social outgroup: a way to have your cake and eat it too.



Re(5): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 00:57:33 AM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: Stop kissing your own ass first. Get a life apart from running a hate site.

RESPONSE: Mr. Shelps, I'm not a contortionist like yourself. How you manage to wear Jewish Butt like a pair of horse blinders I haven't yet figured out.

___Yawn..get a new slur,huh?

YOU SAY: Wrong. He is following the Gospels as written, which show that Jews and Romans were both involved in the crucifixion.

RESPONSE: Here's where you can pick another fight with Levine. Jews forbid the notion that Jews had anything to do with "killing Christ." In case you haven't heard, that's a manifestation of Christian "anti-Semitism." So, Shelps, YOU are an anti-Semite, it appears. Shame!

___Jews did not kill Christ. That
was never an accurate teaching and it
has now been repudiated.

Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer by
the Jewish religious leaders and executed by the Romans as a trouble-maker who claimed to be a king
of the Jews.

Probably most Jews in Judea never even heard of him. They didn't have TV, you know...


YOU SAY: And he is risking his career because the movie is not going
to be in English but reportedly in
Latin and Aramaic (the language of
Jesus), with subtitles. A movie
like that is an "art" film and is always risky

RESPONSE: True, but Gibson flirts with alienating Jews for depicting anything about "Jews killing Christ."

__He can't do that and be true to the
Gospels.

Gibson walks on thin ice because his film is in Aramaic? Hmmmm. I don't think that's all. Here's a nice case of Jewry telling (warning) Gibson what he CAN'T portray in his film:



http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20030307_754.html

LA Rabbi Asks Mel Gibson to Reconsider Jesus Film, ABC News, March 7, 2003

"A prominent Jewish leader on Friday asked actor Mel Gibson to make
certain that his new film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ does
not portray the Jews as collectively responsible for the crucifixion. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he was concerned because an article to be published in the New York Times Magazine portrays Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic opposed
to the reforms of Vatican II. Heir said, 'Obviously, no one has seen 'The
Passion' and I certainly have no problem with Mel Gibson's right to believe as he sees fit or make any movie he wants to. What concerns me, however is when I read that the film's purpose is to undo the changes made by
Vatican II.' He said that Vatican conclave was convened to deal with several critical issues, including the rejection of the notion that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. 'If the new film seeks
to undo Vatican II ... it would unleash more of the scurrilous charges of deicide directed against the Jewish people, which took the Catholic Church 20 centuries to finally repudiate,' he said ... Discussing his film in a recent TV interview, Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. He said, "It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth.'"

___Yes, he will tell the truth, as the
Gospels depict it. He has never said
he is going to "blame" all Jews for
Jesus's death. That's just alarmism.

If he does do that, he will be theologically and historically inaccurate.


YOU SAY: Besides, you're too obsessed with hate to respond to the point I was making.


RESPONSE: True, I "hate" your stupidity but that's about it. Well, I also "hate" to see anyone (like yourself) grovel before the Jewish Lobby and squeak like a puppet with a Jewish hand up his behind, but hey, it's your life.

___This is your typical crap...when
you can't win the argument, try to
depict your opponents as part of a Jewish conspiracy....what else would
a true anti-semite do?



YOU SAY: Indeed, you made the point for me, that is, that film-makers as well as movie executives influence the point of view of a movie...

RESPONSE: Not quite. Gibson's efforts to branch out on his own to do a film that Jews would never finance threatens his career.

__It does nothing of the kind. There are
Christian-oriented production companies
in Hollywood---billionaire Philip
Anschutz's Crusader Films---but I'm sure Mel wants total control of his "baby."

YOU SAY: Gibson is making the movie from HIS point of view.

RESPONSE: Yes, and you make MY point: in order to make HIS "point of view" he has to leave the Jewish Hollywood network and pay for this film out of his own pocket.

___No, you clown. The movie has little
commercial potential. There have been
plenty of movies about Jesus...like the
magnificent TV series JESUS OF NAZARETH---financed by a Jewish producer by way---but they have been on an
epic entertaining scale. This seems
to be shaping up as small art film with
no major stars.

YOU SAY: I read all that, don't need to go view your moronic site. Journalists have been attacking Gibson for years because of his conservatism. You might remember he was attacked for his views on gays.


RESPONSE: So?

___So attacking Gibson for his conservatism has been a standard thing
and it's never hurt his career.

YOU SAY: But they're not able to prevent him from making the film.

RESPONSE: No, but depending upon what the film depicts, "they're" able to ruin his career. If Gibson is perceived as an "anti-Semite," he's finished. That's the problem FIRM faces. People in the film business can't publicly state their support for it: it would mean the ends of their Hollywood careers.

___FIRM faces the problem of (a) an
incorrect sociocultural analysis which
(b) attracts hatemongers like you.


YOU SAY: This is untrue. He even had a Jewish chief financial officer.

RESPONSE: If Disney had a Jewish "chief financial officer," you AGAIN make MY point. They're as populous in Hollywood as grass on a lawn.

___You said Disney never hired Jews
and you were wrong. And Michael Eisner
was hired by Disney's nephew to turn
the company around.

YOU SAY: Giving to Jewish causes is standard in Hollywood...

RESPONSE: No kidding! Been to any Armenian, Dutch, Kenyan, or Vietnamese "causes" in Hollywood lately?

___So what? Hollywood was founded mostly by Jews. Who's denying that? If it
was founded by the Irish, you'd see
Irish causes dominant.

YOU SAY: Oh, and what about Wolfgang Peterson, German born director of THE PERFECT STORM and AIR FORCE ONE...he made a movie called DAS BOOT, which presented German submariners sympathetically...how come he is a top Hollywood director now?

RESPONSE: I don't know the films, nor the circumstances. Maybe his wife is Jewish?

___Oh, and how about Roland Emmerich,
another German-born director....who
made INDEPENDENCE DAY...how did the
"control group" let him slip past them?

(Not to mention Sandra Bullock, whose
late mother was German-born, and who speaks fluent German?)



"Capturing the Friedmans"
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 02:35:15 PM by moishe the goyim

Unusual Jewish family? Or not so very unusual?

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/criporn.htm


"CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS"


http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=7987

The Gold Coast Tarnished. ‘Capturing the Friedmans’ captures one Jewish
family’s fall, and says something about Great Neck along the way. An interview with filmmaker Andrew Jarecki,
Jewish Week, May 30, 2003

"The Friedmans of Great Neck are a Philip Roth family from hell. That is why Andrew Jarecki’s new film, 'Capturing the Friedmans,' is such a compulsively watchable yet appalling experience. Arnold Friedman was an award-winning high school teacher, a proverbial pillar of the community. His wife Elaine and his three sons, the oldest David, now a popular children’s clown known as Silly
Billy, Seth and Jesse, the youngest, seemed to be happy and well adjusted. They lived the good life on the Gold Coast in Great Neck. Until Arnold and Jesse were arrested in the late 1980s, and later imprisoned, for multiple accounts of alleged sexual assault on the adolescent boys who came to their house for computer classes. Then everything fell apart. The neighbors turned on the Friedmans and they were pilloried in the press. Finally, the family itself imploded in a harrowing round of bitter name-calling and harsh feuding. How do we know this? Because the Friedmans recorded it all. 'The Friedmans kept the cameras running all the time,' Jarecki says with a mixture of disbelief and fascination. The home movies of happier times, the videotapes of corrosive battling, even a perversely self-flagellating video diary kept by David Friedman, all turn
up in 'Capturing the Friedmans,' making it, as Jarecki himself says, 'the most intimate film I’ve seen in terms of being so close to a family.' Of course, that begs the question of whether you’d want to be close to this family. Still, as Jarecki himself says, the Friedmans are a quintessential Long Island Jewish-American family and, although the film is relatively circumspect about their
Jewishness — we see a disastrous Passover seder and photos of the boys
lighting a menorah — the family’s Jewish identity is a sort of subterranean theme running under the surface of the film. 'A lot of what makes this family seem odd are a lot of those traits are classic Jewish traits,' Jarecki, himself a Jewish resident of New York, insists in a
telephone interview from Rome. 'They’re like all of us, only more so.
There’s a certain Jewish quality about the showmanship of this family
and the capacity for self-dramatization. There’s a certain quality about their arguments; these are very Jewish arguments' ...

Great Neck itself is another Jewish character in the film. At key points in 'Capturing the Friedmans,' which won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance
Film Festival earlier this year, Jarecki cuts to a helicopter shot over the affluent town, revealing it as a peninsula isolated from the nearby communities. The isolation is both metaphorical and literal, he says. 'Great Neck is such a Jewish community, it’s almost a shtetl,
Jarecki says. “I began to look at Great Neck as a sort of giant pulsating Jewish amoeba, an organism, surrounded by the soupy mass of Long Island Sound. We see Jewish people on trains and cars, the LIE as an artery bringing supplies to the organism. That’s what feeds the organism — everything that comes in is either a Jewish person or food and sustenance for the organism.'"


Re(1):
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 08:55:30 PM by Mitchell Levine

Yes, Jenks, obviously the overwhelming majority of Jewish families are sexual criminals!

DEATH TO ZOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





The Jewish Century
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 10:20:03 PM by Moishe the Goyim

Another view of Jewish cultural colonialism and subversion, which has EVERYTHING to do with Hollywood. This is a review of professor Kevin MacDonald's three books about Jews and Judaism by Jewish author Henry Makow.

There aren't many people of Jewish descent who have the guts to honestly address this subject, but Makow is one of them.



http://savethemales.ca

The Jewish Century,
By Henry Makow, Save the Males, May 27, 2003

"Kevin MacDonald book 'The Culture of Critique' (2002) portrays the 20th century as a Jewish century. A hundred years ago, Jews were an impoverished people living mostly in Eastern Europe surrounded by hostile populations. Today Israel is firmly established in the Middle East and Jews have become the wealthiest and most powerful elite in the United States and other Western countries. More significantly, according to MacDonald, the Western intellectual world has become Judaized. Jewish values and attitudes now constitute the culture of the West. Because of deep-seated Jewish hostility toward traditional Western (i.e. Christian) culture, the founding peoples 'have been made to feel deeply ashamed of their own history, surely the prelude to their demise as a culture and a people.' (lxix) Specifically, Jewish organizations promote policies and ideologies aimed at undermining cultural cohesion while practising the opposite policies themselves. While they promote multiculturalism and internationalism in the West, they insist that Israel remain a racially pure national enclave for Jews. 'The present immigration policy essentially places the United States and other Western societies 'in play' in an evolutionary sense which does not apply to other nations of the world,' MacDonald writes. 'Notice that American Jews have no interest in proposing that immigration to Israel should be similarly multiethnic, or ... threaten the hegemony of the Jews.' (323) THE PARTY OF NATIONAL DECOMPOSITION MacDonald says anti Semitism in Weimar Germany was based on a perception that 'that Jewish critical analysis of gentile society was aimed at dissolving the bonds of cohesiveness within the society.' One academic referred to the Jews as "the classic party of national decomposition." (163) MacDonald speculates that Jews feel more comfortable in societies without a distinctive national character. I think there is more to this. The break-up of society into isolated individuals is also the agenda of the new world order, which wishes to remove any united resistance. The new world order is essentially the transfer of all power to international finance. The question then arises: is the new world order a Jewish phenomenon? Or are Jewish intellectuals the pawns of financiers, both Jewish and non-Jewish? MacDonald focuses on how Jewish intellectual movements led by authoritarian figures took over modern intellectual life. He discusses Boas in Anthropology, Adorno in Sociology, Freud in Psychiatry and Derrida in Philosophy. The 'Frankfurt School,' for example, was a "Marxist Jewish cult" financed by Jewish millionaire Felix Weil. Theodore Adorno's influential book 'The Authoritarian Personality' (1950) was actually sponsored by the American Jewish Committee. It attributed prejudice to Christian sexual repression and portrayed gentile group affiliations (including Christian religion, patriotism, and family) as indications of psychiatric disorder. (162) Social disintegration leads to psychological confusion. Society has accepted Adorno's view that there is no objective standard of truth, no common reality. Everyone is isolated and different. Adorno resisted attempts to 'endow the world with any universality, objectivity or totality, with any single organizing principle that would homogenize society...' (164) This kind of post-modernist philosophy has paralysed modern Western culture. Western civilization is built on the foundation that truth is spiritual, universal and knowable. Ultimately truth is God. Universities today have given up the pursuit of truth and are devoted to Bolshevik-like social engineering and indoctrination. A liberal arts education today is not only a waste of time but toxic. Far from bearers of the Western tradition, universities are its executioners with the tacit blessing of the government. A RARE EXCEPTION Kevin MacDonald, a professor of Psychology at California State University is a rare exception. His courageous indispensable book unveils the subversive character of our time. A soft-spoken man who approaches his subject with scientific detachment, MacDonald has amassed a wealth of remarkable detail. For instance, did you know that white gentiles are the most underrepresented group at Harvard? They account for approximately 25% of the student body. While Asians and Jews make up only 5% of the US population, they account for at least 50% of Harvard enrolment. 'The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional and media elite,' MacDonald says. He details the Jewish role in sponsoring Communism, non-European immigration and the NAACP. He documents the stranglehold Jews have on US cultural life and shows how it is used to shape American attitudes ... 'There is never any rational explanation for anti Semitism...[it] is portrayed as an absolute irrational evil that must be fought at every turn.' (lviii) On the other hand, Christianity is typically portrayed as evil in the movies, and Christians are even depicted as psychopaths. MacDonald cites conservative Jewish critic Michael Medved who complains that he couldn't find one film made since 1975 where Christianity was portrayed positively. (lix) JEWISH-CHRISTIAN RIVALRY MacDonald sees anti Semitism as the result of legitimate conflicts-of-interest. Yet Jewish organizations demonize anyone with the temerity to address Jewish power. They suppress the fact that Jewish-Christian rivalry has very deep roots in Western society. In my view, this rivalry boils down to the fact that Jewish Pharisees rejected Christ's gospel of universal love and human brotherhood. Ever since, Jews have been social and metaphysical outcasts, albeit ones with amazing powers of self-justification. We have been used as pawns by worldly powerbrokers bent on destroying Christian civilization. The 'modernist' trend of the 20th Century can be seen in these terms. As I have suggested elsewhere, Judaism is more a racial creed than a religion. Jews are told we have a mission to create equality and social justice. In fact, we are being used by financiers to build a totalitarian world order. The financiers hold out socialist ideals as bait to transfer more and more power to government, which they control. Of course, not all Jews are pawns of the new world order. Most pawns are not Jews. Racism has no place in this debate. But generally I believe Jews have played a prominent role in modernism. A beacon for humanity, we have not been. Deceived ourselves, we have deceived others and purveyed personal dysfunction and societal oppression. Our role in Communism is a disgrace. Israel is a source of shame. Jews need to discover who we really are and rededicate ourselves. We can begin by reading 'The Culture of Critique' and the other books in MacDonald's trilogy about Judaism as an evolutionary stategy, 'A People that Shall Dwell Alone' (1994) and 'Separation and its Discontents' (1998). MacDonald's publisher sent 'The Culture of Critique' to 40 Jewish publications and didn't get one review. Nor has there been any mainstream coverage, a confirmation of his thesis and measure of our captivity."



Satanic conspiracies
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 11:43:25 PM by Mitchell Levine

Just to present a little perspective on Dr. Makow's highly balanced world-view, let's take a look at few more of his philosophical ideodati:

Does a Satanic Cult Rule the World?
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
October 21, 2002


"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)
The "Maryland Sniper" is on everyone's mind.

In March, Svali, an ex-Illuminati mind controller wrote:

"There is a lot more going on in the suburbs around Washington, DC than most people realize," She described how the Illuminati cult brainwashed and trained people to become assassins.

Has the mainstream media suggested a possible link to this cult? Do I need to ask?

In Svali's words, "who do you think owns AOL-Time Warner?"

To date, 12 people have been hit. Will the sniper stop at 13? Thirteen is a significant number in Freemasonry, which is an Illuminati vehicle. Thirteen represents Christ and his 12 disciples. The number signifies their scorn and hatred for Christianity.

The "Maryland sniper," (like September 11 and the "War on Terror") appear designed to traumatize and manipulate the public. I'm guessing that the sniper's "purpose" is to build a case for gun control and domestic involvement by the military.

Did you know that a "terrorist" started the First World War by killing the heir to the Austrian throne? The terrorist was a Freemason. Most wars are engineered by the Illuminati to weaken civilization and create a global police state, the "New World Order."

We need to see current events in a new way. The conflict is NOT between countries or religions or "civilizations."

The conflict is between the people and most of our "leaders" -- government, media, religion, education and business -- who owe their position to this extremely powerful and evil cult. They are traitors.

Who is the Illuminati? We are still living off the twilight rays of Western Civilization, which was based on Christianity. Civilization is always based on a religion, an ideal. Christ taught that God is Immanent and His Plan is to manifest Himself through His Creation. We must do His will rather than pursue our own selfish desires. Kings derived their authority from God and were answerable to Him.

The Jewish Pharisees rejected Christ. They practised a naturalistic religion that turned Christ's message on its head. Man is God, rules the universe, and defines reality. We can indulge our desires. Dating back to Zoroastrianism, the Jewish Cabala reverses the roles of God and Lucifer and embraces occult symbols, rituals and blood sacrifices.

This is the Cosmic Struggle between Spirit and Matter: God will be Immanent; Matter will resist. This is the conflict between God (the view that man is unfinished, and dependent on Divine revelation) and Lucifer (man is already god.)

The Cabalists secretly dedicated themselves to destroying Christianity and Western civilization. In 1773 Amschel Mayer Rothschild convened a meeting of 12 prominent Jewish bankers and other prominent Jewish personalities and submitted a programme to level the social order using the contradictory promise of "liberty" and "equality." In 1776, they had Adam Weishaupt organize the Order of the Illuminati, which merged with Freemasonry in 1782. Freemasonry is Cabala and, in the words of Andre Krylienko, (The Red Thread) it was "launched for the purpose of enlisting non-Jews consciously or unconsciously in the service of Jewry." (p.93)

The Illuminati was behind the revolutionary movements of the 18th -- 20th Century as well as their respective reigns of terror. The bankers used their power to spread their Satanic convictions. They had finagled a monopoly on credit (usurping the government's right to create money) and they needed to control the world in order to protect this prize.

Their influence on world history can be seen in the story of the red hexagram, commonly known as the "Star of David." According to researcher Fritz Springmeier, the Star of David was not associated with Jews until the Rothschilds adopted it as their symbol in 1822. The Rothschilds were considered the leaders of the Jews but I don't know if the Jews knew the Rothschilds were Satanists. The Star of David is really "The Seal of Solomon," an occult symbol for the Satanic. Solomon worshipped the star "Astoreth."

Before we feel smug, the Great Seal of the United States is also a Masonic symbol. According to Eustace Mullins, the top of the pyramid is missing to indicate that they have not yet put into operation the final stages of their conspiracy. "The eye represents that Great Architect of the Universe, a cabalist concept; it is enclosed in a triangle which is the symbol of magic. The thirteen steps refer to Satan, Belial and rebellion..." (The Curse of Canaan, 141) The inscription "Novo Ordo Seclorum" means "New Secular Order."

Mullins says the leading international bankers were motivated by freemasonry: "From the year 1776, Freemasonry has been an omnipresent international government operating treasonably from within the United States, and it has exercised those powers ever since." (140)

Without fanfare, Freemasonry is being introduced as the New World Religion. We are being brainwashed with it every day. So you need to know that:

Freemasonry is a religion that believes Lucifer is the "God of light and God of good, struggling for humanity against Adonay, God of darkness and evil."


It is a secret society that demands adherents swear blind obedience on pain of death before they even know what it represents.


It practises deception. It reserves its truths for the adept; the initiate is "intentionally mislead by false interpretations."


It preaches "tolerance" and the universality of all religions in order to negate them all. Christianity is especially abjured. "Universality does not mean Christianity." (Quotes from Masonic Texts from Gary Kah, En Route to Global Occupation pp.120-140)
Freemasonry is taught to your child. For example, a survey of schools in my city shows that 75% no longer use the word "Christmas" to describe their holiday season festivities. Instead Christmas has been replaced with such jargon as "winter concerts" and "international celebration of holidays."

The Christmas tree at the Legislature was renamed "multicultural tree" until a storm of protest forced the politicians to relent.

"We have to abandon our culture in order to respect everyone else's? It's kind of silly." one parent complained.

But this is exactly the agenda: To destroy Christianity, just as they have destroyed empires, nations, heterosexual identities and nuclear families. The agenda is to strip people of power and identity leaving us defenceless in the face of one-world tyranny.

The lesson of this story is that God is indispensable. He is Reality. We cannot deny Him without denying the principle of our own fulfillment. A secular world order is prey to the devil. This is impasse we are in. We are ruled by a satanic cult.

Some things we can do: 1) boycott the mass media; 2) "out" politicians, teachers and media figures who are pushing the freemason agenda; 3) refuse to hate other people or fight other countries; 4) celebrate the things the Masons hate -- nationhood (internationalism causes war) heterosexual identities, nuclear families, Christianity and God.





Feminism and the C.I.
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 11:48:55 PM by Mitchell Levine

Herein we find the great scholar's discovery of the true meaning of gender equity in our time:


Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society
By Henry Makow, Ph.D.

"In the 1960's, the elite media invented second-wave feminism as part of the elite agenda to dismantle civilization and create a New World Order."

Since writing these words last week, I have discovered that before she became a feminist leader, Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA spying on Marxist students in Europe and disrupting their meetings. She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. MS Magazine, which she edited for many years was indirectly funded by the CIA.

Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970's by a radical feminist group called "Red Stockings." In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in "Feminist Revolution." Nevertheless the story appeared in the "Village Voice" on May 21, 1979.

Steinem has always pretended that she had been a student radical. "When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era," she told Susan Mitchell in 1997, "and that made me a Marxist." (Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World 1997. p 130) Her bio-blurb in June 1973 MS. Magazine states: "Gloria Steinem has been a freelance writer all her professional life. Ms magazine is her first full-time salaried job."

Not true. Raised in an impoverished, dysfunctional family in Toledo Ohio, Steinem somehow managed to attend elite Smith College, Betty Friedan's alma mater. After graduating in 1955, Steinem received a "Chester Bowles Student Fellowship" to study in India. Curiously, an Internet search reveals that this fellowship has no existence apart from Gloria Steinem. No one else has received it.

In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA's Cord Meyers to direct an "informal group of activists" called the "Independent Research Service." This was part of Meyer's "Congress for Cultural Freedom," which created magazines like "Encounter" and "Partisan Review" to promote a left-liberal chic to oppose Marxism. Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots.

One of Steinem's CIA colleagues was Clay Felker. In the early 1960's, he became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Steinem which established her as a leading voice for women's lib. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971. Warner Communications put up almost all the money although it only took 25% of the stock. Ms. Magazine's first publisher was Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a CIA-connected PR executive who planned John Kennedy's Dallas motorcade route. Despite its anti establishment image, MS magazine attracted advertising from the cream of corporate America. It published ads for ITT at the same time as women political prisoners in Chile were being tortured by Pinochet, after a coup inspired by the US conglomerate and the CIA.

Steinem's personal relationships also belie her anti establishment pretensions. She had a nine-year relationship with Stanley Pottinger, a Nixon-Ford assistant attorney general, credited with stalling FBI investigations into the assassinations of Martin Luther King, and the ex-Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Latelier. In the 1980's, she dated Henry Kissinger. For more details, see San Francisco researcher Dave Emory.

Our main misconception about the CIA is that it serves US interests. In fact, it has always been the instrument of a dynastic international banking and oil elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) coordinated by the Royal Institute for Internal Affairs in London and their US branch, the Council for Foreign Relations. It was established and peopled by blue bloods from the New York banking establishment and graduates of Yale University's secret pagan "Skull and Bones" society. Our current President, his father and grandfather fit this profile.

The agenda of this international cabal is to degrade the institutions and values of the United States in order to integrate it into a global state that it will direct through the United Nations. In its 1947 Founding Charter, the CIA is prohibited from engaging in domestic activities. However this has never stopped it from waging a psychological war on the American people. The domestic counterpart of the "Congress for Cultural Freedom" was the "American Committee for Cultural Freedom." Using foundations as conduits, the CIA controlled intellectual discourse in the 1950's and 1960's, and I believe continues to do so today. In "The Cultural Cold War," Francis Stonor Saunders estimates that a thousand books were produced under the imprint of a variety of commercial and university presses, with covert subsidies.

The CIA's "Project Mockingbird" involved the direct infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. "By the early 1950's," writes Deborah Davis, in her book "Katherine the Great," the CIA owned respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all." In 1982 the CIA admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, who ran the operation until his "suicide" in 1963, boasted that "you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month."

I was born in 1949. Idealists in my parent's generation were disillusioned when the Communist dream of universal brotherhood turned out to be a shill for a brutal despotism. My own generation may discover that our best instincts have also been manipulated and exploited. There is evidence that the 60's drug counter culture, the civil rights movement, and anti-war movement, like feminism, were CIA directed. For example, the CIA has admitted setting up the (National Student Association as a front in 1947 http://www.cia-on-campus.org/nsa/nsa2.html). In the early 1950's the NSA opposed the attempts of the House Un American Activities Committee to root out Communist spies. According to Phil Agee Jr., NSA officers participated in the activities of SNCC, the militant civil rights group, and Students for a Democratic Society, a radical peace group.

According to Mark Riebling, the CIA also may have used Timothy Leary. Certainly the agency distributed LSD to Leary and other opinion makers in the 1960s. Leary made a generation of Americans turn away from active participation in society and seek fulfillment "within." In another example of the CIA's use of drugs to interfere in domestic politics, Gary Webb describes how in the 1980's, the CIA flooded Black ghettos with cocaine.

I won't attempt to analyze the CIA's motivation except to suggest what they have in common: They demoralized, alienated and divided Americans. The elite operates by fostering division and conflict in the world. Thus, we don't realize who the real enemy is. For the same reason, the CIA and elite foundations also fund the diversity and multicultural movements.

Feminism has done the most damage. There is no more fundamental yet delicate relationship in society than male and female. On it depends the family, the red blood cell of society. Nobody with the interests of society at heart would try to divide men and women. Yet the lie that men have exploited women has become the official orthodoxy.

Man loves woman. His first instinct is to nurture ("husband") and see her thrive. When a woman is happy, she is beautiful. Sure, some men are abusive. But the vast majority have supported and guided their families for millennium.

Feminists relentlessly advance the idea that our inherent male and female characteristics, crucial to our development as human beings, are mere "stereotypes." This is a vicious calumny on all heterosexuals, 95% of the population. Talk about hate! Yet it is taught to children in elementary schools! It is echoed in the media. Lesbians like Rosie O'Donnell are advanced as role models.

All of this is calculated to create personal confusion and sow chaos among heterosexuals. As a result, millions of American males are emasculated and divorced from their relationship to family (the world and the future.) The American woman has been hoodwinked into investing herself in a mundane career instead of the timeless love of her husband and children. Many women have become temperamentally unfit to be wives and mothers. People, who are isolated and alone, stunted and love-starved, are easy to fool and manipulate. Without the healthy influence of two loving parents, so are their children.

Feminism is a grotesque fraud perpetrated on society by its governing elite. It is designed to weaken the American social and cultural fabric in order to introduce a friendly fascist New World Order. Its advocates are sanctimonious charlatans who have grown rich and powerful from it. They include a whole class of liars and moral cripples who work for the elite in various capacities: government, education and the media. These imposters ought to be exposed and ridiculed.

Women's oppression is a lie. Sex roles were never as rigid as feminists would have us believe. My mother had a successful business in the 1950's importing watchstraps from Switzerland. When my father's income increased, she was content to quit and concentrate on the children. Women were free to pursue careers if they wanted to. The difference was that their role as wife and mother was understood, and socially validated, as it should be.

Until Gloria Steinem and the CIA came along.



Henry Makow © 2003



Women cause Rape
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 11:55:39 PM by Mitchell Levine

Thanks to the fearless discernment of Dr. Makow, now it can be told:


The Effect of Sexual Deprivation on Women
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
April 24, 2002

We live in a culture that doesn't like to admit that women need sex as much as men, if not more.

Conservatives put women on a romantic pedestal. Feminists deny that women need men for ANYTHING. My wife says: "Women are made to feel guilty for needing men. We're told we're weak, co-dependent or lacking in self-esteem."

My 15-year-old son has also inculcated this message: "Women don't need sex," he told me. "They're just doing men a favor."

These messages are dictated by our official gender ideology: feminism. Both wife and son got them from television. The result is that both men and women are not getting enough love.

Before I continue, let me say that sex and love have become very confused. When religion held sway, they were inseparable (i.e. marriage.) But "sexual liberation" made sex an end in itself. As a result, sex has become the counterfeit of love. Millions of men and women now behave like addicts. They use sex to assuage a craving for love that only the genuine article can satisfy.

A recent "independent" movie, "The Business of Strangers," explores the effect of love deprivation on modern women. It is a rare example of how cinematic art can elucidate social reality. Two feminists, representing two generations, are stranded at a hotel on a business trip. Stockard Channing plays Julie Styron, a successful 40-something-sales executive. Divorced, her best friend is her secretary. Julia Stiles plays Paula Murphy, a tough 20-something "writer" who has been hired for tech support on this trip.

The movie shows how career has supplanted family for women like Styron. Feminism promised that women could have both, but this did not work out in practice. A recent book "Creating a Life: Professional Life and the Quest for Children" by Sylvia Ann Hewitt, states that 47% of 40-something women with professional degrees have no children. Only 14% of these women said they didn't want children.

The film's writer and director, Patrick Stettner brilliantly conveys how women have traded love for the sterility, banality and inhumanity of corporate culture. Styron is fired without warning. When, almost immediately, she lands a better job as a CEO she is strangely indifferent.

In the hotel bar with Styron, Murphy recognizes a slick young corporate headhunter. He is the man who raped her best friend years ago at a college frat party. She lures him to Styron's room and drugs him. After he passes out, the two women indulge in an orgy of hatred over his unconscious body. They undress him, cover him with obscene graffiti, smear blood on his body, and strike him. Both women clearly despise men. Murphy says, in fact she was the victim of the rape.

It later emerges that the young man is a rapist in her mind only. In reality, he had never been to the city where the rape supposedly took place.

Men are "rapists" because they are not giving women the love they need. The effect of sexual deprivation on women is resentment and hatred against men.

The film suggests that the feminist obsession with violence against women is fueled by self-loathing and starvation for male love. Possibly, eating disorders can be traced to the same source. Feminism makes women and men incompatible, and then exploits women's frustration and anger.

Like most people, I support equal rights for women (and everyone else.) But lurking behind feminism's progressive image, is a dangerous fascist philosophy that is being promoted by our government and media.

Derived from Marxism, it claims human nature is socially conditioned. In other words, people can be made into anything the government wants. It denies human beings have inherent biological and spiritual characteristics; i.e. an objective relationship to nature and to God. It ruthlessly suppresses people (like me) who uphold this relationship.

Feminism attempts to make men redundant. It coerces heterosexual women to behave as though they were the same as men. As I have said, the elite uses the media, foundations and education to foster this essentially lesbian movement. The purpose is to destroy the nuclear family, decrease population, arrest personal development, and de stabilize society. The ultimate aim is a warm and fuzzy-sounding fascist world government that institutionalizes the control of private cartels, mainly banking and oil (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan.) In many ways, this has already taken place. Feminists are the unwitting foot soldiers in this New World Order.

Observation and common sense tells me that a woman's elaborate reproductive apparatus has a profound influence on her being. Each month for 35 years a woman produces an egg. Consciously and unconsciously, she is devoted to seeing that egg fertilized, giving birth and raising a child. All the while, her whole being is nourished by a man's spirit.

Similarly, a woman is the fertile ground for a man's spirit to grow. His seed is his spirit from which a child grows. Men and women are mutually dependent. Men need to be lovingly received and nurtured. Women need to be possessed and cultivated. When their connection is stymied, we have the arrested development that is so widespread today. Many women become desiccated and bitter; men, detached and selfish; both, obsessed with sex.

This is the message I will give my son when he is older: Feminism makes women appear to be remote goddesses that hand out sex like cookies when boys have been good. In reality, women are passionate sexual creatures that need the committed love of a man in order to thrive.

Feminism teaches women to seek validation in masculine terms. A single friend recently characterized a typical date as follows: He tells his date about his work and seeks affirmation and respect. She describes her work and seeks affirmation and respect. Already competing, they never see each other again.

This is NOT how heterosexuals mate. Rather, he describes his work and she decides if she's interested in him or not. If she is, she draws him out and makes him feel like he can do anything. Yes, he wants her to be capable and successful too. But his recognition and nurturing come after.

Career women are discovering that weak men want strong women. Strong men want feminine women who will amplify them. Feminine women extend a man into the realm of family, emotion, beauty and intimacy. They connect him to both the physical and poetic world, to both the moment and to eternity.

In true marriage, two people become one. Each complements the other. Women's strengths should not be the same as men's, and men should not be expected to forsake their natural strengths because women have abandoned theirs.

In feminist marriages, independence is the big issue. They are like mergers, a pooling of assets to achieve economic and emotional synergies. Couples behave like housemates. Love-sex is another asset for exchange. Men still feel they are paying, but they don't leave money on the night table. These are the marriages that tend to fail.

Feminine women are characterized by selflessness. They are not hunters. They are not killers. They are a little vulnerable in a worldly sense. How do men respond to them? By wanting to nurture and protect them. This is how men love. This is what women want.

In "The Business of Strangers" both women have become hunters. As a result, they hate men but worse they hate themselves. They need a man's love in order to love thems.

Henry Makow © 2003




Gays: a CIA plot
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 00:01:32 AM by Mitchell Levine

Perhaps the most soundly perceptive of Dr. Makow's critiques, and very explicative of Jenks' admiration for this obviously visionary thinker:


The CIA, Homosexuality and Underdevelopment
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
April 10, 2002

"It's been a difficult, painful life," confessed my 79-year-old friend who is gay.

"I'm all alone. I missed my chance to have a family. I missed the boat."

I tried to comfort him. "It's not your fault. You were the victim of circumstances: a dominant mother and a weak ineffectual father."

I suggested that he is not alone.

Millions of people are deprived of family because our CIA-controlled media promotes homosexuality, specifically lesbianism disguised as "feminism". Lesbians have always been women who spurned the female role and coveted the male one.

"Look at me," I told him. "I'm straight but I've missed the boat too. I'm 52 and I don't have a family either. "

Yes, I found a sweet wife recently, and I have a 15-year-old son who lives with his mother nearby. But this is not the same as having a family. A man wrote me that he has 11 children! Of course, his father was "a man's man" and that set an example for him.

My father was old fashioned too. But I took my cues from CIA-controlled publications like Newsweek, which said people like my parents were "square."

Feminism let me off the hook. I didn't have to worry about providing for a family and giving them leadership. I could smoke pot, seek "enlightenment" and never grow up.

I didn't understand that becoming a good husband and father is the path to personal development. This is how I would find God, how I would become a man.

So, at 52, when my children should be leaving home, I contemplate having a baby. At 52, I begin to understand how men not only create new life but also determine a child's emotional and spiritual experience. I realize now that I need to set the tone in my home. I am too "laissez faire." Like Abraham and Moses, I need to lead my flock.

It's no accident the elite has targeted the patriarchal male. Strong families (and societies) are based on strong male leadership. Without it, sons become effeminate and daughters become masculine. People become dysfunctional: love starved and obsessed with sex.

Recently, I was attracted to a contestant on 'Who wants to be a Millionaire?" She stood out from other young women. She was feminine. Her manner was so fresh, her gestures so appealing. She had won $32K and she was going to start a business with it. But there was a charming quality about it all; she wasn't trying to prove anything.

I wondered what her secret was. Then, I found out. For the $64K question, she opted to phone her father. You could see from their interaction that she loved and trusted her father. When she grew impatient and panicked, he calmed her firmly but gently. Then he gave her the right answer.

Strong fathers make for masculine sons and feminine daughters. They make for strong families. Weak or absent fathers create weak men, feminists, lesbians and homosexuals. Listen to two leading feminist pioneers:

Gloria Steinem: "My father was living in California. He didn't ring up but I would get letters from him and saw him maybe once or twice a year."

Germaine Greer: "My father had decided pretty early on that life at home was pretty unbearable...it gave my mother an opportunity to tyrannize the children and enlist their aid to disenfranchise my father completely."

These dysfunctional women would have gone nowhere had they not been handpicked to destabilize society. The CIA-feminist assault on the American family mirrors the CIA assault on the Black family, and the Third World.

The CIA poured cocaine into the ghettoes and destroyed the Black family. Sixty eight percent of black children are now born out of wedlock. Then, the CIA used its control of the media and education (through the foundations) to poison white male-female relations with "feminism". Today if a man admires a woman on the street, instead of being flattered she acts like he's assaulted her. Feminism has reduced all human relations to sex, and all sex to exploitation. Our society is sour because of it.

The white family is in a tailspin. Since 1960, the divorce rate has doubled and the birth rate has been cut in half. Cohabitation has increased eleven-fold. A third of all children are growing up without a father. Tens of millions of people are "missing the boat."

The ultimate model for underdevelopment is the Third World. When I was a socialist, I couldn't understand why capitalists would keep the Third World in a state of poverty, and thwart all political change. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop these countries as prosperous markets?

Now I realize the problem is not capitalism but feudalism. A few dozen superrich families control the United States and England just as other families control the Philippines or Equator. The feudal agenda is to concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of the few and stifle or eliminate the many. This is the hideous truth that historian and journalist are paid high salaries to obscure. This is the essence of the New World Order.

Economic underdevelopment and our personal underdevelopment are part of the same picture. Whether its denial of livelihood or denial of our heterosexuality, the elite is deliberately thwarting our fulfillment as human beings.

The chickens are coming home to roost. What we have shamefully tolerated in the Third World now will happen to us. We are being dumbed down and degraded as human beings. (Everything that happens in the physical world first happens in the heart and mind.) We are being patiently readied for more elite-inspired terrorism, war, epidemics, low wages, and fascism. Stripped of high sounding rhetoric, this is the essence of globalism. Unlike the denizens of the Third World, we haven't the support of strong families.


Henry Makow © 2003





Re(1): Gays: a CIA plot
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 00:20:59 AM by mg

How come you completely evade confronting the specifics of Makow's argument about "The Jewish Century?" How come you're afraid to admit that "The Jewish Century" is accurate and that not ALL Jews are ethnocentric kooks LIKE YOU? (Ridden in any UFOs lately?)




Re(2): Gays: a CIA plot
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 00:58:14 AM by Mitchell Levine

Because a intellectually competent thinker judges the credibility of a witness before accepting their testimony as valid; that's why the Founding Fathers and the Common Law selected that principle of cross-examination as a foundation for jurisprudence.

A universally esteemed axiom of sound critical evaluation is that one should generally expect a testifying witness to possess certain fundamental characteristics in order to be considered credible, like, for example, even the slightest capacity whatsoever to distinguish fantasy from reality, something which you as well are obviously cognitively hyper-restricted from achieving.

Accepting his "theory" concerning "The Jewish Century" as accurate because of the regrettable accident that his parents happened to be Jewish, is just as valid as accepting his theory concerning rape, homosexuality, Gloria Steinem, and the CIA's Satanic International Freemasonry Conspiracy because he's male.

That you would consider this individual credible enough to post as an example of clear rational thought on this issue says pretty much every thing anyone needs to know about you and your site.

And you, flake-boy, shouldn't be referring to anyone else as a "kook."


Re(3): Gays: a CIA plot
Posted on June 1, 2003 at 09:22:10 PM by mg

YOU SAY: A universally esteemed axiom of sound critical evaluation is that one should generally expect a testifying witness to possess certain fundamental characteristics in order to be considered credible, like, for example, even the slightest capacity whatsoever to distinguish fantasy from reality, something which you as well are obviously cognitively hyper-restricted from achieving.

RESPONSE: Sorry, again, the "fantasy" is yours. You refuse to face facts, but choose rather to adhere to a band of myths which serves to keep Jews in uncontested power. Mr. Makow is entitled to his arguments. If he wishes to prove to me that you are a Martian, I'm willing to let him make his case. Your job (as apparent Court Prosecutor) is to contest his assertions, not just dismiss him because you decide -- off the cuff -- that he's nuts.

"Credibility" is based upon evidence. Makow cites the evidence of professor Kevin MacDonald and the whole of Jewish history. You cite nothing credbile in response. You are a propagandist, apologist, fraud, and dope. You simply cite the fact that you don't like the information Makow cites and are apparently certain that Gloria Steinem didn't work for the CIA.

I don't care if Makow has decided a chipmunk is our president. What does he say about Jews, and what is his evidence?

YOU SAY: Accepting his "theory" concerning "The Jewish Century" as accurate because of the regrettable accident that his parents happened to be Jewish,

RESPONSE: What?! A "Jew" who doesn't agree with the Jewish Lobby's self-serving propaganda! Gosh! This throws a two-ton monkey wrench into the smooth-flowing Propaganda Machinery. Here's how you handle it: "Makow is Jewish, but he is insane. "

YOU SAY: is just as valid as accepting his theory concerning rape, homosexuality, Gloria Steinem, and the CIA's Satanic International Freemasonry Conspiracy because he's male.

RESPONSE: I have not researched the realm of his arguments. Did Gloria Steinem work for the CIA? I have no idea, but will avoid anything dictatorial until I have INVESTIGATED THE EVIDENCE. The material he discusses about Jewish identity, Jewish power, Jewish racism, Kevin MacDonald, et al, I HAVE RESEARCHED, and in this realm his assertions are verifiable and accurate.

YOU SAY: That you would consider this individual credible enough to post as an example of clear rational thought on this issue says pretty much every thing anyone needs to know about you and your site.

RESPONSE: You seem to infer that Mr. Makow is verifiably insane. I suggest to you that it is the Jewish Collective that is qualitatively nuts and he is one of a noble few who is trying to wiggle out of its totalitarian clutches. You are one the JC's activist Thought Police. THE JEW WHO BUCKS AGAINST JEWISH COLLECTIVE WILL IS, as always, TO BE CONDEMNED AS BETRAYER.

Perhaps Makow isn't crazy. Maybe he's just another JEWISH "anti-Semite?"

YOU SAY: And you, flake-boy, shouldn't be referring to anyone else as a "kook."

RESPONSE: Kook? How about the famous racist rabbi with the unfortunate surname "Kook." Rabbi Kook. I'm sure you've heard of him (and his son, also Rabbi Kook). He is, perhaps, your great uncle?




Re(4): Gays: a CIA plot
Posted on June 2, 2003 at 00:50:08 AM by Mitchell Levine

Why? Very simple. This man clearly demonstrates that he's suffering from delusive schziophreniform pathogenicity with extreme paranoidal features, making him the only individual on the surface of Earth with less credibility than you have.

I therefore logically conclude that there's no reason for me to take his experience over my personal ones.

Your definition of sanity is: agreeing with an evil, despicable, hate-filled scumbag like you, so, if we accept your denotation, it's preferable for everyone to be insane.



Re(5): Gays: a CIA plot
Posted on June 2, 2003 at 04:38:33 AM by Mitchell Levine

Also, I should note that, regarding his "evidence" for such things as Gloria Steinem's tenure in the intelligence community or the secret plutocracy of the Freemasons upon the world stage, he gives none. He simply states everything ex cathedra.

Not a good sign. Kind of like Stygniev O'Donnell giving credence to the Blood Libel, or David Icke's imagined preeminence of humanoid space lizards: maybe he's got a point, but, most likely, experience dictates, he's a schzoidal lunatic.




(no subject)
Posted on June 1, 2003 at 11:00:52 PM by Moishe the Goyim

Jewish reporter Morley Safar at 60 Minutes gives us a look at how Jewish media stars in Germany continually guilt-trip Germans for collective shame.

Time for some serious JEWISH collective shame, right, Levine? For the porn racket, for the Russian mafia, for the garbage out of Hollywood, for rampant materialism, for chronic two-faced hypocrisy, etc. etc. etc.

Yay Michale Walzer! Isn't it amazing how Jews STILL hold such media influence in Germany?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/30/60minutes/main556320.shtml

Shadow of Shame, CBS (60 Minutes), June 1, 2003

"The Holocaust. It’s constantly on television, at the movies, on
stage, in countless relics and monuments, in the country's museums and
in its schools. It is recalled every year on Nov. 9, the anniversary
of Kristallnacht, the 1938 assault on Germany's Jews. Even Germany's
tiny Jewish community is a living emblem of what happened in that country. Half a million strong before the war, it’s a fraction of that now. As Morley Safer reports, most of Germany's Jews live quietly and
see that country as one of the safest places in the world to raise their
children. But one of the leaders of that community is anything but quiet. Michel Friedman, a television star with his own talk show and a Jew who gets on the nerves of a lot of Germans, never lets them forget that they must be careful about what they say. Friedman is the subject of a lot of German hate mail, a focal point for anti-Semitism.
He acknowledges that Germans have tried to make up for their past, but
adds 'I am not responsible that Germany invented the Holocaust. They are responsible, and that's a part of their life.' Most Germans would not argue the point. Even young Germans, born decades after the war, bear the burden. 'It's not always that we think about it. It's, we know it, we have this responsibility and we think about it when we make any decisions,' says Carsten Schneider who, at 27, is the youngest member of the German parliament. Young Germans live in a society devoted mostly to life, liberty and the pursuit of a good time, but psychologically they still carry the sins of their grandparents. In most German public schools, reckoning with the past is an academic requirement ...

Is there a danger in raising generation after generation with this shame as the
central characteristic of their society? 'No, not at all,' says Friedman

... More and more Germans are fed up with all this self-flagellation,
and no one more fed up than 75-year-old Martin Walser, one of the country's
most revered authors and a man who has been writing about the legacy
of the Holocaust for 40 years. Like most everyone of a certain age in
Germany, Walser has to grapple with his own personal history. His mother
was an ardent member of the Nazi party, and at the age of 17, in 1944,
Walser joined the German army. Walser is in no way a Holocaust denier,
but he says that the constant dredging up of German history, on television,
for instance, has become absurd. 'Hitler's doctors, Hitler's dogs, Hitler's fools, Hitler's generals,' he says. 'You know, and I said that's an abuse.' And another abuse, says Walser, is the way that other countries help to keep alive the image of Germany as a recovering Nazi. 'They treated a whole nation as a criminal on probation,’ he says.'And you have to keep alive this state of mind that you are not yet accepted,
and that you are not yet a normal man or a normal nation.' A lot of Germans feel they've done everything in their power to face up to that past -- paying reparations, apologizing. What more, they ask, can they do? ...

Last year, Walser published a novel that many considered to be a blatant anti-Semitic tract. It set off an agonizing debate about just how far a German writer, even an eminent literary figure, can go. Walser's detractors say that he crossed the line. His novel is a thinly disguised and very ugly portrait of the most powerful literary critic in Germany - Marcel Reich-Ranitzky - a Jew and a Holocaust survivor, and a television star with a brutal way of reviewing books. He trashed Walser's work, so Walser trashed him. In Walser's novel, the critic is portrayed as an all-powerful, lecherous, and abusive Jew - a figure
that recalled for many the brutal anti-Semitic caricature of Jews in the years leading up to the Nazi period. The leading German newspaper refused to serialize the novel, calling it a document of hatred against Jews. Walser is outraged at the accusation and its repercussions. 'You just state it's anti-Semitic, and basta - that's like a death sentence,' he says. For Walser’s reputation, perhaps, but not for the book. The scandal turned the novel into a number one bestseller."



Re(1): (no subject)
Posted on June 2, 2003 at 01:32:53 AM by Mitchell Levine

Once again, your incomparable stupidity never fails to amaze and amuse.

There's no such thing as "collective shame." People are responsible for what they themselves do. End of story. There's no more reason for Jews to have to apologize for what other individual Jews might do, than there would be for gentiles to. You, for example, as an evil scumbag, are in no way beholden to what other evil scumbags like the Nazis did.

The fact that a modern European nation could actually elect a ruler that committed genocide has and will continue to fascinate, as is evident from the fact that people keep buying tickets to see films with that as a basis.

The argument that there is any "Jewish propaganda machine" forcing people to take an interest in such things against their will is also bullshit: people are spending their time and money in this way because they want to. No amount of press coverage and advertising will convince people to see movies and television shows they don't wish to, as is deducible from the fact that numerous films with vast advertising budgets fail (including those by Jewish directors and producers).

If the television host in Germany goes overboard with his shtick, than he deserves criticism as an individual, and so be it. It is in no way the fault of all Jews everywhere.

Materialism is something equally engaged in by people everywhere, and is, once again, a universal phenomenon, and would be even if the Nazis had accomplished your heart's desire by completing the Final Solution, a fact indicated by the Nazis (and the Swiss banker's) theft of gold, art, property, and much more.

No one in their right mind would blame innocent Germans for Nazi crimes; that's why most of the world rejoiced when the Berlin Wall came down. If the world treated Germany like "a criminal on probation," they really don't have anyone to blame but themselves. That doesn't justify vilification of contemporary Germans, people whom the overwhelming majority of Jews hold no prejudice against (extant war criminals excluded).

Your allegations of pornography being somehow the "fault" of Jews are bullshit: modern hardcore porn began with Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door in 1972, directed, produced, and distributed by the Perraino and Mitchell brothers, respectively - neither of whom were Jewish, and for that matter, neither were Bob Guccione, Hugh Hefner, or Larry Flynt. Furthermore, the largest distributor of porn is David James of Vivid Video.

Bud Schulberg, at one time one of the most powerful people in the porn industry, IS Jewish, but that hardly makes the whole industry the fault of the Jews.

In fact, a recent study found that 40% of born-again Christians had surfed adult sites on the Net for pleasure. I'm sure you have too, so your blaming Jews for indemonstrable "hypocrisy" is probably epynomous.


Re(2): (no subject)
Posted on June 2, 2003 at 11:11:26 PM by mg

YO SAY: Once again, your incomparable stupidity never fails to amaze and amuse.

RESPONSE: Likewise to your commentary.

YOU SAY: There's no such thing as "collective shame."

RESPONSE: Of course there is. In Jewish circles, it's manifest in many ways. As you know. Collective Jewish shame for how "Jews acted like sheep" beneath the Nazi takeover is well known, and much discussed by Jewish commentators. This Jewish shame has been instrumental in the creation of the Nazi-like Israeli "sabra" warrior: the obverse of the classical European Jew. In Israel, in the early years after World War II, "Holocaust survivors" were considered shameful as an entire class of people.

YOU SAY: People are responsible for what they themselves do. End of story.

RESPONSE: That's the American "rugged invidualism" tradition. But it has nothing to do with Jewish tradition, which is a collective, a tribe.

YOU SAY: There's no more reason for Jews to have to apologize for what other individual Jews might do, than there would be for gentiles to.

RESPONSE: Jews have always separated themselves from their goyim neighbors in history (as you know) always knowing that whatever one Jew does has effect upon the entire community. Jews have never been "individuals" in the American sense in their long history. They were an insular clan, self-proclaimed as distinct from their non-Jewish neighbors. YOu know this.

YOU SAY: You, for example, as an evil scumbag, are in no way beholden to what other evil scumbags like the Nazis did.

RESPONSE: If I was subscribed to being a "Nazi," there would be closure. Jews demand collective responsibility (and sometimes reparations) from Germans, Poles, Christians, generic "anti-semites," Russians, etc. etc. etc.

YOU SAY: The fact that a modern European nation could actually elect a ruler that committed genocide has and will continue to fascinate, as is evident from the fact that people keep buying tickets to see films with that as a basis.

RESPONSE: There are countless subjects for such a theme. The importance of Hitler to the Judeocentrism is that he is the quintessential arch-enemy.

RESPONSE: The argument that there is any "Jewish propaganda machine" forcing people to take an interest in such things against their will is also bullshit:

RESPONSE: IT is evidenced everywhere: Hollywood, government, publishing, music, etc.

YOU SAY: people are spending their time and money in this way because they want to. No amount of press coverage and advertising will convince people to see movies and television shows they don't wish to, as is deducible from the fact that numerous films with vast advertising budgets fail (including those by Jewish directors and producers).

RESPONSE: The choice of movies to see is very narrow. Jews largely determine what is available to see. Coke or Pepsi? Free choice, indeed.

YOU SAY: If the television host in Germany goes overboard with his shtick, than he deserves criticism as an individual, and so be it. It is in no way the fault of all Jews everywhere.

RESPONSE: Friedman's "shtick" is Judeocentric: guilt-tripping Germans about World War II. Friedman very publicly leans on the Jewish-German issue. The Jewish Lobby's essence in this is unescapble.

YOU SAY: Materialism is something equally engaged in by people everywhere, and is, once again, a universal phenomenon,

RESPONSE: To some degree. But Jewry's celebration of a this-life materialism is quite different from Christianity's "next world" ideology. This is a long discussion, and I've discussed it here before. The modern world, in many senses, has become "Jewish." This has been noted by many people in history, including Karl Marx.

YOU SAY: and would be even if the Nazis had accomplished your heart's desire by completing the Final Solution, a fact indicated by the Nazis (and the Swiss banker's) theft of gold, art, property, and much more.

RESPONS: No. YOUR "heart's desire" would be that I was a Nazi. That would simplify things for you. I am moral and ethical. You are a dissimulative fraudster.

YOU SAY: No one in their right mind would blame innocent Germans for Nazi crimes;

RESPONSE: Jews do, all the time. Where've you been?

YOU SAY: that's why most of the world rejoiced when the Berlin Wall came down. If the world treated Germany like "a criminal on probation," they really don't have anyone to blame but themselves.

RESPONSE: Well, they could blame Jews for taking over German culture in the Weimar Republic, no?

YOU SAY: That doesn't justify vilification of contemporary Germans, people whom the overwhelming majority of Jews hold no prejudice against (extant war criminals excluded).

RESPONSE: Nonsense. There's plenty of discussion among Jews about whether a Jew should buy a German car, etc.

YOU SAY: Your allegations of pornography being somehow the "fault" of Jews are bullshit: modern hardcore porn began with Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door in 1972, directed, produced, and distributed by the Perraino and Mitchell brothers, respectively - neither of whom were Jewish,

RESPONSE: "MOdern porno" began much earlier than that. Jews dominated the "smut" trade in America in the 1930s (documentation at Jewish Tribal Review) and so forth. Jews largely ran the international "white slave trade" even earlier, as I have pointed out. All this is addressed in detail in the Mass Media section of WHEN VICTIMS RULE at Jewish Tribal Review. There's plenty more to it ... Deep Throat starred famed Jewish porno actor Harry Reems. He was defended (for obscenity) by Jewish fanatic Alan Dershowitz in court.

YOU SAY: and for that matter, neither were Bob Guccione, Hugh Hefner, or Larry Flynt. Furthermore, the largest distributor of porn is David James of Vivid Video.

RESPONSE: Such people are the exception; not the rule. I point out to you that the number 3 person at Playboy (between Hefner and his daughter) is a Jew, and Paul Krassner (Jewish) writes some interesting things in his biography about when he edited Hustler.

YOU SAY: Bud Schulberg, at one time one of the most powerful people in the porn industry, IS Jewish,

RESPONSE: I didn't know Schulberg was a biggie in porno. This is news to me. Thanks. I knew our exchanges would be productive. What else do you know about him?

YOU SAY: but that hardly makes the whole industry the fault of the Jews.

RESPONSE: Jews have been central to the porn and prostitution industry, for decades.

See, merely for example,

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/criporn.htm

YOU SAY: In fact, a recent study found that 40% of born-again Christians had surfed adult sites on the Net for pleasure. I'm sure you have too, so your blaming Jews for indemonstrable "hypocrisy" is probably epynomous.

RESPONS: Sorry, no. I don't share your taste for exploitation. I'd question your figure of 40% you pulled out of air, but even if it's true, it's a manifestation of the Judaization of culture.




Are Jews taking over canadian film industry?
Posted on June 2, 2003 at 10:01:41 AM by A Worried Gentile

It seems to be that Jews are also taking over canadian film industry. Latest proof of this is the replacement of Jay Firestone (gentile) from CanWest/FireWorks Entertainment. Mr. Firestone is one of the most successful and internationally recognized canadian producer. In 1997, after he was sacked from Alliance-Atlantis, he established FireWorks Entertainment and made hit cult tv-serie La Femme Nikita. Obviously another canadian media giant CanWest Global (owned by jewish Asper family) saw their opportunity to expand their businessies to film industry, and CanWest Global was friendly taking over FireWorks Entertainment. I don't know how they lure Mr. Firestone to sell his company, but he sold it in good faith, and made 5-year agreement that he would continue as a president and CEO of the CanWest/FireWorks Entertainment. Now 5 years later Mr. Firestone can go, and he is replaced by longtime CanWest Global executive Gerry Noble. I don't know is Mr. Noble jew or gentile but he seems to be much more pleasant canditate for Izzy Asper, head of CanWest Global, to run CanWest/FireWorks Entertainment than Jay Firestone who has carried his own focus during these 5 years. According to CanWest Global owned newspapers (most of the canadian newspapers) take over of FireWorks has been financial disappointment for CanWest Global and Mr. Firestone has self asked not to renew his agreement with CanWest Global. Of course this is ONLY CanWest Global's poit of view. As far Jay Firestone hasn't comment this, and if he want continue in film industry it's better for him not to. Asper family owned media giant could destroy his future in Canada. Canadian film industry has been raised enormously last decade, and lower production costs has also brought major american studios to shoot films in Canada. So people have started to call canadian film industry as Hollywood North. Unfortenately I don't have any inside information or I can't tell you how much there is fact in my conclusions, but what happened to Mr. Firestone reminds scarefully the way how Jews threat gentiles in Hollywood as John W. Cones has descript it, and what scares me even more is the idea that Asper family are making Hollywood North same kind of place as it's big brother in California.

Continued: Canada
Posted on June 3, 2003 at 00:13:31 AM by mg

CONTINUED...

Another noteworthy Jewish cinema/theatre mogul in the early years was Nathan Nathanson who "built the Panteges [theatre] in 1920 ... Even more significantly, Nathanson started not only the Famous Players theatre circuit in Canada but also Canadian Odeon ... He was single-handedly responsible for the two chains that formed the duopoly that dominated Canadian exhbition for so long." [DRABINSKY, G. 1995, p. 64] Then there is Allen Karp, "chairman and chief executive of the Toronto-based Cineplex Odeon Corporation, Canada's largest film exhibitor." [KIRSHNER, S., 1-7-99]


Also in Canada, Jewish mogul Paul Godfrey is the 1990s chairman of the Toronto Sun Publishing Company/ Sun Media Group and was the 1998 winner of the B'nai B'rith Award of Merit. Five families own TorStar, the parent company of the Toronto Star, the largest newspaper in Canada. One of the familiess is Jewish : the Thalls. "Their original name was Rosenthal. [Burnett] Thall says he lopped off the first two syllables to overcome the anti-Semitism of 1940s Toronto and improve his job prospects." [REGULY, E., 10-26-01] In 1992, a baptized Jew, Peter Herrnsdorf, became the CEO and chairman of TV Ontario, replacing Bernard Ostry. (For a decade Herrnsdorf had been the publisher of Toronto Life magazine. "Among those who championed Herrnsdorf's installation at TVO," notes Toronto Life, "was Howard Bernstein, a senior producer who had worked for Herrnsdorf at CBC," where Herrnsdorf had also been an executive). [CANADIAN BUSINESS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS, JULY 1996, p. 56-6; DINOFF, D., 7-26-99, p. 4]

Yet another Jewish media head, Jacques Bensimon, member of the "self-help Sephardic Network," stepped down in 2000 as the Managing Director of TFO, the French language division of TV Ontario. "He is widely considered," notes the Canadian Jewish News, "to be the father of TFO ... By Bensimon's estimation, his Jewish sensibility helped enormously, sensitizing him to the perspectives and needs of his French minority audience." Bensimon left TFO to become an executive at the Banff Television Festival. Bensimon had earlier served as a director at the Film Board of Canada. [KIRSCHNER, S., 7-13-2000]

Sandra Kolber, also Jewish, became a member of the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in 1991. [SINGER/SELDIN, 1992, p. 34] The very powerful president and CEO of CBC at the turn of the millennium is Richard Rabinovitch. (He "spent more than a decade as chief operating officer of Claridge Inc., [Jewish alcohol and media mogul] Charles Bronfman's private holding company in Montreal, and was chairman of the executive committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress's Quebec region). [GORDON, S., 11-30-01]

Also in Canada, Garry Schwartz heads Phoenix Pictures and Phyllis Yaffe is the president and CEO of Showcase Television. Both, too, are Jewish. (The chairman of the Canadian Television Fund, a private/public partnership that helped fund 330 TV programs and 17 feature films in 1997-98 alone is Richard Stursberg and Tim Kotchoff was sequentially vice-president of news programming for both CBC and CTV television networks. Are these two men Jewish as well?) At the lower media tiers, a panel discussion at a Canadian Jewish Congress luncheon in 1999 included CBC TV "senior reporter" Joe Schlesinger, "broadcaster" Evan Solomon, "editorial writer for the National Post" Ezra Levant, and "associate editor of Now magazine" Susan Cole. [ROSE, B., 12-9-99, p. 3, 5] Himie Koshevoy died in 2000. He had been the "managing editor of the Vancouver Sun and subsequently the Toronto Star." [KIRSCHNER, S., 9-14-2000, p. 11]

"Humble Howard" Glassman is a prominent radio show radio host in Toronto, as is Marsha Lederman. As one Jewish ethnic paper noted about the usual Jewish subtext in their commentaries:

"Glassman has been under fire from Christian groups for a few years now, culminating
in last month's 26-page complaint to the Canadian Radio-Television and
and Telecommunications Commission by the Catholic Civil Rights League and
the Canadian Family Action Coalition. (They sent copies to the B'nai B'rith
and the Toronto Police Hate Crimes Squad). Particularly at issue was a series
of bits done by Glassman and sidekick Fred Patterson regarding Jesus
(including the song 'Jesus Was a Fetus') and Easter (a giveaway of chocolate
Jesus candles, promising to mail their producer to a cross and holding a
Jesus-lookalike contest ... While [Lederman] has sufficient respect for her
background to not try to subvert Judaism, she is constantly at odds with how
much her perspective is shaped by religion. She's been accused of being
anti-Catholic after addressing issues, which she finds odd, since she
currently cohabitates with a Catholic." [WEISBLOT, M., 9-2001]

In 1997, the Alberta Report reported about those who oversee moral issues for the Canadian television audience (the article was subtitled "Naked Lesbian Kissing Is Deemed Acceptable for Suppertime TV"):

"A recent decision by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council suggests that
if Ellen [the American lesbian-oriented TV series] were produced here, the only
controversy would be whether she would be shown naked in bed with her lesbian
lover ... Nudity is not yet common on Canadian sitcoms, but the diaphanously-clad
models featured on such haute couture 'news' programs as CBC Newsworld's
Fashion File and the syndicated Fashion Television often resemble Salome
stripped to her last veil ... Two weeks ago the industry-funded CBSC (which had
earlier dismissed two previous claims against Fashion Television) dismissed this
complaint as well. The CBSC cited a response from series producer CITY-TV--
owned by [Jewish mogul] Moses Znaimer, who also co-owns Alberta's ACCESS-TV
--'We do not equate nudity with pornography. Fashion and photography to our mind
are art' ... The unnamed complainant had argued in a January 1995 letter, 'These are
prime time family viewing hours and it is highly inappropriate for such sexually explicit
material to be shown on television.' Ron Cohen, CBSC national chairman, rejects
this argument as irrelevant, contending that the specialized nature of the program appeals
to adults only ... Jay Levine, Fashion Television's producer, adds that nudity is to
be expected from a show covering an industry where 'being sexy is to be provocative.'
He adds, 'We're doing something that obviously a lot of people don't have a problem
with ... a few years ago it would have been inconceivable that producer-writer Ken Finkleman could utter 'the f-word' on his hit CBC sitcom The Newsroom.'"


Re(1): Are Jews taking over canadian film industry?
Posted on June 2, 2003 at 05:09:59 PM by mitchell levine

The keen accuracy of your political analysis is matched only by that of your spelling and grammar!



Re(2): Are Jews taking over canadian film industry?
Posted on June 3, 2003 at 03:44:51 AM by A Worried Gentile

It's true that my knowledge is weak, and my english is poor because I'm from Europe. Honestly I didn't know that situation in Canada is that bad. I thought that at least part of the their entertainment industry is in hands of gentile canadians. So what happened to Jay Firestone wasn't something new. Actually he was kicked out from Alliance-Atlantis because his role in that company started to threating Robert Lantos. Here in Europe I saw Canada's raising film industry as a small hope against to so called "insiders" controlled Hollywood. Now I know that I was wrong. Please tell me that there is still hope, and there is left companies which are not controlled by jews, scientologies or any other suspicious groups!



Re(3): Are Jews taking over canadian film industry?
Posted on June 4, 2003 at 12:52:51 AM by mg

Jews will continue to dominate and expand their influence in the mass media in growing numbers of places (the same Jewish media influence can be found in Eastern Europe, France, Brazil, etc.) until people have the guts to stand up and say ENOUGH!



Re(4): Are Jews taking over canadian film industry?
Posted on June 4, 2003 at 01:47:35 PM by George Shelps


Jews will continue to dominate and expand their influence in the mass media in growing numbers of places (the same Jewish media influence can be found in Eastern Europe, France, Brazil, etc.) until people have the guts to stand up and say ENOUGH!

___And after they stand up and say this,
what next?

The one thing you, Cones, and Jaeger have in common is that you have not
spelled out your remedy for the the
situation you deplore.

If you simply intend to publish articles
and put up websites, then I don't think
Mitchell or I or anyone else can object to your use of the right of free speech---even though what you're saying
is unacceptable to me and to him and
to many many people.

But if you're stepping over that line into political or governmental action, then I think you should spell out what
policies or laws you advocate.


Re(5): Are Jews taking over canadian film industry?
Posted on June 4, 2003 at 02:20:48 PM by mg

YOU SAY: And after they stand up and say this, what next?

RESPONS: Political activism. Whatever the "people" decide. Democracy in action.

YOU SAY: The one thing you, Cones, and Jaeger have in common is that you have not spelled out your remedy for the the
situation you deplore.

RESPONSE: We aren't dictators. The key is to get people talking about the Jewish hegemony problem. Once the public understands how shafted we are all by Jewish Ethnocentrism, then history will go in the direction it is destined.

YOU SAY: If you simply intend to publish articles and put up websites, then I don't think Mitchell or I or anyone else can object to your use of the right of free speech---even though what you're saying is unacceptable to me and to him and to many many people.

RESPONSE: What a gross BS-er! All you do it bitch and complain about our web site, Jewish Tribal Review, although it explicitly states that's its goal is to state facts and solicit public discussion.

You HATE that! You are a bigot and a censor. You don't want free speech. You want everyone to kiss Jewish Butt like you, because KISSING JEWISH BUTT IS YOUR RELIGION. Quite literally. And whoever doesn't climb down on their knees, rub their noses with smelling salts, and kiss Jewish Butt, is a threat to your totalitarian ideology. Guys like Mitchell Levine (secular, Leftist, "liberal" Jew) DESPISE Christians like you. That you kiss even HIS butt in defense of Jewish social and political hegemony is beyond belief.

YOU SAY: But if you're stepping over that line into political or governmental action, then I think you should spell out what
policies or laws you advocate.

RESPONSE: Again, Jews have been actively seeking to overthrow WASP and Christian cultural influence in the West FOR DECADES NOW, and only a dull rabbit wouldn't understand that!

Jews have created the model for destroying influence they don't like: public agitation, legal influence, BUYING the corrupt to kiss Jewish Butt, etc. etc. etc.

But in Israel, where they've got a free reign against former Muslim and Arab hegemony, they KILL people.


Re(6): Are Jews taking over canadian film industry?
Posted on June 5, 2003 at 03:25:05 AM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: And after they stand up and say this, what next?

RESPONS: Political activism. Whatever the "people" decide. Democracy in action.

__What sort of political activism would
you like to see?

YOU SAY: The one thing you, Cones, and Jaeger have in common is that you have not spelled out your remedy for the the
situation you deplore.

RESPONSE: We aren't dictators. The key is to get people talking about the Jewish hegemony problem. Once the public understands how shafted we are all by Jewish Ethnocentrism, then history will go in the direction it is destined.

___Which is?

YOU SAY: If you simply intend to publish articles and put up websites, then I don't think Mitchell or I or anyone else can object to your use of the right of free speech---even though what you're saying is unacceptable to me and to him and to many many people.



RESPONSE: What a gross BS-er! All you do it bitch and complain about our web site, Jewish Tribal Review, although it explicitly states that's its goal is to state facts and solicit public discussion.

___Oh, you can bitch and complain about
Jews but I can't bitch and complain about your website...??

You HATE that! You are a bigot and a censor. You don't want free speech.

__Hey, moron, free speech is a two-way
street...I have the right to denounce
you and your views as much as you
have the right to spew them.

You want everyone to kiss Jewish Butt like you, because KISSING JEWISH BUTT IS YOUR RELIGION. Quite literally.

___You know nothing about me.

And whoever doesn't climb down on their knees, rub their noses with smelling salts, and kiss Jewish Butt, is a threat to your totalitarian ideology.

___You're a liar. The evidence of this
discussion board demonstrates that. I
have strongly and toughly disagreed
with Mitchell Levine on politics and
on religion...I think is view of Bush
is disgusting...


Guys like Mitchell Levine (secular, Leftist, "liberal" Jew) DESPISE Christians like you. That you kiss even HIS butt in defense of Jewish social and political hegemony is beyond belief.

___Mitchell and I have aired our differences, but we do agree that you're
a sleaze and that you're doing damage to the reputation of FIRM.

YOU SAY: But if you're stepping over that line into political or governmental action, then I think you should spell out what
policies or laws you advocate.

RESPONSE: Again, Jews have been actively seeking to overthrow WASP and Christian cultural influence in the West FOR DECADES NOW, and only a dull rabbit wouldn't understand that!

___They opposed Bush and still he got into office...how much "influence"
can they have?

Jews have created the model for destroying influence they don't like: public agitation, legal influence, BUYING the corrupt to kiss Jewish Butt, etc. etc. etc.

__Yeah, yeah...etc etc etc...but you
dodged the question: what polices or
new laws do you advocate to change
the ethnocentric bias you deplore?

I think it's incumbent upon you or Jaeger or Cones to state a remedy.

My remedy is for people of all persuasions and backgrounds to work
hard to break into the film business--
regardless of who else is in it---and
to protest illegal discrimination
wherever it is found...but not be
concerned about the race, religion,
or politics of the so-called "control
group."

And your remedy is.....?





Late Response to George
Posted on June 2, 2003 at 01:44:39 PM by John Cones

George:

Sorry I couldn’t get back to you sooner, but I was lecturing in Monterrey this weekend. Unfortunately, I’ve seen you make the same faulty arguments several times on this site. We state some general rule, for example, that there is not much diversity at the top in Hollywood amongst the studio executives and therefore we see patterns of bias in the films released by the major studios, because they often make similar choices in films. You respond by pointing out a few exceptions to the general rule. I’m sure that someone at some point in your formative years taught you that pointing out an exception to a general rule does not refute the rule, but, in fact, proves that general rule. So, you keep pretending that you are providing an argument in opposition to our stated general rule, when in reality you’re merely confirming our position. Your counter point would be effective, if we had ever said that 100% of the Hollywood studio executives share a common background. But, that’s never been our position and you know it. Our position reflects the fact that a clear majority of the major studio executives have for nearly 100 years shared a very narrow and similar background, thus the choices of films have been similar (i.e., consistent patterns of bias).

Now, more specifically with respect to your statement that “Executives don’t make movies, filmmakers do . . . “ Again, you’re missing the point. Studio executives determine to a significant degree which films are going to be produced and distributed, and filmmakers cannot make films without the approval and financing of the major studios whose films routinely and regularly take up the desirable screens.

With respect to corporate ownership, surely you are aware of the difference between corporate ownership (shareholders) and management. Management makes the decisions of concern to FIRM, not owners, so why talk to us about ownership. It’s not really relevant. The same is true of your comment about the studios being public companies. So what, if the majority of upper level management lacks diversity, the fact that the companies are publicly held is again, not relevant to the issue.

Finally, your statement that “Business and art are not part of democracy . . . “ reveals a gross misunderstanding of the nature of film. The U.S. Supreme Court said it well, years ago: “The motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas.” Movies, radio, television, newspapers and magazines are all businesses but it’s the communication business that they are in, they all are communicating ideas, sometimes in an entertaining format. And the ability to vigorously discuss all sides of ideas is extremely important to a democracy. It is puzzling that you don’t see that connection.

With respect to your call for me to repudiate J.J. Jenks’ attacks on Jews . . . I have already done that and do it again. I find much of his broader criticism of Jews in general inappropriate for this FIRM site which is focused on film industry reform and the promotion of diversity at all levels in the film industry. On the other hand, I also find the repeated false accusations that my writing is somehow anti-Semitic just as senseless and inappropriate. I feel caught between people on both sides of the questions raised, that resort to extreme rhetoric and if I delete the contributions of one, I’d have to delete the contributions of both. I’d prefer that all of you just tone it down a bit and stay on point.

Thanks,

John Cones



Re(1): Late Response to George
Posted on June 2, 2003 at 08:29:43 PM by Mitchell Levine

John,

As a writer, I can't claim to have the experience of either an entertainment attorney or executive producer, but I must respond to several of your arguments anyhow.

1. You're basing your criticism of George Shelp's argument on a misinterpretation of the language: "the exception proves the rule" is a commonly misunderstood phrase from Middle English in which "proves" is taken to have its modern sense of "confirming."Actually, in this context, the word means "test," as in "the exception is that which tests the validity of a proposition." Since that's exactly what George is trying to do, your example supports rather than controverts him.

2. You've mentioned the Supreme Court's ruling that the motion picture industry is an important communicatons medium on numerous occasions. Where exactly is it that the Justices proclaimed that therefore everyone has a right to express their views in the form of motion pictures? While communication IS certainly an important feature of a democracy, hence the emphasis placed on the primacy of freedom of speech by the Framers, they've never held that a newspaper is obligated to give equal time to views other than those they wish to support. In fact, the express right not to be forced to do that is included in the freedom of the press. Have they ever held that The National Review must give equal time to Andrea Dworkin? Why would that be any less operative in the motion picture industry?

When did the Court rule that freedom of speech somehow established an affirmative right for anyone or group to have films made and funded by the studios that express their viewpoint? Why would freedom of the press not apply to film if it is, in fact, an "important communications medium," any less than it would to a newspaper or magazine?

3.In every other business in the world, executives are chosen on the basis of seniority and experience. That is the way that the conservative press choose their senior editors, for example. You don't seem to have any problem with that at all. Considering the fact that the founders of the industry were primarily Jewish, it's unsurprising that the people with the most experience and seniority are Jewish. In fact, if it were any other ethnic group other than Jews that were responsible, you would most likely be thanking the industry founders for the foresight, talent, and creativity in establishing the business.

What explanation do you have for the fact that you seem to believe that the only reason for exempting that principle when you find what you consider to be a surplus of Jews in management. Do you have any evidence that the studios have violated Equal Opportunity, whose provisions are formulated in percentages of entire companies and their staffs, rather than simply CEOs and upper management? If you do, you've certainly never presented it on the site. As you know, there's many, many non-Jews in the entertainment business at all levels. Is there any evidence that those middle management people won't be hired for their executive positions in the future? Why exactly should the studios, contrary to practice in every other industry, be suddenly divested of their top management?

True, there may be patterns of bias evident in film over the last 70 years (although your research seems to only confirm negative stereotypes, and overlook positive portrayals, of which there have been many for each of the groups you find patterns of bias against), but there's been similar patterns of bias evident in all communications media over the last 7,000 years, regardless of who's been in management.

All available evidence seems to suggest not that studios and other producers make films that reflect THEIR interests, but that filmmakers and producers make films and other types of content that reflect their AUDIENCE'S interests and prejudices, in order to sell them tickets - the bottom line for every communications industry. That's why studio's typically use marketing research and focus groups to generate ratings and indices, audience-test alternate endings and release cuts, etc. Exactly what evidence do you have that patterns of bias are in fact the result of filmmakers, and not film audiences? Film audiences are certainly not primarily Jewish: they are a cross-section of all society. If there are specific business practices that need to be controlled like vertical integration and such, why not take action against the studios legally? Why would that require any ethnic divestment of the studios, as if success by the ethnic group that founded it were a crime?


Re(1): Late Response to George
Posted on June 3, 2003 at 12:13:30 AM by John Cones

Better yet, why don't you guys conduct a current survey of the backgrounds of the top three major studio executives. If you find that there's a significant number of African-Americans, Latinos, Italian-Americans, Catholics, Muslims, Arab-Americans, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Native Americans, Hindus, Buddhists or members of other groups that have been systematically excluded from these top positions in Hollywood for the past 100 years, let's talk.

John Cones




Re(1): Late Response to George
Posted on June 3, 2003 at 00:34:16 AM by George Shelps


Unfortunately, I've seen you make the same faulty arguments several times on this site. We state some general rule, for example, that there is not much diversity at the top in Hollywood amongst the studio executives and therefore we see patterns of bias in the films released by the major studios, because they often make similar choices in films. You respond by pointing out a few exceptions to the general rule. I'm sure that someone at some point in your formative years

___Don't condescend to me, Mr Cones!

taught you that pointing out an exception to a general rule does not refute the rule, but, in fact, proves that general rule. So, you keep pretending that you are providing an argument in opposition to our stated general rule, when in reality you're merely confirming our position. Your counter point would be effective, if we had ever said that 100% of the Hollywood studio executives share a common background. But, that's never been our position and you know it.

__I don't disagree with you about
the similaries of the management group,
I just deny that their decisions are
decisive in de-centralized Hollywood
where many film-makers hold the power
to act independently with their own
financing.

You can't prove a causal connection
between the personal and ethnic
values of the executives and the films
which are made. I can come up with
a sufficient number of exceptions that
render your case questionable. At best
you can say is that these people
are ~influential~ which is true.

Our position reflects the fact that a clear majority of the major studio executives have for nearly 100 years shared a very narrow and similar background, thus the choices of films have been similar (i.e., consistent patterns of bias).

__You're wrong. Historically, the Jewish owners of the "Golden Age"
were Republicans and conservatives.


Now, more specifically with respect to your statement that "Executives don't make movies, filmmakers do . . . "

Again, you're missing the point. Studio executives determine to a significant degree which films are going to be produced and distributed, and filmmakers cannot make films without the approval and financing of the major studios whose films routinely and regularly take up the desirable screens.

__Who determines what films George Lucas
will make? Or Spielberg? Or any
number of other powerhouse figures
who operate with access to funds
that don't need studio approval.

With respect to corporate ownership, surely you are aware of the difference between corporate ownership (shareholders) and management. Management makes the decisions of concern to FIRM, not owners, so why talk to us about ownership.

__This is one of your standard replies
but your statement is untrue. The Disney family brought in Michael Eisner
to run their studio when the company
was stumbling. They presumably knew
what kind of projects he would greenlight when they did so.

It's not really relevant. The same is true of your comment about the studios being public companies. So what, if the majority of upper level management lacks diversity, the fact that the companies are publicly held is again, not relevant to the issue.

__Yes, it is relevant. If you want to
change a company, you can become
a shareholder and propose changes at
stockholder's meetings.

Instead of this site, buy some shares in, say, Paramount-Viacom and raise the issue with Sumner Redstone at the annual meeting.

Finally, your statement that "Business and art are not part of democracy . . . " reveals a gross misunderstanding of the nature of film.

___We are not talking about "film,"
we are talking about corporations which
make films.

The U.S. Supreme Court said it well, years ago: "The motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas." Movies, radio, television, newspapers and magazines are all businesses but it's the communication business that they are in, they all are communicating ideas, sometimes in an entertaining format. And the ability to vigorously discuss all sides of ideas is extremely important to a democracy. It is puzzling that you don't see that connection.

__No. Movies are a business. Businesses are not democracies. The
government should have no say in the
content of the media or who runs them---unless it is an issue defamation
or anti-trust.

With respect to your call for me to repudiate J.J. Jenks' attacks on Jews .

. . I have already done that and do it again. I find much of his broader criticism of Jews in general inappropriate for this FIRM site which is focused on film industry reform and the promotion of diversity at all levels in the film industry. On the other hand, I also find the repeated false accusations that my writing is somehow anti-Semitic

___I have never made that accusation.

just as senseless and inappropriate. I feel caught between people on both sides of the questions raised,

__Don't you dare equate me with Jenks!!

that resort to extreme rhetoric and if I delete the contributions of one, I'd have to delete the contributions of both. I'd prefer that all of you just tone it down a bit and stay on point.

___You're the loser if you encourage
the likes of Jenks to associate himself
with your movement. I think you and
Jaeger have tainted yourselves by
attracting and not rebuking Jenks.



Re(2): Late Response to George
Posted on June 5, 2003 at 06:35:33 PM by Mitchell Levine

To be fair, George, he does denounce Jenks on many occasions in the archives (it only took one or two of his posts before Cones responded). His theory appears to be that you can't promote inclusivity and practice censorship at the same time consistently. Of course, whether or not it's necessary to provide a forum for an evil lunatic like that fool to avoid the spirit of censorship is a different question.

I don't personally disagree with his handling of Jenks; the man's got a right to his deranged, possibly pre-homicidal opinion. Also, his presence underscores exactly the kind of rank ignorance and murderous irrationality that still exists in the world, a fact which might perhaps be forgotten otherwise.

However, it would be nice for Cones to be somewhat clearer in his denial. At several points, Jaeger appears to actually concur with Jenks, although never fully.



Re(2): Late Response to George
Posted on June 3, 2003 at 09:16:36 PM by George Shelps


Better yet, why don't you guys conduct a current survey of the backgrounds of the top three major studio executives.

If you find that there's a significant number of African-Americans, Latinos, Italian-Americans, Catholics, Muslims, Arab-Americans, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Native Americans, Hindus, Buddhists or members of other groups that have been systematically excluded

__You have not proven this. Merely
because one group is dominant is not
proof of "systematic exclusion."

This is where you go off the rails.

You can certainly say that Jews of
a certain background are influential
in Hollywood, but you can't go from
there to postulate a "control group"
nor have you proven "systematic exclusion."

Name one talented film-maker who
was prevented from having a career
in films because he didn't kowtow
to the "control group."

from these top positions in Hollywood for the past 100 years, let's talk.

___Not unless you and James deliver yourself from your fanaticism.



Re(3): Late Response to George
Posted on June 5, 2003 at 07:26:08 PM by George Shelps

However, it would be nice for Cones to be somewhat clearer in his denial. At several points, Jaeger appears to actually concur with Jenks, although never fully.

___The comments I've seen by Cones chide Jenks for being off-topic, not for being a bigot.

Being off-topic is usually a reason for
getting kicked off a moderated newsgroup. If Cones and Jaeger have that technical ability, then they should excercise it and cancel his posts on the
grounds of relevance to the topic.

If not, they should come right out and say that Jenks is anti-Jewish and they repudiate his association with FIRM.

Re(3): Late Response to George
Posted on June 4, 2003 at 02:12:31 AM by Mitchell Levine

"Name one talented film-maker who
was prevented from having a career
in films because he didn't kowtow
to the "control group.""

Leni Riefenstahl?

Re(3): Late Response to George
Posted on June 4, 2003 at 02:30:13 AM by Mitchell Levine

John, you still haven't explained why, unlike every other industry in capitalist society, studios shouldn't be run by those whom have the most seniority and experience. You don't seem to have any problem with commercial banking excluding Jews, for example.

Are you sorry that the Jews created Hollywood? Would it be more legitimate for you if African-Americans, Latinos, Italian-Americans, Catholics, Muslims, Arab-Americans, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Native Americans, Hindus, or Buddhists instead had founded it?

Would you even be hosting this site if they had, or would you simply be complaining about vertical integration and antitrust and so forth only?

Also, if systematic exclusion is indeed the case, how exactly do you explain the presence of non-Jews in management at all? In fact, you've never been able to demonstrate any deviation from the legal requirements of the Equal Opportunity act in toto.

Do you honestly believe that David Geffen and Michael Ovitz really care about the religious background of their peers?



Re(4): Late Response to George
Posted on June 4, 2003 at 10:22:16 AM by George Shelps



"Name one talented film-maker who
was prevented from having a career
in films because he didn't kowtow
to the "control group.""

Leni Riefenstahl?

___Actually, Riefenstahl was much praised in the early 30s. Hitler
was not seen as the demonic figure
he later became. She came to visit
Hollywood and was greeted warmly.

After WW2, though, she may indeed be
the one "proof" of the Jaeger-Cones
theory of Hollywood "exclusionism."

NOT!


Re(4): Late Response to George
Posted on June 4, 2003 at 01:02:53 PM by mg

YOU SAY: You don't seem to have any problem with commercial banking excluding Jews, for example.

RESPONSE: What the Hell are you talking about? The Warburgs were instrumental in creating the Federal Reserve. Alan Greenspan is THE money man in America: he's ran the game for decdes. Jews are PROFOUNDLY influential in investment banking (Read Stewart's "Den of Thieves" for the juicy account of Michael Milken's thievery and his band of fellow Jewish con-artists. OF COURSE Stewart -- a Wall Street Journal editor -- was accused of "anti-Semitism," including a full page ad about this by Jewish fanatic Alan Dershowitz.)

YOU SAY: Are you sorry that the Jews created Hollywood?

RESPONSE: YOU should be "sorry" the Jews control popular culture. When people get hip to this scam, they're going to be pretty outraged.

YOU SAY: Would it be more legitimate for you if African-Americans, Latinos, Italian-Americans, Catholics, Muslims, Arab-Americans, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Native Americans, Hindus, or Buddhists instead had founded it?

RESPONSE: Yes. There wouldn't thereby be this obscene Jewish ethnocentrism.

YOU SAY: Would you even be hosting this site if they had, or would you simply be complaining about vertical integration and antitrust and so forth only?

RESPONSE: It stands to reason that such a site of protest would be born against ANY ethnic clan that built a hegemony over public discourse. A Third Grader could grasp this.

YOU SAY: Also, if systematic exclusion is indeed the case, how exactly do you explain the presence of non-Jews in management at all?

RESPONSE: Window dressing. It's the same way many Jews are afraid about Joseph Lieberman becoming president: then it's CLEAR what's happening. Better to work the marionette from behind the scenes: this is Jewish history.

YOU SAY: Do you honestly believe that David Geffen and Michael Ovitz really care about the religious background of their peers?

RESPONSE: Read their biographies (as I have). Look who they surround themselves with: Jews. Jews. And more Jews. (And a Gentile or two to hang on the wall for decoration).


Re(5): Late Response to George
Posted on June 4, 2003 at 07:46:59 PM by Nathan

This may be the most retarded discussion thread I've ever seen on any internet forum. I did a Google search for film and entertainment law discussion forums because I had a question about music rights for a film I'm working on. Then I stumble onto this crap. According to the homepage, this is suppsoed to be a forum for discussing legal issues in the film industry, not for feaux philosophers to prattle on about where a few studio executives' great great grandparents came from. Christ on rollerskates! You guys are useless. I'm going back to Google. Bye!







Re(5): Late Response to George
Posted on June 5, 2003 at 02:44:37 AM by Mitchell Levine

"Actually, Riefenstahl was much praised in the early 30s. Hitler
was not seen as the demonic figure
he later became."

True - Gandhi was quoted as saying about him in that period: "the man has a phenomenal ability, and he is amazingly kind."

Unfortunately for the great dictator, Leni herself was recently quoted as saying: "he wanted to have an affair that I never allowed. I might have been able to change history - but, oh, that body odor of his!"



Re(5): Late Response to George
Posted on June 5, 2003 at 02:33:37 AM by Mitchell Levine

Thanks for giving us the moron's point of view. Jenks, you are truly a fool. Will anything stop you from pontificating on subjects about which you know nothing? STOP TRYING TO THINK! YOU ARE NOT GENETICALLY CAPABLE OF DOING SO!!! Leave that to people that possess functioning intellects. The law of averages says that one of the asinine schzoids at your site must, so let them ghostwrite, and get back to being a hilariously incompetent public laughingstock.

Just to begin with, THE WARBURGS AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK ARE NOT COMMERCIAL BANKS! INVESTMENT BANKS ARE NOT COMMERCIAL BANKS! The Warburgs are international banks and the Fed is regulatory. Can you go to Allen Greenspan or the Warburgs to get a small business loan? I don't think so.

Commercial banks, like Citibank, Chase Manhattan, and the rest are part of one of the most antisemitic of all industries. A 1997 study found there to be only 4 Jewish executives in management amongst the entire top 20 banks. Not one is owned by a Jew.

Actually learning some facts might be a good idea before opening your mouth.

The rest of your stupid bullshit is similarly inept. Mike Ovitz, David Geffen, and the rest find the best, most qualified and experienced people they can to surround them and ensure the success of their companies. What their religious background is irrelevant; what counts is results.

If this isn't true, then, as Jaeger and Cones have repeatedly failed to do, provide evidence that the studios are not meeting the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act.

What you dislike about the Hollywood figures you slander isn't any bogus "ethnocentricism," it's that they're Jewish, and, like most people, smarter than you are.




Re(6): Late Response to George
Posted on June 4, 2003 at 08:11:40 PM by mg

This guy is sort of like the rubber duck that dropped down in the Groucho Marx TV show.

Although the duck had a little more to say.

Perhaps the duck was this guy's great-grandparent?







Re(6): Late Response to George
Posted on June 5, 2003 at 02:31:34 PM by George Shelps


Commercial banks, like Citibank, Chase Manhattan, and the rest are part of one of the most antisemitic of all industries. A 1997 study found there to be only 4 Jewish executives in management amongst the entire top 20 banks. Not one is owned by a Jew.

____Mitchell, don't you see that this statement is a mirror image of what Jenks saying:

that because there so few
Christian executives in Hollywood,
that Jewish Hollywood is prejudiced against Christians?




Re(6): Late Response to George
Posted on June 7, 2003 at 01:14:24 AM by James Jaeger

>If this isn't true, then, as Jaeger and Cones have repeatedly failed to do, provide evidence that the studios are not meeting the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act.

So Mitchell, what would you propose as a fair test of this?

James Jaeger



Re(6): Late Response to George
Posted on June 7, 2003 at 08:06:14 PM by mg

Poor Jews! All the "anti-Semitism" in "commercial banking!" Perhaps Richard Rosenberg can cry in your handkerchief with you:

In 1990, Richard Rosenberg became the CEO for the BankAmerica Corporation.
Rosenberg, described by the New York Times as "on his way to becoming,
quite possibly, the most powerful banker in the nation," is active in
the Jewish Community Federation. [POLLACK, A., p. D1]

Read Ovitz's and Geffen's biographies: they are the epitome of Jewish hustling "sharks," who stepped over everyone possible in their rise to power. 4 of the 5 guys who started Ovitz's company (Creative Artist Management, or whatever the Hell it was called) were Jewish.

Poor, poor Jews! Oh, let's all help them against all the evil "antisemitism" that keeps them out of banking!

By 1889, 62% of American Jews in the occupational world were either bankers, brokers, wholesalers, retailers, collectors, or agents. 17% more were professionals. [LIPSET/RAAB, p. 82]

And, yeah, those Jews are really barred from Chase Manhattan:

Michael Price is Jewish and active in British real estate. He also owns 6% of the powerful Chase Manhattan bank). He was noted by the Times of London to
have "recently emerged as one of America's most aggressive investors.
It is the nightmare of every American executive to wake up in the morning
and find that Mr. Price has just bought a stake in his company."

Levine! No more myth! No more apologetic garbage! You're a propagandist who fears that people catch on to your scam. Jews aren't victims: they run the game and aim to keep it hidden.



Re(7): Late Response to George
Posted on June 7, 2003 at 03:35:22 AM by Mitchell Levine

I imagine you'd need to demonstrate the existence of evidence that the law's requirements aren't being met - do you have any?

The burden of proof is on you, not me: you're the one making claims about some putative criminal conspiracy. No one ever has to prove that they're NOT guilty, or didn't Cones explain that to you?



Re(7): Late Response to George
Posted on June 7, 2003 at 10:09:36 AM by George Shelps


>If this isn't true, then, as Jaeger and Cones have repeatedly failed to do, provide evidence that the studios are not meeting the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act.

So Mitchell, what would you propose as a fair test of this?

___Actually, it is incumbent upon FIRM
(Jaeger and Cones) to propose remedies
for the situation.




Re(7): Late Response to George
Posted on June 7, 2003 at 09:48:07 PM by Mitchell Levine

You moron, YOU STILL HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHAT A COMMERCIAL BANK IS!!!

BankAmericaCorp is an S&L and consumer credit lender! Remember the BankAmericard?

And Price owns 6% of Chase Manhattan and that means it's dominated by the Jews? It's the only 6% of Jewish interest in commercial banking.

You're nuts! You're the head of a scumbag antisemitic bullshit factory, AND YOU'RE ACCUSING SOMEONE ELSE OF BEING A PROPAGANDIST???

Das Stuermer had more credibility than your inane horseshit! Except Streicher wasn't as prejudiced and a little more rational.


Re(7): Late Response to George
Posted on June 6, 2003 at 05:57:18 AM by Anonymous

I disagree, George. The point is not the manifestly antisemitic nature of the history of commercial banking, it's that, yet again, that fool cannot keep his mouth shut regardless of the fact that he doesn't even understand the most basic definition of the topic of conversation. I'm just documenting that, as well as his entirely predictable attempt to high-jack the topic of conversation to fit one of his thread-worn, prefabricated themes for hate-proselytization anyhow.

The reason for the concentration of Jews in the film industry is primarily that it represented an oasis of opportunity in a sea of discriminatory rejection. Commercial banking WAS openly discriminatory as matter of simple policy, and wasn't coy about admitting it. So were guilds and unions, as well as most manufacturing trades. Professions like law and medicine were options, but the academic institutions that acted as the gateway had strict quota systems themselves. This was an era where Jews were believed to dominate basketball because of their genetic "scheming oriental trickiness."

Gentiles could have established Hollywood if they wished, but didn't, in no small part because there were many, many options open to them. It's one of the reasons why there's numerically fewer of them in the business.

People traditionally tend to go into businesses that their families and communities do. When Irish kids becomes cops because their fathers and uncles did, no one says that they're committing any kind of horrifying "ethnocentric nepotism." Given the number of incidents of racist discrimination and selective prosecution in law enforcement, where could there possibly be more public interest in "democratic representation." But no one ever refers to the "ethnocentric Irish domination of the police force." Why? Primarily because they belong to the religious majority. But also because they're taking part in a normal social phenomenon everyone expects - except from Jews!

The studios were established within the lifetimes of many of their principals, and they have the reasonable expectation of enjoying the fruits of having paid their dues. If it was any other group than Jews, that would be considered quite normal.

If John Cones and Jaeger were really interested in promoting diversity, they would be doing things like trying to solicit donations for minority scholarships, demo reels, and minority-based production companies, or convincing their rich, connected clients to establish more internships in their own organizations for minorities. Instead what we get is a fine collection of lists of people with Jewish-sounding names with not only no evidence that those particular individuals have done anything "wrong," but in fact no explanation of how it was confirmed that they are even indeed Jewish. Ironically, if Cones and Jaeger ever decided to embark on that enterprise, they'd probably get a large amount of support directly from the Jewish community. That wouldn't impress a psychotic bigot like Jenks', but quite simply nothing would, because as the object of his irrational, compulsive prejudice, no matter what Jews did, he would defame them for it, as evidenced by his call for pogroms in the name of "democracy." Thomas Payne would vomit, and so would the rest of the Founding Fathers, all of whom came to the nation to create a true democracy to escape that themselves.

I work in the business as a script doctor, and although some of my colleagues are Jewish, many of them are Black, Latino, East Indian, Chinese, and many others. All over town there's minority production companys producing projects themed for their communities and the mass audience as well - which is another reason for the perceived lack of diversity, as many are choosing to bypass traditional Hollywood altogether, and doing so quite well judging by the success of many of their productions.

While patterns of bias exist, they have for the last 7,000 years, no matter who's been in charge, often the very same ones. However, Cones' theory that this is because of the people making the films make them to reflect their own interests and prejudices doesn't hold water. If it were so, how would you explain the complete domination of the industry by focus groups, demographic analyses, marketing research, and a million indices, ratings, and skews? What the industry cares about isn't THEIR interests, it's their audiences, so they can sell them tickets. If all they wanted to do was advance some "Jewish agenda," why would they test-market endings and generate performance ratings for concepts? The biases in the films that are being made reflect the mass biases of their audiences. If the legendary, mystical ability of the media to render sentient, willful citizens into bio-pods plugged helplessly into the techno-symbiotic virtual Matrix of "Jewish hegemony" were so all-powerful, then why would they need to perform that kind of research at all? They should be able to just program them into whatever mode they wish!

All the available evidence is that the movie business today is more "diverse" than it's ever been before, and it's getting more so. If the Jews really wanted to discriminate we could do a hell of a lot better job. And if we wanted to open commercial banks, we could do that too.



Re(8): Late Response to George
Posted on June 6, 2003 at 12:06:42 AM by George Shelps


Gentiles could have established Hollywood if they wished, but didn't, in no small part because there were many, many options open to them. It's one of the reasons why there's numerically fewer of them in the business.

__You're probably right. But the prior
to the establishment of the studio system, there ~was~ a "gentile" dominance of the film industry: the
Motion Picture Patents Trust, which
was a monopolistic organization led by
Thomas Edison designed to control movies
by controlling the patents to cameras and projectors. There was only one Jewish member, Siegmund Lubin, of Philadelphia.

The Trust was declared an illegal
monopoly by the Supreme Court. Carl
Laemmele, founder of Universal Pictures,
flouted the Trust, and he became one of the first Jewish moguls.

So it's not quite true that Hollywood was initially founded by Jews...but the
studio system of the 20s-60s definitely
was.

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