FIRM Discussions

September 28, 1999 - February 5, 2000



Do Studio Execs Practice Funding Discrimination?

What's Worse?
Pearl
1:33 pm Tuesday September 28, 1999

I'm doing a survey for my Media class, and i was wondering if you people out there would be willing to give me a hand. Here's my question...

Which aspect of movies do you think should be the most censored/is the worst?

Violence
Bad Language
Anything Against Religion
Nudity



re: What's Worse?
James Jaeger
3:06 am Thursday September 30, 1999

Is the worst: Violence

Censorship: No, nothing should be censored, especially by government.

Religion: Any religion that can't take a little joking, IS a joke.

James Jaeger



re: What's Worse?
John Cones
3:40 am Saturday October 2, 1999

Pearl:

First, I think you need to refine your survey question. Your question, as now worded, assumes that anyone would favor censorship. I don't know anyone who favors government censorship, I certainly don't. But I am also opposed to private censorship, the kind that is occurring in Hollywood today. By that I mean, that the motion picture is a powerful communications medium, and in a democratic society based on the concept of a free marketplace of ideas, our government should not censor ideas expressed through films, but do just the opposite. Our government should vigorously insure that all segments of our diverse society have a fair and equal opportunity to communicate their ideas through this powerful communications medium. Our government is currently failing in that regard.

Back to your survey question, once you eliminate the censorship issue, I suggest that you simply ask: "What aspects of the movies do you think are the worst?" And include an "other" category. Also, you might ask: "Which aspects of Hollywood movies create the most negative influences on our society?"

Even so, my answer is that trying to determine which aspect is the worst is not as important as recognizing that the motion picture is an important communications medium, that movies communicate ideas and that ideas are powerful motivators of human conduct, thus it is extremely important in our democratic society for all segments of that society to have a fair and equal opportunity to communicate their ideas through this medium. Otherwise, our democracy is weakened, since our democracy is based on the concept of a free marketplace of ideas, and so long as many groups are arbitrarily excluded from meaningful participation in the production of movies, there is no free marketplace in the film industry.

With respect to religion, "a little joking" is not what is involved. Certain religious groups and institutions have, for many years, been consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner in Hollywood movies. That is nothing more than private censorship and propaganda. It must stop. Wars have been fought for less.

John Cones



Executive Effects on Society
J. Leon Ranger
10:22 am Thursday October 7, 1999

Having read most of the information on this site- it would seem to me that if the major studios are controlled by what looks like 60-80 percent white, Jewish, males of European heritage, that these people would be inclined to hire and finance only, or at least mostly, projects that didn't run counter to their views, political or otherwise- and that they would attempt to perpetuate such a system through any means at their disposal.

I can't see how it could go any other way, whether this is happening consciously or subconsciously in the minds of those in the control group.

I'm sure if most of the people running the studios were women, we would see few films out there where women were put down or treated with inequality (without a price). Same with any other definable group. This is only normal- although an unfortunate commentary on human nature.

It's not that the white Jewish males that are running the business are any worse or different than any other group would be in a similar position- they probably are not- but, as Mr. Cones points out repeatedly, movies do have a powerful influence over many people, especially children and the less educated. And as consumers of art and culture, the more educated should be concerned about what we are allowing to be put into our minds over the long term and the minds of those less able to discern. Indoctrination is a subtle process, one most people never notice- until it is too late.

Therefore Mr. Cones' conclusion is correct: the current movie industry is detrimental to a democratic nation because, through the power to decide which movies are financed, what scripts get produced and who gets to work on those movies, a very small handful of people, irregardless of what their religion, sex or heritage, is unwittingly being permitted to steer the entire direction of our culture and its political inclinations. This is yet another example where a privileged few (in this case the top executives at the major MPAA movie studios) are influencing government, and the national agenda, through corporate and special interest pressure.

Therefore it is clear, the top ranks of the major studios must be open to more women, more Blacks, more Hispanics, more Asians, more Christians, more Buddhists and more people of every diverse background possible- each earning his or her position because of merit- not some discriminatory old-boy network.

J. Leon Ranger, III



Re: Executive Effects on Society
John Cones
8:41 pm Thursday October 14, 1999

I think you've got it, J. Leon Ranger. Keep up the good work. It is gratifying to see someone who can read, understand and appreciate the contents of the FIRM site. Hope you will visit us often.

John Cones



re: Executive Effects on Society
Aaron Young
1:47 pm Sunday October 17, 1999

i have to say: i too agree with this... it has nothing to do with the particular religious background, jewish or otherwise...male or female...

if the group running money and employment considerations is mostly the same...the movies will be mostly the same...over the many years...



GoCoverage.com
James Jaeger
3:01 pm Wednesday October 20, 1999

Steve Tisch, Jon Avnet, Howard Baldwin and Judd Payne:

Since you ask for my comments, I have to say you guys may have had your heart in the right place, but putting coverage up there on the Net has the effect of providing a dossier which would mainly benefit the MPAA studio/distributors and hurt the writers by, in essence, blackballing their (spec) scripts. As I have discussed on the FIRM site in the past (and which you can find in the FIRM archives at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/archives.htm), the studios (and the major agencies), with their over-abundance of coverage, are suspect to me anyway because it looks like an-intramural dossier system embedded within the studio system - and in fact the studios DO cooperate with each other imitating a cartel anyway - especially when scripts' coverage (and even the literary properties themselves), get "laundered" studio-to-studio through the turnaround process - probably in return for financial/tax favors, etc.

Writers do not also need YOU to Web-ize and take this whole process "off-site" so as to further insolate the major studios, and agencies, from their crimes.

Industry apologist mag, Variety, I note does not even mention in the article that there are ANY disgruntled major studios or MAJOR agencies yapping about your GoCoverage site. The article only IMPLIES that one of them WAS a major agency by using the words a "major firm" rather than a "major AGENCY". To wit: "I had a script go out on a Tuesday night. It was dead Wednesday morning," said one lit agent at a major firm. "It's tough enough these days to sell to the studios. To have something like this makes it impossible."

Your site just hurts all the little guys. Who gives a hoot about the unethical MPAA studio/distributors and the MPAA-infested Agents: It's the WRITERS that you NEED TO BE HONORING AND SERVING. THEY are the engine of Hollywood. No longer the money, nor the stars. Money will flow into the new Virtual "Hollywood" and the brick and mortar studios will be in chapter 11 by the year 2010 since their services as capital and distribution sources will be rendered obsolete - just as is now happening to the NYSE, real estate agents, stock brokers, banks and most other middlemen who don't add value. Or who steal value, from producers and their net profit participants, as is the case with MPAA distributors,

The article in Variety goes on to say:

"The possibility of alienating Hollywood wasn't worth keeping the service alive,...

Hey how do you think John Cones and I felt when we knew that we had to go public with FIRM. http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM The truth is more important than who you avoid alienating.

Variety article Cont.:
..."said Judd Payne, the site's co-founder and veep of the Steve Tisch Co. Tisch was making the rounds Friday, apologizing to agents who may have been hurt by the site.

You are gutless doing this...

"Our goal was to do something entrepreneurial that benefited the entire industry, "Payne told Daily Variety. "We got some incredible responses, but we didn't want to upset writers and agents. We didn't want to hurt our relationships or alienate anybody." http://www.variety.com/article.asp?articleID=1117756730

Judd, and guys, why do you want to propitiate to a bunch of criminals in the MPAA/studio distributor-drive industry where many of the major agents are just studio lapdogs?

Check out the wealth of information at the Film Industry Reform Movement (FIRM) site to find out what MPAA-driven Hollywood is REALLY all about:

http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm

Variety:
"One agent's client is still contemplating a lawsuit. "The Web site prevented him from creating an environment where (his script) could sell," his agent said. "There was not equal opportunity."

Oh sure as if there ever was.

When we formed dNa DevelopMent in 1996 at http://www.mecfilms.com/dna with 250 Online Readers (the place where you probably originally got the idea for YOUR site), we were not so stupid as to publish COVERAGE ON THE NET because we knew it would be pure propitiation to the STUDIOS and it would not be fair to the writers. You guys should try serving the Independents more. Depending on who you consider "Hollywood", the studios or the talent, you may have stepped on some toes. If the toes you don't mind stepping on are the former, join us and raise money in the private capital markets and then direct-distribute through the coming DSL-driven video-on-demand Internet. Hollywood studios are a thing of the past. The MPAA studios are obsolete. Don't kiss their, or their agents, assess anymore.

James Jaeger
MATRIXX ENTERTAINMENT
"The World's First Virtual Movie Studio"(tm)



Funding Discrimination
James Jaeger
5:18 pm Thursday October 23, 1999

Many people are discussing and debating the issues originated and recapitulated at FIRM (on and off the Net, in, around and out side of Hollywood) so it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that they could lend any "credibility" to FIRM by "lowering themselves" to debate. When such people refuse to debate issues, and iron out exactly what such issues are, but instead are too arrogant or "high-handed" to do so, this is a recipe for getting into trouble. I would have thought that Jews specifically would have learned this by now, individually and as a culture - especially after what they allowed that dog Hitler to do to them (actually it was I.G. Farben in partnership with the Rockefeller Group's Standard Oil Company who "hired" Hitler to run the German government for the purpose of establishing a favorable business environment for their chemical cartels and set up cost-effective labor camps (the original concentration camps) - If you know any non-victor history. (Reference c/o: WORLD WITHOUT CANCER)

About 15 Jewish people in the past 1.75 years have accused the FIRM site of using rhetoric that they mistakenly feel is like what Hitler started out saying - such as that 'Jews are too powerful, that they control too much or that they have to be curbed.' I read Hitler's book and I have read what John Cones is saying in his books and what Hitler was saying has nothing in common with what Cones is saying and what Cones is saying has nothing in common with what Hitler was saying and people who relate them are suffering from a psychiatric disorder known as paranoia (and because my dad is a psychiatrist, I have been able to personally observe the phenomena when I have met his patients on occasion). Nowhere does John Cones, or anyone else at FIRM, say that "the Jews are too powerful" or anything to this effect Not only is this off-topic but it is not true. Jews in general have little power in corporate America or the new world in general. The "Gentiles" have almost all of the "power" and there are many more of them than Jews (some 180,000,000 practicing Christians compared with 6,000,000 Jews domestically) and, what's more, the Jewish population is dwindling. Concern over this is all over Jewish publications, many of which are on the Net and with which I try to keep up.

Frankly, I don't blame the Jews for being very ticked off about the incredible injustices they suffered under Nazi Germany, but, for one, the Jews need to start taking some more of the responsibility for having it happen (for the reason stated above), and secondly, this injustice has made some Jews over-reactive in the WRONG places and at the WRONG people (such as FIRM). Many things posted at the FIRM site are typical examples of the idea that 'to debate this would be to lend it some credibility.' If one goes to the FIRM archives, they will see that many Jews have used this exact "logic." Unfortunately, if they don't understand that which it is that they SHOULD be fighting, and have the correct enemy when they are fighting or targeting someone (not some other past or imagined enemy), they, the Jews, are leaving themselves open to being attacked from the side (just like what happened when the Velorapters in JURASSIC PARK attacked from the side) and history COULD (but won't ) repeat itself. There ARE people out there that ARE bigoted and that ARE anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. (The word anti-Semitic is a neoterism that obfuscates the true nature of the malady and thus serves only as PR "value" to the Jewish community.)

Many of those accusing the FIRM site of being bigoted are actually bigoted themselves for the very definition of the word bigotry is: 'one who has no tolerance for the views of others.' By saying that they will not debate FIRM issues or views because they have no "credibility" is the pinnacle of bigotry because the pinnacle of intolerance is to NOT even acknowledge that someone, or some idea, even exists -- nonexistence being the ultimate justification for not believing in something, or for adjudicating that that thing has no "credibility."

And to prove my above statement, these 15 Jews think this whole thing, this whole FIRM site, revolves around Jews. How egocentric! They aren't even abhorred that almost none of the people controlling the studios aren't women and the only ones that ARE - are Jewish. We are talking about 21 not-very-religions, LIBERAL, Jewish MALES who have been running the movie studios for many years and they think we are referring to the 14 million Jews around the world who are both men and women and religious as well as, in most cases, very conservative. Ridiculous. One can't generalize about millions of people - especially Jews, because, for one thing, they are so individualistic (do you know any?) and they don't even agree amongst themselves on many issues (including religious identity and practices). By supporting these guys running the studios however, in the name of fighting anti-Semitism, or only arguing about the one attribute of the inner circle, Jewish heritage, Hollywood apologists are demonstrating to the world that they are trying to support people based exclusively on their religious heritage (not on their merits); and that, if they are Jewish, they are one day hoping for a job from a Jewish crony at a studio. They are lastly saying that they condone questionable or illegal business practices, "creative accounting", violence in the movies, employment discrimination and restraint of trade. Steven Spielberg's accountant's view on the matter in an essay entitled LESS THAN ZERO discusses some important issues in the movie business that need to be addressed. I am sure Steve knows what is happening and I might remind you - he's Jewish. Why do you think he and his other buddies defected and formed DREAMWORKS? Why did George Lucas do the same thing? Is it not true that Jeffrey Katsenberg a partner in DREAMWORKS has issues with Michael Eisner (another Jewish studio head at DISNEY) for contract problems and has in fact sued the studio. This FIRM site is not about Jews. Some of the smarter more ethical Jews in Hollywood, such as Steven and Jeffrey, understand what's been going on in Hollywood and have some of the same gripes we have at FIRM. I'm not saying that they are openly endorsing us at FIRM as any person in a denomination takes no joy in openly denouncing their fellows, and most Jewish people are peace-loving, and non-confrontational, but MANY of the power brokers (Jews and Non-Jews alike) in Hollywood HAVE endorsed what we are doing in private to me and asked to remain off the record because they fear the blacklist - which is quite alive and well in Hollywood today - and they have families to support. So while I don't agree with this cowardly approach, I can understand their motives.

It is true, one can be proud of what the Jews have accomplished in America and I am happy for them. The ONLY one thing that makes me unhappy -- that has anything to do with Jews -- is the fact that several times in my film career, I feel I have NOT received the job because I was not Jewish (or because I was a member of a minority religion). And I have a number of instances that occurred while I was working in Hollywood in the 70s, 80's and 90's. Is this fair?

For instance, I spent about five to six years of my life (and much money) trying to get Hollywood executives to finance a great true story about a boy who inadvertently found himself working directly and personally for Josef Stalin. He did this because he wanted to help his family survive and, being so young (21 years old), did not fully realize at the time what a jerk Stalin was. When he did, he defected from Russia (by asking for help from Harry Truman), and gave our government some valuable information about Stalin's plans.

When I took on this project, my true intentions were to make a great movie by showing how a young boy could triumph over incredible odds and escape from a demonic regime to be a light to the world about how great democracy and America is.

But you should read some of the rejection letters I received from senior VPs, VPs and Heads of production at some of the major studios and agencies where some of their major clients were Jewish. They in essence said things like "We can't get involved with this." The head of Viacom, Paramount's parent company, when he found out some one who worked in his legal department was actually the writer for our screenplay, sent us a curt letter and suddenly the next day the writer called up and said they had to resign from the project or be fired from their job at Paramount. When I tried to get to the bottom of this, I only got generalities and the writer seemed to be in sheer terror, totally unwilling to talk about the subject. This may have had no special significance except that this writer is the daughter of my parent's best friends for over 60 years.

So I for the life of me couldn't understand why some of these MPAA studio executives phrased the sentences in their letters and phone calls with language stating that they could not get involved with a project like this. I believed we had an incredible and important story (and so did Steven Spielberg as he sent a team down to tape the main guy for SHOAH). I believed we had a story about triumph over all odds. Then, after five years it dawned on me - the boy that worked for Stalin was Jewish. Afterwards I read the first of one of John Cones' books where his research shows that over 60% of the top three executives at the major studios (all the places I had been with the project) were Jewish. I put 2 and 2 together and was abhorred: the executives must feel this story would cast a bad light on Jews in general - a Jewish KGB agent working for Joseph Stalin is not a log line that sounds very good in a 1-sheet. I never considered this. And this supports my question above: when was the last time you saw a feature take place in a synagogue or portray the Jew, instead of the Arab, as the heavy in the movie? I never considered that this young boy being Jewish made a difference. But Hollywood did. So they discriminated about financing this movie - plane and simple. And this happens to other "Gentile" producers all the time. This is why John Cones says that it makes a difference to Jewish-controlled Hollywood and that they control what scripts are made, who gets to work on those movies and what in general is allowed to be in the mainstream media. In short, this is a liability to a democratic nation where the free market of all ideas, including ours at FIRM, should be celebrated -- not be suppressed or controlled by a narrowly defined group of individuals no matter what their sex, religion or race is.

In the last analysis, the only reason many Jews (and some non-Jews) kiss the asses of Hollywood and the studio executives is because in the back of their mind they are always hoping that they will get a job from same. So Jews trying to enter Hollywood have a nice neat little set up at the expense of others and at the expense of culture, fairness and democracy -- all "justified" because they are all helping each other as Jewish underdogs in Gentile-ridden society. This is discrimination being practiced by the Jews. My wife, who is a gemologist, used to work at a jewelry store that was owned totally by a Jewish family. In the back, where they kept the jewelry inventory, pendant crosses were all labeled "Gentile Crosses" not even Christian Crosses - as they should have been. This is a small thing, but it shows an US and THEM attitude that is a basis of bigotry. The Gentiles and the Jews. Anyone who is not Jewish is thrown into that huge box called Gentiles. All in one category. THEM. No differentiation. Not Christian. Not Buddhist. Not Protestant. Not Hindu. Not Islam. Just THEM - the Gentiles. And it is this US and THEM attitude that pervades Hollywood's inner circle and thus the reason most of the movies have basically the same attitude-stamp on them, or certain subjects NEVER make it to the screen.

I am not saying that this kind of discrimination does not go on in other Non-Jewish, industries, and I am not saying this is right either. And the "Gentiles" need to stop discriminating against Jews so that they are not forced to just work in the movie business.

It should not matter what a person's color, religious heritage or sex is to get a job or sell a movie project. People should be judged on the merits of their abilities (or the story) and this alone. After living in, working in and observing Hollywood over my career for 25 years, I do not feel that Hollywood practices this policy, and if Hollywood is run by Jews, I do not feel the Jews in Hollywood practice this. And anyone that does not acknowledge this is a hypocrite and just trying to suck up to Hollywood employers.

The Jewish-controlled movie industry has done its best to make every story they can - but when push comes to shove - they absolutely will not make any movies that shows Jews in any kind of a negative light (such as STALIN'S BACK ROOM, my movie project) - all while feeling free to portray Latinos, Arabs, Italian-Americans, Christians and Whites from the American South in a negative or stereotypical manners. This is nothing more, nor less, than mass defamation. Give me the names of the last 10 movies you saw or even know about which took place in a synagogue? What was the last time you say a rabbi playing the heavy in a picture? What was the last movie you saw that really showed an inside look at studio executives lives? And don't cite SOB for me.

John Cones says that "for many years Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, the elderly, gays/lesbians and women were consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner, although in recent years, some limited balance in such portrayals has been restored in a few film depictions of members of those groups... Thus, at minimum we must concede, movies that consistently portray certain people in a negative or stereotypical manner are clearly not helping us solve our society's problems of misunderstanding and mistrust, but more likely, making them worse." This entire can be found at The Great American Movie Debate and John has prepared a Selected Bibliography of about a hundred books at if you want more information on 'what many others think 'the Jewish-controlled mass media' has left out, deprived the American public of and done.'

In all honesty, if the studios were filled with very-religious, conservative, Black Baptist females of African heritage instead of not-very-religious, liberal, white Jewish males of European heritage (as IS the case today), FIRM would be taking the same stance. (And this is just ONE of the issues at FIRM and it is NOT concerned about Jews in general. If you think otherwise, you are over reacting and have NOT read the material that is posted at FIRM.

The very least people can do is read the material at FIRM before they judge us, the FIRM site or the issues being discussed. This material is Background Information. Please don't generalize or misinterpret what FIRM is all about.

James Jaeger



animators vs. executives
Alex
12:36 pm Wednesday November 3, 1999

There's a lot of executive hating out there especially in the animation industry.A great number of animators, from the things I've read are very upset due to unemployment. What's going on? I haven't heard much from the executve point of view. Animators are angry that the industry is making more money than it ever had and executives are laying people off. What do the executives have to say in their own defense? These animators are saying they'd be better off with out these big time executives because they can run themselves. What contribution does the executive give other than upsetting off these animators?



re: animators vs. executives
James Jaeger
5:29 am Saturday November 6, 1999

There are good executives and bad executives...and Hollywood has both in extremely high contrast, meaning when they are good, they are really good and when they are bad, they are really bad.

Why don't any of them post here to give their views in relation to your concerns? I don't know, maybe they don't have a view? Often when people are doing something questionable, they keep their mouths shut. At least this is what their lawyers advise them.

I have come to the conclusion that the equation:

THE MORE MONEY SOMEONE IS MAKING, THE QUIETER THEY ARE = TRUE.

Not always, but USUALLY. People who are not making any money are USUALLY big blabber mouths because they are judgement-proof: one of life's ironies that the poor get to communicate while the rich have to keep quiet and just let their lawyers speak for them.

Maybe some of the animation execs WILL post here. According to our server stats, thousands of people from all over stop by the FIRM site and crawl all over it reading this data -- but most of them say nothing, post nothing. You are probably being heard, so keep posting your exact grips. Don't be general, get specific. You don't have to mention names, but be specific otherwise reform doesn't happen.

For instance, are the animators that are being layed off using computers or are they doing it the way Walt would have done it? You need to be specific. In the execs' defense - the world IS changing - it's becoming computerized and those who don't learn new skills WILL be layed off. This is not the mean executive's fault. They have to walk a thin line - keeping their stockholders, employees and customers happy. It's very difficult being a good executive. An executive goes bad when he or she does not balance his or her responsibilities equally to the three groups: stockholders, employees and customers. We could add another group too - the rest of us, the environment. If most of us don't fall into an executive's first three concerns (stockholder, employee, customer), we most certainly can fall into the fourth category. And depending on the industry, that fourth category can be greatly effected by an executive's decisions.

Case in point: the movie industry. Movies made in the U.S. effect the entire cultural environment of the planet. They set the tone of Life. If the movies are generally uplifting, full of hope, with good values: the kids watching these will be similar. If the movies do nothing but promote death and destruction, splinner values, assault religion, as they basically DO today, then the kids will develop their cerebral cortex accordingly. This is not a fact: it's biology.

So the mOron executives on the planet that don't know this, or care about it because they are too busy accessing their MAC machines, destroying working infrastructures and in general contributing to the wealth disparity all around us - these execs will be the first to die when the animators, or should I say re-animators, of the world rise up and decide that they are "mad as hell and are not going to take it any more."

James Jaeger



Digital and Physical Stars
James Jaeger
7:01 am Saturday November 6, 1999

In thinking this subject over a little in the past months, I personally believe the animators will eventually digitally animate our Name talent so diligently that it will not be necessary for the stars to ACTUALY get their hands dirty with ACTING.

While the digital likeness of a star is being animated by guys like the last Poster, and put on the screens the world over, Names will be home in their PJs or out doing stupid talk shows to promote their digital face and body in their current release.

I have come to the conclusion that the Name stars will not actually go away for long - unless AI animations are ever created. And that's fine - maybe even good. I think humans NEED to have people they look up to. And since everyone can't look up to Neils Bohr or Freeman Dyson (because they haven't YET done enough study to comprehend these guys' accomplishments), they NEED people that look and move well on a movie screen as a substitute. Hence, "movie stars" exist.

After all the purpose of such movie stars is really to demonstrate possible ways humans can and/or do interact with each other and/or their environment - isn't it? These "possible ways" are known to accountants as "scenarios." Scenarios illustrate various logical outcomes using the star characters 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 0 as Zero. Scenarios also illustrate various logical outcomes using characters animated by stars such as Robert Redford, Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss. Thus a scenario is nothing more than a story, a time track, illustrating ONE way life can flow.

Since life is largely a mystery to young people, the movies provide a safe way to explore various scenarios without having to get involved physically (with their own faces and bodies) but instead with a mocked-up body on the screen - the movie star. Since the star is real, the real mystery of what real life is all about creates an imagined reality that a star is really a mystery. The fact is, there is NO mystery about a star at all - they are basically just like everyone else except 1) they have a certain degree of skill, 2) they have several different types of power available to them, 3) they are more paranoid than the average person (because a million strangers in the public want to poke them a little to see if they are real).

If stars become unreal (i.e., digital), I think much of this desire to poke, this mystery, will be lost, hence the exciting connection with life, which stars invoke, will be compromised. After all, we don't usually wonder that Porky Pig does when he gets off the set each day but we might wonder what Nicole Kidman does. In some sense, people need to reconcile the scenario they last saw on the screen with the scenarios they experience in real life and the only common denominator between these two "realities" is the star - because after all it was the flesh/blood star that played the image/projection of the character which demonstrated possible ways humans can interact with each other and their environment.

The star embodies at once the virtual reality of the movie AND the physical reality of life - with all its mysteries. And this is the only human connection between the two realities, scenarios and stories: hence moviegoers instinctively attempt to resolve, or know, that which is unknown, the mystery of these two universes, virtual reality and physical reality, by seeking knowledge through the residual physicality of a movie star. All of this cannot happen with a digital star - unless, as mentioned, such digital stars become AI entities as well as just image and motion - because a digital star has no existence beyond or distinct from its medium.

Maybe some day, however, people WILL opt to ask the question: "I know that this digital Nicole Kidman IS different from me, after all, I'm flesh and blood and she's only 1s and 0s, so WHY do I still want to look at her? I need to get back in my rocket ship and explore the stars some more."

James Jaeger



What Does the Movie Industry Mean to You?

Movie Industry
John Cones
12:05 pm Tuesday November 23, 1999

The movie industry is an important communications medium, and in a democracy it should not be dominated by any particular point of view or perspective.

John Cones


Explaination for Re-Posted Data
James Jaeger
11:57 pm Tuesday November 23, 1999

The above posts between 12:05 pm Tuesday November 23, 1999 and 11:46 pm Tuesday November 23, 1999 were reposted because the data was lost (due to either my fault or BeSeen.com's fault).

This data was retrieved from the Archives, which has a complete running record of all discussions since the inception of the FIRM site on 15 March 1998.

James Jaeger


DVD Encryption Standard: Hacked
James Jaeger
0:53 am Wednesday November 24, 1999

It's ironic, now that the DVD encryption standard has just been hacked (and placed on the Net no less), that the biggest and most powerful MPAA studios cannot safely participate in the burgeoning worldwide delivery of digital programming.

Jack Valenti's MPAAs were "positive" that this could not happen. Goes to show how little Hollywood really knows about computing - having tangentially entered the business only in the past 22 years.

Didn't I say this would happen in the MID Business Plan two years ago? :) And didn't most of the stupid investors ignore this caveat, (the implication being that the smart ones did not)?

Since it does not make good business sense to put a $30 to $120 million flick out on the Internet so it can be copied perfectly and pirated with abandon, the MPAA studios are forced to acquiesce this distribution channel to the Independent filmmakers who make modest films and can "afford" to be raped a little through digital piracy as they will probably generate MORE revenues in the new medium than they currently do AFTER the distributors get done raping them in the conventional media.

So what's going to happen? The studios only have one option left open to them. They are going to have to sell their flicks so cheaply that it would be more of a hassle to copy them than to just pay for them. Kiss rental markets goodbye. As soon as quantum computing comes on line in the next decade or two - it will be impossible to encrypt anything. Even a 128-bit key can be cracked with a quantum computer in less than a millisecond. Don't worry about the fact that there ARE no quantum computers in existence yet (at least that we know of), this will change very soon, definitely by 2029.

This means that eventually there WILL be "no more secrets" as in Robert Redford's film, SNEAKERS. So I guess everyone will be forced to get honest and straight and/or to accept everyone else no matter WHO or WHAT they are.

James Jaeger


The MPAA-Controlled MEDIA
James Jaeger
10:33 pm Wednesday November 24, 1999

Dear Michael (Moore),

The below was inspired from a paragraph in your last letter:
> Beginning Monday in Seattle, a group of men (who
> own just about everything in the world) and their
> employees -- the various heads of state from dozens
> of nations -- will gather for a three-day meeting to
> sign a trade deal that will guarantee the rich will be not
> only filthy rich, but stinking filthy rich for decades to
> come.

These folks are just moving forward with their plans to convert the planet into a one-world, high-tech totalitarian feudal society. Their instruments are:

1. The Federal Reserve Bank
2. The IMF/World Bank
3. The U.N.
4. The CFR
5. The MPAA-controlled MEDIA

In the serf system of old, you just had the masses of very poor and a few rich guys calling all the shots. We are moving into this except the rich guys will have computers in addition to whips.

To cut them off at the BALLS, you need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, because THIS is the on-going source of their illegal money. See http://www.cal-neva.com/frb/page01.htm to see who "them" is.

Here's how it works: As partially explicated in BULLWORTH, the MPAA-controlled MEDIA charges huge rates for 60- and 30-second spots which would-be politicians need to air in order to get elected. In order to get the money for these spots, the would-be candidate must kiss the ass of corporate interests and the corporate interests pay to get their ass-kissing men into positions of power. Since the only way ordinary citizens can work in government is to be placed there through the corporate money being paid to the MPAA-controlled MEDIA - the government becomes filled with people who also kiss the asses of the MPAA-controlled MEDIA. One of the ways they kiss these asses is to NOT rock any boats and most of all to NOT require that ANY serious investigations be made into the quasi-private, government sanctioned banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve Bank. (Senator Gonzallas has tried for years to get the Federal Reserve Act recinded, without success.)

Since the FED literally causes money to be created out of nothing (fiat money, money that you MUST accept for payment of debts under the legal tender laws), THIS is the government's MAIN source of ON-GOING funds - NOT taxation. Taxation only provides the INTEREST payments for the national debt - debt created by the FED and evidenced by M1 (those worthless Federal Reserve Notes). This is one of the ways the rich guys get paid.

But since the FED (and its rich guys) know that it can only convert so much debt into money in any given country (i.e., the US), they have had to go outside of the country to keep the ponzzi scheme going. But to do this they have had to form the IMF/World Bank - which is really just the FED under a new corporate name. This organization, "guided" by the "peace-keeping" motives of the UN, goes into third world countries to "help" them by lending them money - the same type of money they create out of nothing back in the US. Now more debt, the debt of other countries, can ALSO, be converted into cash, just as they do in the US. This is what is meant by monetizing debt. Why do you think those green pieces of paper we all trade ARE called Federal Reserve NOTES? -- it's because they represent the actual debt that the FED has created and "loaned" into circulation as "money." But when this new "money" is loaned into circulation, the banks get to loan it out 11 times over what they actually are required to keep in their vaults - and this is known as fractional reserve - because they are only required to keep a "fraction" of what they have - on reserve - based on the ASSUMPTION that all the people will not want to take their money out of the bank at the same time. THIS is the major crime of banking: to charge a rental fee on that which you do not own. The banks loan out and charge interest (rental fees) on money that is not ACTUALLY in their vaults (only a fraction is).

Thus, when this new money is created, it is placed into the government's bank and the government gets to be the FIRST one to spend it BEFORE it's very circulation further DILUTES the rest of the currency we all use in our daily lives. These FIRST rich guys who get to use the new money are the WAR BOYS (the boys that make lots of money extorting us with the fear and destruction of war, etc.) and secondly, the CORPORATE BOYS, mentioned above, who paid the MPAA-controlled MEDIA's tab (for the TV spots) to get their guys planted in government. This is the second ways the rich guys get paid.

Then what do all these rich guys do with all their new money, which was created out of nothing but paid for by the rest of us (through the hidden tax called "inflation"): they take these funds and build brand new factories all over the third world so they can a) justify getting more money out of the IMF/World Bank and b) FIRE all the employees in Flint-like places (around the US) to hire Mexicans to do the SAME work at slave-level wages. THIS is what NAFTA and GATT are all about, as Ross Perot said a million times to the asleep, prescription-drug-anesthetized American public. THIS is then another way these rich guys get paid - through the cheap labor which creates huge corporate profits at the expense of all your buddies who actually like to work hard for a fair wage and who have actually built the America these rich guys are now exploiting.

And how is this whole thing coordinated? You don't think these rich guys get together in some kind of formal meeting and PLAN all this out -- of course not - the non-mainstream media would have a field day with such a deliberating body. These rich guys coordinate most of this through informal meetings of the CFR (the Counsel on Foreign Relations), the organization that almost every elected official MUST be a member of before getting elected to US government posts. No minutes are kept but the main agenda to convert the world into a one-world, totalitarian high-tech feudal society are grooved-in.

The reason the Democratic and the Republican parties exist is simply to provide a COCK-FIGHT for the ill-informed, drug-ridden public to watch (just like football) while the real action goes on behind the scenes, and the REAL president of the United States, FED Chairmen Alan Greenspan, orchestrates and augments the above operations through members, and would-be members, of the CFR.

Now of course, realize that most of the corporations that benefit, directly or indirectly, from the fractional-money scheme above, and that in fact install our government through their control of the MPAA corporations and the CFR are part of the Rockefeller Group - which completely OWNS the PLANET EARTH. And there IS no question about this: The Rockefeller Group, directly and indirectly, OWNS this little particular planet and it is through this ownership and the indoctrination of the most respected individuals on the planet - which are, according to public survey, the MEDICAL DOCTORS (no not the lawyers or the filmmakers or the writers) -- but the MDs. By indoctrinating them into DRUG THERAPY these most-respected people on the planet earth, create THE viewpoint of biological civilization. Thus everything ultimately falls to their suggestion as exemplified by such PR slogans as "Doctor-recommended Mylanta" ... "More Dentists recommend".. "Ask your Doctor"...and all the while this false brainwashed promotion is happening, the Rockefeller Group's drug cartels are busy selling more and more prescription drugs on huge profit margins. This is another way these rich guys get paid.

And all the while these guys are getting paid for their drugs - the population is getting stupider and stupider because their minds are being eroded by prescription drugs. This makes the population more manageable to the ends of a high-tech totalitarian feudal civilization. These folks certainly don't need any more people like me writing letters like this one and any one who comes along and tries to knock out any of the above pillars 1 - 5 of above, is a potential trouble source - and this of course is one of the reasons why certain groups and people as well as those advocating Laetrile (Vitamin B-17) have been pooh poohed the past decades by the establishment.

So really, to be off doing anything else to "make the world a better place" is quite frivolous when one is confronted with the interlocking dimensions of the establishment's cornerstones. It just WON'T happen unless the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is repealed and the government is forced to earn its money through honest taxation by serving the legitimate needs of the people.

Looking at all of this on the bright side, one should remember that even though the Rockefeller Group owns the planet Earth this planet IS really only ONE little tiny planet in a vast universe. Who says Mars won't be even better than the American Experiment.

James Jaeger


For more informatin and details see "The Creature From Jekyll Island" and "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin both available at http://www.realityzone.com. And no, I am not affiliated with Mr. Griffin or the Reality Zone in any way nor do I receive anything off the sale of these books.



Male Nudity
Greg Miller
9:29 am Tuesday November 30, 1999

Since 1973 the MPAA Ratings Board has allowed movie makers to show men's genitals and receive an R rating. However, women's genitals are removed in order to receive the same rating. We have had a movie with a man's legs spread open wide with the camera on his genitals for 2 or 3 minutes and it received an R rating. This movie, "What do You Say to a Naked Lady?" was originally rated X becaues of this scene and was re-submitted and received an R rating. The movie "The Groove Tube" showed a close-up of a man's genitals and also received an R. This movie was also originally rated X due to that scene. "Boogie Nights" showed another close-up of men's genitals (even if it was rubber) and received an R. However "Basic Instinct" had to be submitted 5 times in order to receive an R. They had to take out any hint of Sharon Stone's vagina before the MPAA Ratings Board would issue the R rating. The list goes on and on. "Showgirls" was given an NC-17 rating until they took out the scenes where the viewer could see a woman's vagina.

I am writing a book about the apparent female chauvinistic ratings board including HBO Original Programming like "Private Dicks" a one hour documentary about men's genitals. Did they do one on female genitals? Of course not, that would be equal and not follow Sheila Nevins female chauvinistic agenda. Check out the "Real Sex" series. Time the male genitals in the 20 or so installments and time the female genitals. Female genitals are avoided like the plague and occur for about 2 seconds total. Men's genitals on the other hand are shown for about 30 minutes. Sound equal to anyone?



Technical Errors Explaination
James Jaeger
4:52 am Wednesday December 1, 1999

The posts between November 23, 1999 and today, December 1, 1999, were re-posted once and then lost due to technical errors which we are investigating now with BeSeen.com.

All the data on this board can be found at the Archives, which has a complete running record of all discussions since the inception of the FIRM site on 15 March 1998.

James Jaeger


Rock the Cradle
John Cones
12:36 pm Saturday December 11, 1999

Rock the Cradle

I recently enjoyed viewing the movie Rock the Cradle. It tells the mostly true story of the historical incident in which the liberal arts community fought to protect freedom of speech on the stage from government censorship back during the Great Depression. That tradition continues today in the Hollywood- based film industry, but to the other extreme. Instead of government censorship we have private censorship of the ideas of the vast majority of groups within our culturally diverse society by a small insular group that arbitrarily excludes others through the consistent use of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive and illegal business practices. In a democratic society based on the concept of a free marketplace of ideas, this is just as intolerable as government censorship. This important communications medium (i.e., feature film) must be fairly open to all.

John Cones



movies cool
evil
8:03 pm Tuesday January 4, 2000

Nobody can truely tell me what to do so don't even try. Has everyone here seen "The Matrix"? That was an excellent movie and it was extremely violent.



Rock N' Roll Wolfe
Jean-Claude
12:17 pm Monday January 17, 2000

I have been looking for the movie "Rock N' Roll Wolfe for some time now. Can someone help me try to have info on that movie which is one of my favourite?

Thanks a million.



Toy Story or Independence Day
Jean-Claude
12:20 pm Monday January 17, 2000

Hi!

I am looking for comprehension questions on those two movies, can someone pleasse guide me to the site where I can find these questions...

Thanks a million.

P.S.
Can you use my e-mail address to answer please.



re: Rock the Cradle
anon
12:50 pm Monday January 17, 2000

If Hollywood is as you say, then how does that explain how "Cradle Will Rock" was made? Last I saw, it was playing in theaters. In fact I bought a ticket for it. Hmm.

If anything, "Cradle Will Rock" tells about how in the 1930's the background characteristics of those in charge of financing plays were investigated by a government hell bent on stopping the spread of an "agenda". In the case of this movie, that background was "communist". In your case, it is a different definition.

Maybe you can hold hearings to investigate the true backgrounds of those financing movies. The parellel is scary.

How ironic that you'd enjoy this movie.



The Singularity
James Jaeger
5:13 am Friday January 28, 2000

My first reaction to THE MATRIX, as I posted earlier, was that I was abhorred - not at the violence in the movie, but by the fact that some "father" had his 5 or 6 year old son sitting in the seat next to me.

If you have read some of my books or posts, you may know my attitude on violence in the movies, but I have to say, I believe THE MATRIX was anything but a "violence movie' - a violent movie yes - but not a "violence movie."

People who saw this picture and sum it up as just a "violence movie" are just stupid. They have no comprehension of what is probably going to be happening in the next 30 years and so they were not paying attention to the movie's perfectly-sculpted story. They had their mind on the shooting - none of which, I might add, actually took place in reality. The "violence" measured 1 on the importance-scale and the "story" measured 10 on the importance-scale. In other words, THE MATRIX was NOT a science fiction picture, but the most important semi-factual film that has been made since the movie industry was founded by Thomas Edison.

Although events in Mankind's future WILL NOT unfold as in THE MATRIX, events WILL unfold wildly, especially as quantum computers and AI begin to supercede Homo Sapien's intelligence, possibly by the year 2030, and we pass through Vernor Vinge's Singularity and into the Post Human Era.

Don't get caught with your brain down.

James Jaeger



A Little Help From Their Films
James Jaeger
8:23 am Friday January 28, 2000

State-of-the-Union Address:

"We just had the longest stretch of prosperity ever." Bull, this is just a stretch of the imagination. The Media is up to its usual tricks pulling the wool over everyone's eyes employing the usual cast of characters, staring Clinton as the supposed President of the U.S., while the real President of the U.S., Alan Greenspan, hides in the back room along with his bevy of economic spin doctors.

Number one, the government, nor the stock market nor the Federal Reserved have anything to do with any "prosperity" - computerization is the ONLY factor. The latter are only in there sucking off it with abandon, eyes rolled back and black - like a shark tearing off a piece of raw flesh.

The government, and its cast of USUAL suspects, are just parasites on the flood of monetized dollars, now being washed through endless other countries, the reason we now HAVE to have a new "global" economy: the government can't hide the debt nor the devalued U.S. dollars in JUST the U.S. economy any longer.

And of course the media is there to help Clinton and his paymaster, Alan Greenspan, make the American People think there is NO inflation and the debt will be paid down over 12 years with a little help from their friends: devalued fiat money, IMF/World Bank, WTO and not to mention the $300 billion that Alen just printed up "in case of Y2K problems." And you know THAt cash got flooded into the economy - not put back up on the shelf for a rainy day. And who gets to use that cash first - all the people inside the beltway - of course - as USUAL.

And then they have a gall to say there is no inflation, that they are not still making our currency worthless. Here's the track record:

In the 1970's inflation was in consumer goods (toast poppers, et cetera).

In the 1980's inflation was in the real estate market.

In the 1990's inflation is in the stock market.

The perverted beauty of what the FED and MEDIA have done to pull the wool over your eyes can only be appreciated if you allow yourself to not take life very seriously. Here's the LSD trip you're are on:

They have twisted your mind on the term inflation itself. A better term is "currency dilution." Contrary to what the government-lapdog economists say, the MAJOR reason product prices rise is not because they are "getting more expensive" due to greedy labor but because the FED continues to flood the economy with more and more money. Thus it takes more dollars to purchase a given amount of product because the value of each dollar has been reduced. This is called dilution.

Thus, using the MEDIA to pin your attention to product prices as the culprit, they coined a bogus watch word, "Consumer Price Index," as the major indicator of "inflation." If the CPI rises there's inflation. If the CPI does not rise, there's no inflation. In other words, if the price of toast poppers and other consumer items does NOT rise, we have NO inflation. That's what Bill and Alen and the Media want you to believe.

As soon as computers began making it possible to produce twice as many consumer products (toast poppers) for one unit of energy (MONEY) it still took only one diluted dollar bill (but worth half its value, because the FED had flooded twice as many of them into the economy) to buy the same amount of products. In other words, computerization has made it possible to produce twice as many products for half the money. Since the money is only half as valuable (due to dilution of the money supply by the FED), the same dollar purchases the same amount of product. Thus the Consumer Price Index seems to stay the about the same thus there is "no" or "little" inflation. This is bogus economics which you are being asked to swallow.

But while this was happening in consumer goods in the 1970's, it began to take many more worthless dollars to buy a piece of land. Since computers can't make land any cheaper, we had a run up in land prices as the Baby Boomers created more demand for dollars to purchase more land. But the sick beauty of watching it take more diluted dollars to purchase a given piece of land is that fact that this gives people the ILLUSION that their homes are becoming MORE valuable, when in fact they are always becoming LESS valuable. Fact is, it is just taking more and more worthless dollars to purchase them. Since homes are subject to the general entropy of the universe like everything else, (i.e., they rot away) AND since the human race, according to real estate developers, has actually developed only 3% of the U.S. land mass, there IS no supply-side real reason homes should be more valuable. In fact they just SEEM more valuable because it now takes MORE bogus, FED-diluted dollar bills to purchase a given square foot of home.

All this bogusness must have given the FED a brilliant, but nefarious, idea towards the end of the 1980's: Why not do the same thing with the stock market as done with the real estate market. While using the MEDIA to rivet everyone's attention on the Consumer Price Index, the FED realized that they could print up even more M1 (cash) and hide its decreased value (called "inflation" remember) in products that "look good" when they seem to go "up in value." Real estate looks "good" when it goes "up in value." So do stocks. Stock, the perfect manipulative medium anyway, ALSO "looks good" when it "goes up." No one stops to think that they are just paying out more, and more, worthless (diluted) dollars for a given sheep skin (share).

Thus:

In the 1970's inflation was in consumer goods (toast poppers, et cetera).

In the 1980's inflation was in the real estate market.

In the 1990's inflation is in the stock market.

This huge obfuscation of the monetizing of debt can only be carried out by the FED-injected-GOV if the MEDIA cooperates. And of course it does (for reasons explained in one of my last posts).

So the next time you hear a president say we are in the longest period of EXPANSION on record - believe it - the currency has NEVER been expanded farther, the National Debt pushed higher, and floods of newly printed (monetized) dollars reserved for the first call of about 1% of the Earth's elite population while MOST starve and literally kill each other wondering why life is so cruel.

Go see a movie called THEY LIVE. John Carpenter got it right.

James Jaeger





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