February 6, 2000 - March 4, 2000
The Movie Industry In A Digital Age. Comments?
re: Rock the Cradle
5:02 pm sunday february 6, 2000
Seems to me that in the original statement the acting characters of unjustice are not specifically identified, but then again of course there are many included in this "insular group." The "private censorship" that occurs "by a small insular group," from my experience of having worked on the Universal Studios lot for 12 years, comes more specifically from Lew Wasserman, Syd Sheinberg, and their directing puppets like Steven Spielberg, Syd Pollack, etc. How to describe this group? They're all Jews, this small insular group, and are backed up by hundreds of Jews around themselves, and thousands as the circle that magnifies them is examined as it gets bigger in the distribution outcasting. Feature films can be and often are commercial failures, they say, but still the same small groug keeps pumping them out, with the usual set of Jewish actors starring in them.
The Jews built Hollywood, as the title of one book put it, but why should any urge to share the fun of this easy and exciting and profitable job compel them to do so? It doesn't. So the tyranny continues and lots of people either ruin their lives or fortunes, or waste their time trying to get into the glamorous process of making feature films, that in the 35mm sense, are bound to cost multi-millions. Katzenberg, Spielberg, Geffen and their Jewish cabal are not likely to share their fun adventure with you unless you show them your own cut one.
In the digital realm, the Sundance and Slamdance film festivals (both Jewish controlled and censored, in my opinion) are featuring some small budget, small player, even non-Jewishly made films ---what's interesting is that some are available to see on the net, put there apparently with the help of some technology from Novell (whose CEO, by the way, looks Jewish to me)---so it's rather an upfront control of the mass madia that the Jews have been consciously exercising for some good long time, and recognizing that grip on the media that you want open to all raises the question of how you are going to convince the Jews to let other have a say through it.
re: A Little Help From Their Films
5:46 pm sunday february 6, 2000
I remember reading a Time magazine from a few years ago that had an article about a golf social meeting between Bill Gates and President Clinton, a true story. Who knows what they really talked about during their golf match, though? One can only suppose that the young astute Gates was taking a close personal measure of the big loose Southern zipper boy. Afterwards, Gates was asked by reporters what they had talked about. Gates said Clinton had been lamenting about how his mother had just passed away, and Gates mother had recently died, too, and that's what Clinton wanted to talk about. What surprised Gates was that Clinton didn't ask him a single question about technology or it's future or implications. Sex, death and taxes seem to be Clinton's domain.
That's quite a scenario story you spin yourself, Mr. Jaeger, which has some strong validity to it, and is an educational read, I think. Without the development, sale, implementation and use of computers, we'd be back where we were when George Bush was president, that is, hanging in the wind and more or less at the economic mercy of the Japanese, in a big sellout to other countries and all in accoradance with New World Order designs and secret agendas.
Aren't you happy that george W is back on the scene and all prepared to carry us back into those wonderful days or yesteryear when everything was so idyllic? Clinton stood up to the Japanese like no other president and did what Reagan should have done.
Your imagery of Greenspan as a shark is interesting, the secret Jewish President of the United States swimming behind the scenes and chomping on bloody flesh. Who am I to say you're wrong?
I recently had a biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden that had old photos in in of Greenspan (a Jew?) hanging out with the Jewess Ayn Rand and other Jews about the time that Rand was being pumped up and considered as a new and Almighty Secular Godess of a new economic religion, Objectivism, and she had just written a book boldly called "The Virtue of Selfishness."
Is it surprising that Clinton and Greenspan are claiming credit for what is largely an accomplishment of Mr. Gates? When Gates was reticent in funding Clinton's campaigns and fun, one would suppose it was retribution that compelled Clinton to sic his big bulldog Attorney General and have the Jewish Klein attack the Gates empire, the Jews all the while supposing ---I would suppose--- that eventually they'll be able to do to Gates empire what they did to Disney's, that is, take it over. In the meantime they merely want to censor and control all the content on the internet, and is that reaslly to much to deny?
Mr. Frazier's Offensive Comments
12:25 pm wednesday february 9, 2000
I find some of Mr. Frazier's comments offensive and would like to point out that these comments clearly illustrate what might be fairly considered anti-Semitic, as opposed to my own writings that are merely criticism of the business related conduct of a small group of individuals, some of whom happen to be Jewish. Mr. Frazier makes the statement that " . . . the Jews (will) . . . be able to do to Gates empire what they did to Disney's, that is take it over. In the meantime they (again meaning 'the Jews') want to censor and control all the content on the internet. . . " Mr. Frazier has clearly made a broad generalization about Jews and their motives, and it is clearly inaccurate as well as anti-Semitic.
It is impossible for Mr. Frazier or anyone else to know what all Jews think or what motivates them. Anti-Semitism includes any hostile statement directed toward Jews generally or one or more Jews because they are Jewish. Mr. Frazier's statement falls into the first category and is therefore offensive.
Even though we do not censor at this site, we can offer our own objections to such offensive statements. In contrast, fair minded individuals who read my own postings would have to admit that no where do I make generalizations about Jews and no where do I suggest that the 15- 20 individuals who make up a majority of the top studio executives in Hollywood behave the way they do because they are Jewish. My own expressed opinion is that they behave the way they do despite their Jewish upbringing and that their behavior is not typical.
Despite these clear differences in the statements, some ill-informed individuals have falsely characterized my own writings as anti-Semitic, which is unfortunate because such false accusations have a tendency to inhibit a free, fair and open discussion of real problems in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry.
In any case, I register my own complaint here regarding Mr. Frazier's remarks and do not want him to believe that his type of rhetoric is welcome here.
Orson Wells: Blacklisted in Hollywood
4:46 pm wednesday february 9, 2000
Anyone who believes that there is no Hollywood Blacklist is living on Cloud 9.
After Orson Wells made CITIZEN KANE (which was financed/distributed by RKO, a Hollywood company), Hearst had him effectively blacklisted in Hollywood for 52 years. With the exception of two pictures, TOUCH OF EVIL (in 1958) and IT'S ALL TRUE (in 1993), Orson Wells actually "never did work in this town again," and the record, I think, substantiates this claim.
Take a look at Orson's Director Filmography (which parallels his Producer Filmography to a great extent) and you will see that almost every picture he was credited on after CITIZEN KANE was financed/distributed by a non-Hollywood, foreign company.
DIRECTOR FILMOGRAPHY OF ORSON WELLS
(along with date, distributor and country):
IT'S ALL TRUE (1993)
Paramount Pictures [us]
DON QUIXOTE (1992)
Jacinto Santos Parrás [es]
VERITES ET MENSONGES (1975)
CFM Filmverhuur (Netherlands)
Specialty Films (1977, USA)
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND (1972)
Les Films de L'Astrophore [fr]
THE IMMORTAL STORY (1968)
Altura Films, S.L. [es]
CAMPANADAS A MEDIANOCHE (1965)
LE PROCES (1963)
Union Générale Cinématographique (UGC) [fr]
Connoisseur Video Astor [uk]
TOUCH OF EVIL (1958)
Universal Pictures [aka MCA/Universal Pictures] [us]
No FEATURES Made (1955 - 1958)
MR. ARKADIN (1955)
Chamartín [es] (Spain)
Criterion Pictures Corp. [us]
Warner Bros. Continental Films (laserdisc)
Chamartín Enrique Pérez Font (Spain)
Sociedade Importadora de Filmes (SIF) [pt] (Portugal)
Enrique Pérez Font [es] (Spain)
Cari Pictures (1962, USA)
THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI (1948)
Filmes Castello Lopes [pt] (Portugal)
Filmes Castello Lopes [pt] (Portugal)
THE STRANGER (1946)
Radio Filmes [pt] (Portugal)
THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (1942)
Radio Filmes [pt] (Portugal)
CITIZEN KANE (1941)
RKO Radio Pictures Inc. [us]
4:13 pm thursday february 10, 2000
You are right to be concerned about the images of many American ethnic groups and how they have been portrayed and stereotyped in films. These have often lifted such characterizations directly from novels and popular fiction.
I notice that you do not mention Jews under religious groups or ethnic groups who have endured mean or derogatory presentations in film, and I wonder why that is and why you are so quick to assume that anyone described as anti-Semitic faced professional retribution because of this.
In many cases, such charges occured after the individual was dead. In Joe Kennedy's case, numerous biographers of Kennedy and of his sons--even those who dealt lightly with his brief Hollywood period--have discusses his prejudice against Jews. Also there is his conduct in Germany while Ambassador to the Court of St. James, including the quotes in the von Ribbentrop diaries.
If you think that someone has to be an advocate of genocide or Nazism to be to be considered prejudiced against Jews you are quite mistaken.
1:00 pm friday february 11, 2000
Actually, I devoted three chapters of my book "Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content" to the treatment of Jews in Hollywood films. There are several entire books on the subject, that are cited in those chapters. The difference I found is that (1) considerable more attention has historically been paid to Jewish subjects or characters in Hollywood films than other so-called minorities in the U.S. which raises a different question about the portrayal of minorities in films, (2) the treatment of Jews in films is more balanced than other minorities (i.e., although there are negative and stereotypical portrayals as you point out, often based on novels and popular fiction, this is more than balanced by many positive portrayals, whereas the consistent negative or stereotypical portrayals of other minorities has not been balanced with positive portrayals); and (3) most of those in the film industry positions with the power to determine which movies were going to be produced or released shared the common backgrounds I have described (i.e., politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage), therefore, it is quite different to observe that mostly Jewish studio executives chose to portray Jews in films often, somtimes negatively and sometimes positively, as opposed to observing that certain populations during certain periods of times have been portrayed by these same mostly Jewish studio executives much less often but consistently portrayed in a negative or stereotypical manner. That's the difference.
With respect to the allegations that Joseph Kennedy was anti- Semitic, I'm only saying that each time I have seen that allegation, the evidence cited in support was fairly weak. I think the charge of anti-Semitism is a serious charge and should not be used without convincing evidence. I have my own experience with this issue here in Los Angeles.
Finally, no I do not think that someone has to be an advocate of genocide or Nazism to be considered prejudiced against Jews, so I'm not mistaken about that. I do believe that anti-Semitism is hostility directed toward Jews generally or toward a single Jew because he or she is Jewish. Thus, if a person does not do, say or write something that can reasonably be considered hostile toward Jews generally, or hostile toward one or more Jews simply because of their status as Jews, then we are not dealing with anti-Semitism. And, because you are a thoughtful person, it would be nice if you would acknowledge that what I have written is not anti-Semitic.
re: Mr. Frazier's Offensive Comments
9:38 pm saturday february 12, 2000
I think the charge of "anti-Semitism" is a rather serious one, especially inasmuch as it implies a component part of Naziistic philosophy, which is not at all what my character or ideas are about. So, I apologize if I was misunderstood and would like to try to better explain myself.
As a race and and more specifically a religion, it is possible but not always agreeable to talk about "the Jews" and at the same time assume that most all of them hold certain common ideas and beliefs, the vast majority of them. Am I mistaken in this? Don't they study the Talmud and the Old Testament, and other Hebrew scriptures, to derive their common beliefs? And there is a cohesive and binding "Chosen People" component that I have found in the character of most truly Jewish people I have known and talked to, that excludes others from benefit and status in what they perceive that they possess as God's own special blessings.
It isn't an individualized choice or temperment I'm taling about here, it's a common group characteristic ---a kind of pride that is probably found in most religions and groups. Therefore it's not out of place and certainly not Anti-Semitic for me to say that the Jews, for example (and, to be specific, I am referring to a minority of them in Hollywood, the mogul sorts) ---as history shows, those Jews do seek media control and have for a long time and they exclude others, and as the forms of mass media evolve and change, and as movies become digital and available over the internet, the control and supremecy that the Jews hold in the feature film area is also being pushed by the same media bosses ---probably unconsciously--- to extend to the computerized Internet.
As for the Gates empire, it's in their way, it's not exactly controlled by Jews, but I'm sure they have their eye on it and it makes many of them nervous because it's not controlled by Jews. I'm sure there are many Jews who also want to brand as "hate speech" any criticism that others have of them and this unfair control which they exercise. (I seem to remember that Gates was pulled in a few years ago as a co-investor or something in DreamWorks, but I have no specifics on what control designs they may have on that non-Jewish empire, but to think they're ignoring it is mistaken.)
I suppose there are dangers in making "broad generalizations," as you point out, Mr. Cones, but I think it's far too narrow a specification on your part to label my comments as "anti-Semitic" ---free speech might be a hazaard in offending some, and I may be critical and highly opinionized about certain sensitive subjects, but that's hardly a reason to hang the ugly label of "Anti-Semitic" around my neck. Please take back this necklace, I don't want it. I resent it. You write: "Mr. Frazier has clearly made a broad generalization about Jews and their motives, and it is clearly inaccurate as well as anti-Semitic." Oh my, respectfully I can only say, not so. Why are we always subject to this? As you point out, Mr. Cones, you yourself have been unfairly accused of being an "anti-Semite" many times in the past, and no doubt will be so accused many times in the future by those who want to dismiss your criticism in any easy categorical way.
I'm offended at the term ("anti-Semite") as much as you are. At the risk of that offensive label, however, I'm wondering if it isn't true that many Jews do hold broad common sort of racist "chosen people" notions for themselves that automatically compel them to share their good fortunes with those like themselves, while automatically excluding others equally deserving of Hollywood movie deals, let's say ---don't the Jews widely practice this sort of prejudice? It's my experience that they do. Or is that kind of prejudiced Jewish self-serving reasoning a reserved subject that we can't talk about?
Perhaps we should get down to the dynamics of where the real problem is, which is in the Jews mistaken interpretation of certain scriptural dictates. If Jews historically have shared and extended power in the motion picture industry among themselves at the exclusion of others, who can prove it except by long obsevation and the end results of who is in power today in the Hollywood stuido system?
The small controlling coterie in Hollywood ---certainly you know who I mean, but I could be specific rather than general in my list--- that group wants media contol for themselves, their religious clique, and this is a subjective conclusion of mine that is hard to prove and it is a criticism ---but it is an accurate criticism, but only being in Hollywood for years and in a Jewish studio for years taught me that--- but these observations are not meant to be an anti-Smitic remarks.
You also write: "It is impossible for Mr. Frazier or anyone else to know what all Jews think or what motivates them." In reply, I'd have to ask: What makes a person a Jew? Isn't it a shared belief in certain scriptures and religious notions and tastes? Let's say that a lot of Jewish people use a Jewish term, Goyim, for example, to describe people who are not Jews ---and I understand that term means "cattle," and it is offensive to me to be called that, especially when I work for a Jew, let's say. Is this a generalization, or a broad inaccuracy? Again, your statement: "It is is impossible for Mr. Frazier or anyone else to know what all Jews think or what motivates them." Quite the contrary, it's easy to observe and know and see the collective motivations at times ---but I would rather not see my valid criticisms categorized in a dirty Nazi pigeonhole as "Anti-Semitic" when I'm really earnestly attempting to point out more fundamental problems.
Mr. Cones, I congratulate you for this anti-Semitic forum which you sponsor (just joking, it's certainly NOT anti-Semitic) and I do appluad you for your effort to promote "a free, fair and open discussion of real problems in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry."
Leon M. Frazier
re: Mr. Frazier's Offensive Comments
0:53 am monday february 14, 2000
Mr. Frazier, I find your commentary repugnant, offensive and clearly anti-Semitic. While I have similar problems with Mr. Cones' writings from what little I've read here (my first visit, I will be back to read more), your comments are way out of line.
You like to wrap yourself in the cloak of "victim", the idea that you merely want to speak the truth and are being shouted down by a label that's unfair. But this is a red herring, to say the least. Maybe you feel the label of "anti-Semitic" only applies to someone actively shoving a knife in a Jewish person's back. But it also applies to those generalizing about Jewish culture and implying negative motives therein. It is a generalization sir, that insults the very idea of individuality. But that is the heart of racism. To think you know something about someone you've never met based on generalizations. Is it not?
You accuse Jews of acting in group interest, with the intent of spreading an exclusionary power controlling, behind the scenes movement. These accusations are exactly what Hitler used to rile up Europe. And the Jews had so much real power in Europe at the time that 6 million were killed. Hardly a powerful group, Mr. Frazier, don't you think?
If you read history, you will discover that one of the reasons Jewish people became money lenders and traders was because non Jewish aristocracy in Europe prevented them from owning land. Having no land-owning means of surviving or making a living, Jews turned to middle men positions. The non Jewish aristocracy found a wonderful double bonus to this -- not only would the Jews take care of money collection for them, but the poor people now had a face to target their anger and aggression on -- the Jew. The Jew was the person they saw demanding rent. It did not matter that the money and real power were controlled by non Jews. The poor had a target. And the rich were protected by the Jewish face with which the poor could hate.
Jews hold little real power in this world. The richest men in American history, Rockerfeller, Ford, Gates, Turner, Lindburgh, to name a few, were clearly not Jewish and in many cases were anti-Semitic (see Ford's 1930's memos) themselves.
Most Jews didn't arrive here until the late 1800's, but were found to be as benificial to the ruling class of rich as they were in Europe. Make people believe in a vast Jewish conspiracy and the truth is hidden. Make them hate the Jews, and then they won't come for you.
It's as obvious as the nose on your face, if only you choose to look, Mr. Frazier. You've been conned by the oldest con in history, the targeting of the Jews. And whatever "chosen people" thing you think is relevant, you might be mindful that the old testament applies to Christians as well. Or did Christians chuck that into the dead sea after Jesus came along?
Your points are very sad. The same old tired argument of the hidden Jewish conspiracy. What little Jewish power there is out there is commendable, as a small minority group has built itself up after a devistating war that almost wiped them off the face of the earth occurred not 60 years ago. But then again, you probably wish it did.
re: Mr. Frazier's Offensive Comments
4:25 pm tuesday february 15, 2000
Okay, Jason, you say I am an "Anti-Semite" because you say the term "applies to those generalizing about Jewish culture and implying negative motives therein." I say, No, the term "Anti-Semite" is commonly used in association with the term "Nazi" or "National Socialist," and you completely warp and blur my valid arguments and criticisms of Jews when you answer me merely by calling me an ugly name.
Historically, the term "Anti-Semite" is inextricably bound to Nazi images and that's what it involkes when you call me that, and that has nothing to do with me or my ideas. You yourself are generalizing in saying that I am generalizing, and everyone generalizes on occassion, but I can also be very specific in my criticisms. Again, I'm offended at the term you put on me ---"Anti-Semite"--- and I ask for an apology from you, for having called me that, especially when I explained how that term offended me. If you don't give me an apology, than I can only relpy that you are a bigot.
Like in any culture or religion, individuality is a trait that exists but there is also a commonly held creed that ties the members together. I am trying to constructively criticize certain aspects of that creed, but you are responding by calling me "racist" and "anti-Semite", etc., which entirely negates any discussion and in fact negates any rationality of the topics that could otherwise be valuably discussed.
On top of that, you bring up ugly images about "someone actively shoving a knife in a Jewish person's back" which, under your definition (showing hostility against Jews in general) is the only Anti-Semitic statement that has come up between you and me so far, Jason. So, in fact, under your definition, it is you who is the "Anti-Semite" and not me.
But I think, again, that it is an ugly term and I am not the one calling you an Anti-Semite, it is your own definition. You state that my method of argument "is the heart of racism. To think you know something about someone you've never met based on generalizations. Is it not?" No, it's not.
What we were talking about was the Hollywood studio system and I said specifically that I worked at Universal Studios there for 12 years and I think Jewish prejudice and partiality and racism is rampant, and I also said the Jews on the lot (specifically, Steven Spielberg, Syd Sheinberg, Lew Wasserman, and Edgar Bronfman Jr., all Jews, are the ones who control that studio and keep the Jewish control intact).
I was not speaking about people I've never met or basing my criticisms on generalizations. You write: "You accuse Jews of acting in group interest, with the intent of spreading an exclusionary power controlling, behind the scenes movement." Exactly, Jason, that's exactly what I'm saying, you got it. But then you start saying that's what Hitler did (Hitler criticized a movie studio for practicing exclusionary practices, huh?). You are the one bringing up Naziism, Jason, and I can't account for your warped preoccupation in that quarter, except, again, to suggest that you yourself are tinged by a kind of will to display Anti-Semitism yourself, and if you happen to be Jewish, then it's self-flaggelation.
You are the one talking about Jews being killed, and I'm offended by that. That has nothing to do with anything I'm saying about power and control in the Hollywood studio system, the monopoly that exists there today.
If I was an Anti-Semite or a Nazi, I'd join the National Alliance or the World Church of the Creator but in fact, I supposrt Donald Trump for President in the Reform Party, and I applaud the fact that he has many Jewish supporters, and formerly I was a member of the Libertarian and Republican Parties, and that's the extent of my poltical involvement.
Again, sorry, but I'm not a Nazi or an Anti-Semite, even though you badly want me to be one. As for the Jewish religion, at one time I studied in intensely and was interested in becoming a member, but then I recognized the ugly underside or inner workings of some ugly aspects of that religion.
My advice to Jews? Get out of the religion, join the Mormons or some responsible Christian sect. It's my belief that too many Jews are practicing racism when they are practicing their religion. If nothing else, I'd like to see big reform take place in the Jewish religion, including denunciations from responsible Jews themselves for the some of the dirt, for example, that can be found in the Talmud, rather than winking and keeping it secret and trying to control people and calling them 'Goys' (cattle) and that sort of thing.
You state: "Jews hold little real power in this world." Are you serious in saying this? You site old dead examples like Rockefeller and Ford (the Rockefeller banking interests have always been tightly twined with the Rothschild banking control interests) and the Fod empire is long dead and gone ---the Jews control our Federal Reserve, our banks and the world's most powerful mass media (like the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, so many).
But rather that listing what Jews control, I'd like to focus on what this discussion is supposed to be about, and that's the feature film business in Hollywood. That's what we're talking about.
Why doesn't the Justice Department investigate, say, (rather than Microsoft), something far more monopolistic and intrusive, like the Jewish control of Hollywood? Why don't they break that up? They don't investigate and break up such a monopoly precisely because the ugly word "Anti-Semite" gets stupidly thrown at them, and the congressional investigators cower at that.
I wish there was some way to make you understand that I'm not trying to make anyone hate or kill the Jews, which is mostly what YOUR monologue talks about. That kind of hatred is coming from you, not me. After lecturing me on Jewish killings (as if I was supporting that, which I'm not) you write: "It's as obvious as the nose on your face, if only you choose to look, Mr. Frazier. You've been conned by the oldest con in history, the targeting of the Jews."
I'll tell you this: if you were standing right here in front of me now, I would grab your own nose, Jason, and I'd start to twist it and squeeze it very hard. And when you'd start to cry, I'd agree to let go ---but only if you'd take back the label "Anti-Semite" because I resent that term and don't want it pinned on me, and you deserve that label far more than me. And then when you would admit that you would take that term for yourself, only then would I release your big nose. So you can be plenty glad that you are making your slurs against me from a distance.
As for the "chosen people" argument, most Jews I've known don't really believe they share that category with Christians, no, they're talking about themselves ---and the God they believe in (a monotheistic, singular God) is their God, and he looks after them first.
I might mention that the Catholics, as I understand it, believe in a spiritual God (I'm probably generalizaing, sure) while Mormons believe in an evolving Polytheistic and evolutionary system that says that men themselves can become gods ("As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.") To my mind the Jews believe in a false and bigoted self-
The Non-Jewish Aristocracy
7:35 pm wednesday february 16, 2000
Your analysis is correct when you said:
"If you read history, you will discover that one of the reasons Jewish people became money lenders and traders was because non Jewish aristocracy in Europe prevented them from owning land. Having no land-owning means of surviving or making a living, Jews turned to middle men positions. The non Jewish aristocracy found a wonderful double bonus to this -- not only would the Jews take care of money collection for them, but the poor people now had a face to target their anger and aggression on -- the Jew. The Jew was the person they saw demanding rent."
Today, as in the past since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the world economy has been directly or indirectly owned or controlled by what is now known as the Rockefeller Group, a non-Jewish aristocracy.
When the giant German chemical cartel, I.G. Farben, discovered a way of cracking gasoline from coal, this process became of great interest to Standard Oil of New Jersey (the original Rockefeller company). Thus, to better control the production and price of oil throughout the world, these two companies entered into a cartel agreement and, among other things, set up the first concentration camp in Germany so that they could ensure an inexpensive source of labor. The cartel and Rockefeller's personal press agent, Ivy Lee, then became instrumental in the process of selecting, financing and installing Adolph Hitler (and his political lackeys) into power in the German government so that they could maintain a favorable business environment throughout German for the cartel and Standard Oil of New Jersey.*
In this case, the non-Jewish aristocracy not only used Jewish bankers to handle many of the money transactions, and to finance their wars, but they in essence "hired" a guy who was definitely anti-Semitic, Hitler, to do their bidding while they, as customary, had the power to stay hidden in the background. After the war, when the rest of the world found out what they were up to, and the atrocious things they did, they had the power to alter the names of the boards of directors in the Farben cartel, and in essence purge their guilt from the record or bury it in "neutral" Switzerland.
Lastly, you are absolutely correct: THERE IS NO JEWISH CONSPIRACY. The Jews are no better or worse than any other group in trying to push power to each other. EVERY group could use some improvement in this area of discrimination.
The only place you could say there is anything resembling a "conspiracy" is in the (international) banking world as led by the quasi-private, government sanctioned banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve. And these guys are SO good with MATH, they do almost EVERYTHING right out in BROAD DAYLIGHT, in front of the math-challenged, quasi-asleep, American public.
*For information on this you can go to http://www.realityzone.com and start with a book entitled World Without Cancer. . . Cancer the world's number one justification for chemical-dependence and a never-ending stream of research dollars.
Anti-Semitic Sword Hard at Work
9:22 pm wednesday february 16, 2000
"What we were talking about was the Hollywood studio system and I said specifically that I worked at Universal Studios there for 12 years and I think Jewish prejudice and partiality and racism is rampant, and I also said the Jews on the lot (specifically, Steven Spielberg, Syd Sheinberg, Lew Wasserman, and Edgar Bronfman Jr., all Jews, are the ones who control that studio and keep the Jewish control intact)."
You are correct and specific about the Jewish control of the Movie Business Mr. Frazier and yes you are getting the Anti-Semitic Sword used against you, as John Cones has pointed out endlessly.
You go on to say: "Why doesn't the Justice Department investigate, say, (rather than Microsoft), something far more monopolistic and intrusive, like the Jewish control of Hollywood? Why don't they break that up? They don't investigate and break up such a monopoly precisely because the ugly word "Anti-Semite" gets stupidly thrown at them, and the congressional investigators cower at that."
Again, it is not politically correct to criticize the Jews who control Hollywood because if you do, then you are called an anti-Semite and then blacklisted. I have to agree with John Cones in his criticism of you on your first email, but after reading a little more of you I have to say that you don't seem like you are anti-Semitic as defined.
I wish you would post some SPECIFIC examples of your experience at Universal whereby you have experienced discrimination or any of the things this Reform Movement seeks to address. Post under your own name preferably, but I personally do not mind you posting under a pseudonym if you feel your film career will suffer - and it may because the Hollywood Black List is alive and well (as Orson testifies to from beyond the grave). I also suggest you to encourage others to speak up. This is not an easy thing to confront, but it you are specific in your complaints - no one, can say you are making anti-Semitic accusations about Jews in general; all they can say is that you are making specific complaints about specific Jews in Hollywood that discriminate against non-Jews (of any color, race or religion) or that are bigots hiding behind John Cones' Anti Semitic Sword.
AND YES, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU CITE ANY NON-JEWS THAT DO THE SAME THING. Just make sure any posts give the relevant time, place, form and event and that you do not say anything that is slanderous.
Elitism in the Movie Business
6:29 pm thursday february 17, 2000
Now that the genome is almost mapped, our scientists and biologists can assure us that we are, as Homo sapiens, 99.99% identical as far as our genetic structure is concerned. Thus, for all practical purposes, at least half of our constitution is IDENTIAL given you accept that: the BRAIN = the HARDWARE and the MIND = the SOFTWARE ("mind" being a rough term for the massively parallel synaptic pattern of the brain which forms over the life of the Human as it experiences phenomenon).
Thus any person or group (HARDWARE) that stands up and insists on differentiating themselves -- by announcing that their HARDWARE has assumed an additional ATTRIBUTE, (such as nationality, religion, race, heritage, sex, company, technology, etc.) presumably because it makes them better able to survive -- is inevitably subject to liability. Negative criticism from all of the other HARDWARE is inevitable because some how humans have known for millennia before the genome project that this is impossible.
Thus the struggle on earth at this time really becomes: who has the better SOFTWARE. Or, put another way, what HARDWARE (brains) has had their SOFTWARE (neural nets) programmed in a way more suited to survival in a wilderness universe full of non- human forces that will crush out life at every chance.
In the past the negative criticism between humans took the form of destruction, such widely acknowledged as wrong today. Nevertheless, if someone has the gall to state that they are Turquoise HARDWARE, then others have the right to have the gall to state that Turquoise HARDWARE does not exist (and if it does, it is NOT better and hence they do not like things that are NOT better). If a 99.99% DNA-type Human states that it has programmed its HARDWARE differently or better, (i.e., through its culture, heritage, religion, upbringing, IQ, personality, creativity, method, mother, company, technology, way, etc.) then all the rest of the HARDWARE has a right to challenge this different programming because, from its point of view, and as substantiated now by science, they are just as good being 99.99% IDENTICAL and, after 4 billion years of survival on earth, anyone existing today is proof, ipso facto, that their SOFTWARE is ALSO just as good as any other SOFTWARE out there.
Thus the stage is set for a fight if anyone pipes up and states that he or she has an attribute that makes them different or better.
Thus, the minute Humans STOP differentiating themselves or declaring attributes and identities amongst each other, sure we lose the old neighborhood of cultural diversity, but we also have a better chance of waking up to the reality that we are all basically the same because we are HUMAN and we are all in a tiny little spherical boat floating in an endless vacuum of mostly cold, black energy. And the minute we do this, ignore the attributes, we embark on a wider non-zero-sum game where acceptance, hence communication, increases for the overall enhancement of the world.
So when you mention to me, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, that you're Turquoise, my feeling is that you are doing so because you are trying to say, in some way, that your HARDWARE is different or better than mine, (that your DNA is NOT 99.99% similar), or that your SOFTWARE runs smoother (because of your education, religion, heritage, culture, etc.). And, you may be saying in essence, "let me assimilate you into my HARDWARE and SOFTWARE for this combination is better." Thus, at that moment it was you who took the FIRST step towards elitism, discrimination and eventually bigotry.
When you use your Turquoiseness as a rational for associating with others that have also declared themselves to be Turquoise, as is wantonly done in the executive suits of the movie business today, you have taken the SECOND step towards elitism, discrimination and eventually bigotry.
Both steps lead way from an open and free, win-win world and the rest of the steps lead to dark ages and the state of affairs we have fixated on in the movie business.
Why Do Jews Engender Resentment?
4:41 pm friday february 18, 2000
So in your experience why do you think so many people down through the years hate Jews or have persecuted them. Is it that they are better, the chosen people, or are they just pushy pains in the ass?
re: Elitism in the Movie Business
4:59 pm friday february 18, 2000
I suppose that Turquoise has it's advocates, it's a nice green color. Jade has always been a favorite of Orientals but maybe it's the American Indians who would uphold the jew-elry superiorness of Turquoiseness the most. I've noticed in the media that Mr. Matt Hale of WCOTC is particularly down on the "mud people," who he classifies as all non-White people especially the Jews. The whites that the Anti-Semites usually praise usually look like fat pinks, however, and of course we all know that Pinkos are not acceptable. The term "white" is prevalent and passable, but I've never liked or particularly known any "white" people except a few Albinoes, but that's not a highly fashionable look that I'd try to ignite as the ultimate ideal.
Turquoise? Reminds me of little green men from outer space ---but Art Bell and Whitley Streiber call them "greys" nowdays and ask that they be loved and accepted, so of course, why not? As for the Jews and many Europeans, seems to me that amid the dirt spread all over the earth and what to do on this floating mudball amid the vaster freezer universe, their (or, even my) attention has been focused on gold and silver (also diamonds, money, glittering things like that).
The Jews themselves have always had their many females named even outrightly "Goldie". Pam Anderson and Goldie Hawn, both Jews, strike me as attractive Aryan whites and I'd rather look at them than a poster of Hitler anyday.
I just picked up my old copy of "My Life" by Golda Meir and started reading it. Right near the beginning she writes about her home and upbringing in Russia: "It was not a particularly religious household. My parents, of course, observed Jewish tradition. They kept a kosher kitchen and celebrated all the Jewish holidays and festivals. But religion as such ---to the extent that it can be separated from tradition for Jews --- played very little role in our lives."
Golda soon, like many other Jews, moved to America to escape the poverty of Russina and to seek the riches that America promised. She strikes me as a typical non-religous Jew of the Warner brothers or Louis B. Mayer or Spielberg sort, not religious but obseving all the holidays, traditions and beliefs. Continuing shortly in the same paragraph, Goldie writes: "As for the Jews being a chosen people, I never quite accepted that. It seemed, and still seems to me, more reasonable to believe, not that God chose the Jews, but that the Jews were the first people that chose God, the first people in history to have done something truly revolutionary, and it was this choice that made them unique." The twist is there as to how she believes it (the Jews chose, not God; they are the decision makers, not God) but like most Jews she believes her people are a unique and "chosen people." Gold has too strong a tradition to think that the people who have been choosing and chasing it will soon switch to Turquoise or any other base materials.
re: Elitism in the Movie Business
7:48 pm friday february 18, 2000
Maybe you should write some screenplays Leon.
re: Mr. Frazier's Offensive Comments
9:03 pm friday february 18, 2000
Thank you Leon.
I have more-carefully read your comments and I applaud YOU for your objective POV.
I feel certain now that you are not in the least anti-Semitic but have some real concerns about the Jewish faith and are only seeking to make constructive comments. This takes courage.
Even though you are apparently Jewish, you seem to be able to discuss the movie industry and the control factor in an unbiased and rational way and I again applaud you. You also seem to understand how the anti-Semitic Sword is used against ANYONE who dares to criticize Jews in the Film Industry. You are actually an asset to the many Jews out there that are great folk and in no way represent the small handful of Jews that the FIRM site addresses from time to time and who are running the movie business with discriminating practices.
And as I have said in other posts, this cuts BOTH ways because there IS discrimination in "Gentile" industries against Jews that needs to stop too.
Being a Christian myself, I am always reminded that Jesus was a Jew and I feel I am fortunate to share a great heritage with Jews, (even though the two religions do have a few disagreements on what happened and what will happen :)
re: Why Do Jews Engender Resentment?
12:34 pm saturday february 19, 2000 Clair:
Your question invites a broad generalization which is exactly what we are trying to discourage at this site. Further, this site is dedicated to a discussion of issues relating to film industry reform, not the broader discussion of why people may be or have been prejudiced toward any particular group. In any case, prejudice is the answer to your question, and prejudice is a pre-judging of an entire group (i.e., it's based on a broad generalization that by its very nature cannot be fairly applied to an entire group). The concerns I've expressed relate to the prejudice being expressed through the powerful communications medium (feature film)on a regular basis in our current society. That prejudice is being applied to Arabs, Arab Americans, Latinos, Asians, Asian-Americans, Whites from the American South, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, political conservatives and others. Since in my view, movies tend to a large extent to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudice of their makers, then this form of prejudice being currently expressed through film is a reflection of the lack of diversity and prejudice in the minds of those in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry who have the power to determine which films are going to be produce and distributed. Do you have any concern about that prejudce that affects the lives of many thousands of people here in the U.S. today?
The term, Goy
7:41 pm saturday february 19, 2000
Let's say that a lot of Jewish people use a Jewish term, Goyim, for example, to describe people who are not Jews ---and I understand that term means "cattle," and it is offensive to me to be called that, especially when I work for a Jew, let's say.
Leon, is it not true that the word "goy" means "people". In Jewish writings, the Jewish refer to themselves as "goys" as well.
The Anti-Semitic Sword
4:46 pm monday february 21, 2000
Excerpt from How the Movie Wars Were Won
by John W. Cones
Article at http://www.mecfilms.com/FIRM/shields.htm
The Anti-Semitic Sword
Another apparent weapon in the arsenal of the Hollywood insiders against those from the outside who sought and seek to participate in their insider's game was (and continues to be) to falsely label such persons as anti-Semitic, either openly or through so-called whispering campaigns. As Neal Gabler points out, "[c]alling someone an anti-Semite was one of the surest ways of blackening him among the Hollywood executives. At one time or another that label was attached to Joseph P. Kennedy, Howard Hughes, George Schaefer, Joseph Breen and Y. Frank Freeman, among others.
For example, "[w]hen RKO production head George Schaefer refused Louis Mayer's offer to buy the negative of Orson Welles' masterpiece Citizen Kane (Mayer made the offer to destroy the movie, which was loosely and unflatteringly based on the life of his friend William Randolph Hearst), Schaefer suddenly found himself the victim of a whispering campaign accusing him of anti- Semitism. Determined to find the source, Schaefer later traced the rumors to a close associate of Mayer's." As Gabler reports, nothing " . . . prevented the Hollywood Jews from practicing a reverse discrimination--'Those goyim!' Harry Warner would yell in derision, or 'He's a nice fellow for a goy,' a Jew might say-- but only in their inner sanctums, when they were safe among fellow Jews, and only verbally."
Joseph P. Kennedy is described by biographers Collier and Horowitz as "Cheerfully anti- Semitic". Gabler called Kennedy a " . . . suspected . . . nazi sympathizer . . . " Ronald Brownstein reports that Joseph Kennedy was remembered in Hollywood for several things including "his anti-Semitism." As an example of Joseph Kennedy's anti-Semitism, author Brownstein cites the " . . . 1940 meeting where he warned studio executives that they would incite anger against the Jews if they continued producing films hostile to the Nazis." Collier and Horowitz go on to say that "Kennedy was at least a casual anti- Semite . . . " again without citing authority for such a harsh judgment and with only a brief discussion (provided as an end note some 500 pages later in their book), it would appear that Collier and Horowitz are at least casually prejudiced against their biographical subject themselves. In their endnote the writers not only state that Kennedy and his sons "vigorously" denied any such accusations, but the authors merely offered conflicting hearsay evidence of Kennedy's attitudes towards Jews. They also suggest that "Kennedy's anti-Semitism . . . was real but reflexive, part of the ideology of the melting pot which he devoted his life to climbing out of." In any event, they do not show that Joe Kennedy was any more prejudice toward the Jews of Hollywood than they were towards him. In addition, isolated instances of hostility directed toward a small, but unrepresentative group of Jewish males and primarily based on the actual conduct of those Jewish males, does not really rise to the level of anti-Semitism.
With respect to Kennedy's position on World War II, it would appear to be more fair to assert that Joe Kennedy was primarily motivated by a desire to protect the lives of his own family (particularly his own sons) and his great fortune. Ultimately, Joe Kennedy lost his eldest son (Joe) in the war, his eldest daughter's husband (Billy Hartington) and his second son (Jack) was injured. He had reason to be concerned about war. Those legitimate concerns of a father provide no justification for bringing the issue of anti-Semitism into such a discussion. Part of the charge of anti-Semitism against Joe Kennedy was also apparently based on the written impressions of the German ambassador to England of conversations he had with Kennedy prior to the war. Not only were those cables written by a Nazi, looking for any kind of support wherever he could get it, why would anyone choose to believe a Nazi over Kennedy who flatly denied the press' interpretation of the Nazi's characterization of Joe Kennedy's remarks? It appears that some people in this country were simply trying to do great damage to Joe Kennedy's reputation by suggesting that he was prejudice against Jews and that was the reason he was opposed to the U.S. entry into the war. In other words, if a person like Joseph Kennedy has an honest disagreement regarding important national policy matters with some segments of the Jewish community in America, there is always a possibility that such a person will be labeled anti-Semitic.
It might therefore be more relevant to inquire into whether there is any connection between the fact that Joseph Kennedy owned a movie studio in Hollywood at one time and his later appearance in Hollywood discouraging Hollywood Jews from making anti-Nazi films just prior to World War II. Is it not possible that Kennedy was merely opposed to American intervention in what he perceived to be a European war? If that is the case, then Kennedy may have been wrongfully labeled an anti-Semite by the Hollywood Jews not because he was really anti-Semitic but as part of a campaign to discredit him or simply because he opposed to their efforts to produce movie shorts, newsreels and feature films that ultimately might help involve the U.S. more directly in the war (see A Study in Motion Picture Propaganda).
The only difference between the attitude of Joseph Kennedy (who expressed his alleged anti-Semitism through occasional inappropriate language) and those who dominate the Hollywood film industry then and now, is that those in the film industry express their deep felt prejudices through their films; the sentiment is the same (see the related discussions in Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content, Motion Picture Biographies and Who Really Controls Hollywood).
In another instance, biographer Charles Higham claims Howard Hughes was grossly anti- Semitic. At the point in the Higham book, at which the charge is made, (page 39 of the Charles Higham book Howard Hughes--The Secret Life), the author has only made one reference to anything closely resembling even a sympathy toward anti-Semitism, (i.e., the hiring of a poet who had allegedly written an anti-Semitic poem). It would seem that if Hughes was anti-Semitic and Higham thought that Hughes' alleged prejudice had something to do with his relationship with the heads of the major Hollywood studios, Higham would spend a little more time developing the theme or setting forth some objective evidence of the alleged anti-Semitism. Here again we seem to have an example of the way some writers carelessly throw around charges of anti-Semitism. It may be that this illustrates a pattern among the film studio heads, (i.e., some of the people they don't like or don't want to succeed in the film business, they label anti-Semitic.) This Hughes incident, also again raises the question, if Hughes was prejudice, was he more prejudice than the Jewish males who dominated Hollywood at the time? This is not to say that the previously- referred to poem was not anti-Semitic, it may have been. This book also does not take the position that Howard Hughes was not anti-Semitic. It is only being stated here that if anyone wants to label someone else "anti-Semitic" then they ought to have the courtesy of setting forth their evidence so that others can make their own reasoned judgment.
According to Higham, Hughes' great sin against the Hollywood studio moguls of the day was to call them "king kikes" Even though author Higham places the supposed Hughes quote "king kikes" within quotation marks, as if quoting from some source, there is no note in the book's endnotes for that chapter supporting such a quote. The term "kike" is defined by the American Heritage dictionary as offensive slang, used as a disparaging term for a Jew. Its Yiddish counterpart is "goy", another offensive term used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew. David McClintick, for example, reports that studio executive Dennis Stanfill was " . . . known around Hollywood as the town goy . . . " Thus, the question may be asked, "Are those Hollywood people who provided the above information to McClintick any more or less prejudice than Hughes?"
Temple University professor David Bradley, was an African-American student at the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. As Bradley writes in David Rosenbergs' book The Movie That Changed My Life, that college experience gave him an opportunity to observe " . . . the odd traditions of the university's major tribes, upper-class White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and Jews." Bradley states that " . . . they were at their most tribal when gathered in fraternities . . . There were Christian houses and there were Jewish houses, or 'goy' houses and 'kike' houses, depending on whom you were talking to." Bradley provides an example of the kind of racist humor of the period relating that " . . . the goyim said a kike was a Jew who'd left the room, the kikes said a goy was an Anglo-Saxon putz who was still in the room but didn't know any Yiddish." On the other hand, Bradley referred to them all as " . . . a bunch of honkies . . . " Who is being the more offensive here? Does the use of such terms by Bradley mean he is prejudice?
The following questions should be asked: Is one of these terms more offensive than the other? If someone who uses the term "kike" is anti-Semitic, does that make anyone who uses the term "goy" (including Harry Warner as cited above) equally prejudice against non-Jews? And is the use of the term "kike" or "goy" all that is required to label someone as a prejudice person? And, would that also make Temple University professor David Bradley a racist merely because he refers to white folk as "honkies"?
Furthermore, while it is fairly common to see Hollywood outsiders accused of being anti- Semitic, it is not as common to see commentary about the prejudices of Hollywood insiders, even though it appears that some in Hollywood are just as guilty of prejudice. For Example, " . . . Al Ruddy, the producer assigned to oversee The Godfather . . . " reported to Robert Evans during the shooting of the film that (referring to Francis Ford Coppola) the " . . . guinea shoots a great scene . . . " but it " . . . doesn't cut together." Evans refers in his own book to Steven McQueen's attorney Bill Thompson as a "redneck" Evans also refers to Gilley's, the night club outside Houston which was the inspiration for the film Urban Cowboy, as " . . . 100 percent prime redneck . . . " Does he really think the term "redneck" is not extremely offensive to a segment of our population? In another instance, when Robert Evans was looking for money to produce The Cotton Club he claims he was offered financing by Adnan Khashoggi, but he turned it down because he was " . . . [f]amiliar with Arab mentality . . . " and Khashoggi, even though " . . . labeled the richest man in the world . . . " was Arab. Instead, Evans preferred to get financing from Menachem Ricklis, " . . . also a millionaire many times over . . . (and a) Jew . . . " At one point, in negotiations with Khashoggi, Evans reports that he didn't " . . . like being Arabed down." In another incident appearing in the Evans book, " . . . Charlie Einfeld, the . . . marketing and distribution genius at Fox . . . " predicted that " . . . both audiences--the rednecks who go for oaters and the horror freaks . . . " would like Evan's new film The Fiend Who Walked the West. Another incident which Higham uses to support his charge that Hughes was anti-Semitic, is that "Hughes bought a viciously anti-Semitic novel, Queer People, for immediate production following Scarface." According to Higham, "[I]t is the story of a reporter who invades the Hollywood of 1931 and finds the community run by squalid Jewish executives . . . " Unfortunately, for Hughes, " . . . no actor would appear in the picture; they knew they would never work again if they did. Anonymous phone callers threatened Hughes' life; studio chiefs offered him fortunes to desist . . . On August 22, 1931, after Hughes had cast . . . William Haines in the lead, borrowing him from Louis B. Mayer, who was grossly caricatured in the script, Hughes was forced to announce that Queer People was suspended indefinitely . . . " His press release at the time said the film " . . . would have taken the public behind the scenes of Hollywood . . . Not a single American newspaper commented on the suppression; but the London Daily Mail printed a startling series of articles giving the insider story on the matter. As a result, Will Hays, head of the Motion Picture Producers Association and the chief arbiter of movie morals, a close friend of Louis B. Mayer, turned on Hughes with anger, definitively and for good. Despite the fact that Warner Bros. had made the bloodily violent Little Caesar, which Hays had given kid-glove treatment, Hays set out, implacably, to wreck Scarface."
Notwithstanding the fact that it would be a very dangerous precedent for the Hollywood film community itself to assume or conclude that a person who produced a single movie on a given topic believes some or all of the specific ideas contained in that movie, it appears that in this incident, Hughes was in fact the victim of malicious censors who refused to allow him the same right to pick and choose the kind of movie he wanted to make that the rest of the Hollywood film community has always demanded.
Clayton Koppes and Gregory Black also report that the head of the film industry's Production Code Administration was considered "anti-Semitic" apparently because he was politically conservative and vigorously fought to prevent Hollywood films from being used to disseminate liberal propaganda or similar views of international politics just prior to World War II.
Michael Medved reports that over the years, he has received " . . . mail from viewers and readers in all regions of the country who suspect that the disproportionate number of Jews in Hollywood leadership positions might somehow account for the alienation of the industry elite from the American mainstream. Some of these letters . . . " Medved writes, " . . . appear to be sincere attempts by basically well-meaning people to understand what's gone wrong with the popular culture. Others reflect anti-Semitic attitudes of the most poisonous and pernicious variety." Without really discussing what is or what isn't "anti-Semitism", Medved raised the issue and thus by implication seemed to try to make any discussion of who controls Hollywood and includes mention of Jews, possible grounds for charges of anti-Semitism. Did he do so purposefully? Medved rationalizes that "[n]o business in the world is so firmly associated in the public mind with the Jewish people as the American entertainment industry; when substantial segments of society begin to view Hollywood as some hostile, heedless force, (he says) it's unavoidable that some of those who hold this attitude will try to explain the situation with reference to the Jews." Medved goes on to state, however, that " . . . questions about Jewish influence on Hollywood . . . " have in fact moved " . . . well beyond extremists groups."
On the other hand, as already noted, O'Donnell and McDougal severely criticized Hollywood without ever raising the issues of religion or culture in relation to the question of who is responsible. Their solution, which appears to be specifically designed to evade the possible charge of anti-Semitism, was to say Hollywood is controlled by two dozen white males. These two white male authors thus avoid the possible charge of anti-Semitism while leaving open the possibility that they are racist.
At times, it does seem though that some in the Hollywood Jewish community appear to be fairly quick to label critics who raise the question of any level of Jewish control of Hollywood as anti-Semitic. It would appear from the record that the allegation of anti-Semitism is often raised irresponsibly and as an affirmative weapon designed not to ferret out the truth, but as an attack on the credibility of the Hollywood critic (i.e., by alleging that the critic is prejudiced, and the prejudice is the real reason for the criticism not any observations founded in reason or fact). It would appear that under such circumstances, people like Joseph P. Kennedy, Howard Hughes, George Schaefer, Dennis Stanfill and Joseph Breen, may have all been wrongfully labeled anti- Semitic (or in the alternative, none of the authors who reported the allegations, made an adequate case to support and accompany their allegations).
This is an important point. It would seem that if a person is going to make an accusation that someone is anti-Semitic, or as an author, pass along such allegations, the very least that society should require of the accusing party, is that he or she provide some credible evidence that supports such allegations. This book takes the position that none of the above authors, Higham, Koppes, Black, Brownstein or Gabler met any minimum burden of persuasion with regard to this issue, although, at least Gabler's report on George Schaefer suggests that Schaefer was in fact the victim of a "whispering campaign" which in turn implies that the original charge is not true. All of the rest, repeated the allegation and provided little if any credible evidence to support the charge. That seems to fall within the scope of "the sword of anti-Semitism" in that these authors have participated in repeating a false allegation or have repeated an allegation that may be true, without providing sufficient evidence that would allow reasonable people to make their own informed judgment. It would appear then, that such behavior is either negligent, or that the clear and intended result of such behavior is to inhibit criticism of any Jews or the behavior of Jews generally, thus, making the charge of anti-Semitism, an offensive (as opposed to defensive) weapon in the debate and discussion arsenal.
In any event, some persons of Jewish heritage who were privy to discussions about the writing of this book during its draft stages cautioned about being as straightforward with regard to the problems in Hollywood as this book has sought to be. They suggested that some of the more radical elements in the Jewish Community would mis-interpret this writing as anti-Semitic, since, the book, is very critical of a small group of people who are in fact Jewish, or have a Jewish background. These well-meaning associates were also concerned that they would have to defend these writings, and ultimately the author, among family and friends, particularly if such people did not read the book and only heard others misrepresent what these books actually say. Thus, it is important to pause for a moment and examine anti-Semitism, so that all who read this book or become involved in a discussion of it, can conveniently and quickly find assistance in dealing with the possible false allegation of anti-Semitism. In other words, this book series on Hollywood presents us with a good opportunity to gain a better understanding of what anti-Semitism is and what it is not.
Some effort should first be made to define what it means to be anti-Semitic. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, for example, an anti-Semite is "[o]ne who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews." Unfortunately, there are at least a couple of problems with this definition. It does not provide any quantitative limits on the number of Jews (minimum or maximum) that are required to fall within the scope of anti-Semitism, nor does it distinguish between hostility based on good cause. In other words, this definition would permit hostile behavior or language directed toward two Jews who have in fact committed horrible acts to be considered anti-Semitic. Thus, that dictionary definition of anti-Semitism seems too vague and overly broad. It is not workable in a practical sense.
Checking another dictionary, Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary also defines "anti-Semite" as "one who is hostile to or discriminates against Jews." This definition is pretty much the same (after all, discrimination is based on prejudice) and it has the same inadequacy (i.e., it does not distinguish between the person who is hostile toward Jews generally, as opposed to the person who may be hostile toward a few Jewish individuals who happen to be Jewish, but the hostility is not related to their Jewishness, instead, for example, because of their actual bad behavior). In other words, these first two dictionary definitions of anti-Semitism actually suggest that if anyone is hostile toward any number of Jewish people, regardless of the behavior of those particular Jewish people, the hostile individual may be fairly called anti-Semitic.
Maybe it would be more helpful to use a definition by someone who holds himself out as a scholar on the subject and who wrote a very contemporary book entitled Anti-Semitism in America. Leonard Dinnerstein, a professor of history at the University of Arizona, for example, defines anti-Semitism in his recent book as " . . . hostile expressions toward, or negative behavior against, individuals or groups because of their Jewish faith or heritage." Dinnerstein goes on to point out that "[p]rejudice reflects antagonistic thoughts but when those ideas are put into actions that restrict or condemn Jews (or others, we might add) they become forces of discrimination."
Note, however, that Dinnerstein's definition adds an essential element, omitted by the dictionaries. He states that in order for hostile expressions or negative behavior directed toward Jews to be fairly considered anti-Semitic, it must be made because the targets are Jewish, or it must stem from a belief that Jewish persons behave the way they do because they are Jewish. In other words, Dinnerstein's definition adds the requirement that the alleged anti-Semite's motives must be considered. Demonstrating someone's motives for negative behavior or hostile expressions clearly requires a much higher level of evidence, certainly much higher than that demonstrated by any of the above cited authors. Since, the charge of anti-Semitism is a serious charge, this book takes the reasonable position that it should not be taken lightly, and should not be made without good reason. In addition, the better practice is that no such charge be made unless it is accompanied by evidence regarding the motivation of the alleged anti-Semite, not just another allegation regarding such person's motivations.
One other semantical problem occurs with both Dinnerstein's and the dictionary definitions of anti-Semites, and that relates to the meaning of Semite itself. On the one hand, the American Heritage dictionary's preferred definition of a Semite is "[a] member of a group of Semitic- speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews and Phoenicians." Its secondary meaning is "Jew". Also, Webster defines "Semite" as "a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem; a member of any of a group of peoples of southwestern Asia chiefly represented now by the Jews and Arabs but in ancient times also by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Arameans, Canaanites, and Phoenicians. It also defines Semitic as "of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites; specifically Jewish" or "of, relating to, or constituting a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic and Ethiopic." Webster further defines Semitic as "any or all of the Semitic languages".
Thus, the word "Semite" is not synonymous with the term "Jewish" and Jews only represent a part of the Semitic peoples. Consequently, it is not specifically accurate to say that a person who is anti-Jewish is necessarily anti-Semitic. And it is understandable that many of the other Semitic peoples of the world may be offended by the Jewish usurpation of the term "Semitic" in place of "Jewish" when used to describe someone who is anti-Jewish but not anti- Semitic in the broader sense. Even if the argument is made that dictionaries report usage, and are therefore justified in saying anti-Semitic means anti-Jewish because it is commonly used that way, all of the non-Jewish Semitic peoples still have a right to complain about the inherent ambiguity in the use of such term, and it may be a more useful and worthy purpose for the people who write and publish dictionaries to help clear up such ambiguities in the language instead of contributing to the confusion.
Dinnerstein, meanwhile, (writing in 1994) goes on to state that "[a]ntisemitism has existed throughout American history." This is no doubt an accurate statement. On the other hand, it is just as accurate to say that some Jewish prejudice against some non-Jews has also existed throughout Jewish and American history. Dinnerstein does not say that, however. He like Medved makes a very important omission from his discussion. As you may recall, Medved reported in his book Hollywood vs America said, " . . . Jewish 'control' of American entertainment now stands at an all-time low . . . " while omitting to state the other side of that same truthful statement, (i.e., but a small group of politically liberal and not very religious Jewish males of European heritage still retain more control in Hollywood than any other readily identifiable religious, racial, ethnic or cultural group).
It may be fair, considering these two examples, to raise the question as to whether Dinnerstein and Medved are actually trying to help us see the whole truth, or just the part they want us to see. After all, based on the studies and collection of anecdotal reports contained in this book, it may be just as accurate and fair to report that the politically liberal and not very religious Jewish males of European heritage who control Hollywood are, as a group, just as prejudiced against non-Jews, if not more so, than most Americans who are considered anti-Jewish. Thus, anyone concerned about prejudice directed toward one particular group, must also be concerned about the prejudices of that group directed at others. If not, such persons may be considered unfair and hypocritical in their analysis and suffer a loss of credibility. It must also be remembered that people who are regularly and wrongfully accused of being prejudice may become very resentful of such allegations and in the long- term become prejudice against those who make such allegations, thus generating a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Another, presumably, even more authoritative definition, of anti-semitism comes from The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (7th Edition) That publication " . . . acknowledged as the authoritative source book of information about all aspects of Jewish life . . . " provides an even more conservative definition of anti-Semitism, saying it is a " . . . term . . . used . . . to designate the organized movement or other manifestations against the Jews; more loosely, hatred of the Jews generally." Wigoder's definition seems to require that in order for something to rise to the level of anti-Semitism, it must either be part of an "organized movement" or at least directed at Jews generally. Thus, under such a definition, it would be inappropriate to label an individual as anti-Semitic unless that individual was part of a larger movement against Jews, or was at least guilty of an expression of hatred (which is even stronger than "hostility") toward all Jews or, at least, a broad cross-section of Jews.
Author Patricia Erens chose a similar approach in defending Jewish filmmakers who provide negative or stereotypical portrayals of Jews in American films. Erens stated that the " . . . fact that most of the works (reviewed in her book The Jew in American Cinema) were written or scripted by Jewish writers and produced by Jewish businessmen and actors classifies them as a form of self-examination." And she points out that this Jewish self-examination is different " . . . from an attack from without." However, in determining whether such Jewish self-examination in film actually rises to the level of Jewish anti-Semitism, Erens quotes Robert Alter's definition of anti-Semitism, which holds that "Anti-Semitism implies an active hostility towards Jews as a group and an active intention to vilify them". Thus, Erens takes the position that " . . . one must make a distinction between a negative character or even an unlikable family and a slur aimed at the entire Jewish community. Using this criterion . . . " Erens reports that " . . . very few films are genuinely anti-Semitic works, despite the outcry and rage of overly sensitive, defensive, and protective Jewish critics."
In any case, the good news from Dinnerstein's published analysis of anti-Semitism in America is that " . . . prejudice (in the United States) toward all groups (has) declined since 1945 . . . " and that " . . . Jews, more than any other identifiable group, have been the major beneficiaries as educational, employment, housing, resort, and recreational opportunities opened up for them." Thus, it is fair to observe that if those who write about Hollywood and who make accusations about the anti-Semitic beliefs or behavior of non-Jews, such accusers have an affirmative obligation to support such accusations with credible evidence. That evidence must show that the person accused either was "hostile" toward Jews generally or was "hostile" toward one or more Jews because they were Jewish. Otherwise, these accusers should be considered not credible, and even worse, someone who maliciously wields the sword of anti-Semitism, a blatantly dishonest debate and discussion tactic.
The above discussion was excerpted from John Cones' book: How the Movie Wars Were Won.
Internet Distribution v. Blacklisting
2:50 am wednesday march 1, 2000
The Hollywood Blacklist of the McCarthyist 1950s was the most infamous period of entertainment industry censorship. But it was only one of many times in the century of film where the studios - those who control access to production and distribution - decided what kinds of films people should and shouldn't see, not based on the content or the quality, but on the dangerous nature of their ideas or images. Even as streaming media online endures its growing pains over the next few years, if nothing else, the reality of Web-based film distribution means never having to put up with a blacklist again.
Balance of article at: Why the Web Means There Will Never Be Another Blacklist in Hollywood By Kevin Dreyfuss/EB Insider
re: Rock the Cradle
12:31 pm saturday march 4, 2000
Motion pictures communicate many ideas and messages. The motives explaining why someone with the power to make a movie has nothing to do with my interpretation of some of the messages being communicated by that movie or some of the parallells that movie represents with what is occurring today. In fact, your imagined parallel is non-existent. I am not the government. I am a private citizen calling people's attention to the fact that there is very little diversity at the top in Hollywood, that such lack of diversity at the top came about because of the consistent use of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices, that such lack of diversity is reflected in the movies we see (or don't see), that the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas and therefore and integral part of our democracy (based on a free marketplace of ideas) and that it is an appropriate role of government to see that persons of all backgrounds in our diverse society have a fair and equal opportunity to tell their important stories through this signficiant medium for the communication of ideas. No fair minded individual should fear any of that.
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |