April 13, 2003 - April 22, 2003
Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 02:47:59 PM
by James Jaeger
If you're going to start a new thread, would you please name it with a distinct new title (with no REs on the first post).
If you are going to continue discussing a topic for which there is already a thread started, please post in THAT thread.
Your haphazard posting is making it very confusing for people to follow this discussion.
Power of the Elite
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 11:49:40 AM
by Dale Kelchner
Every year the City of Miami - "Programs For Persons With Dissabilities" produces a theatrical performance, at the Manuel Artime Theater,in which all the participants are dissabled.
This year's shpw is scheduled for May 1. After three months of rehearsals and set construction, when the show is "ready to go" the Department was inform by the Mayor's Office that 20th Century needs the theater taht week to shoot a scene fro Sher's new movie. This was a an emotinal blow to the dissabled Community. Unfortunately, the movie will be shot and no one will know how these defenseless people were crushed by the hands of "Show Business".
Jews in the Media
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 06:37:22 PM
by Jeffrey Blankfort
Compiled by Jeffrey Blankfort
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant" (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp., owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his "mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times network of "alternative weeklies"
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer and Bill O'Reilly
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL- TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief….NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
HOWARD STERN, host of The Howard Stern Show
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director Project for a New American Century
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has Israeli flag on his home page
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REZNIK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, The New Yorker
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications, includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group, includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement; American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 07:22:51 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Media monster Comcast is controlled by the Jewish Roberts family. Current head Brian Roberts is a pro-Israel activist, and has participated in the Zionist Maccabee games (the Israeli "Olympics" for Jews only).
The Comcast shakedown. Flush with its purchase of AT&T Broadband, the biggest cable company on the block intends to make size matter, by Chishen Wei, Salon.com, April 8, 2003
"Now that the Comcast-AT&T Broadband merger has wrapped up its final stage of system migration, Comcast cable subscribers are beginning to feel the weight of the FCC-approved 800-pound gorilla. The acquisition of AT&T Broadband last November gave Comcast control over 21 million cable homes (roughly one in five TV homes). The media-communications giant wasted little time flexing its newfound market muscle. On April 1, Comcast forced its cable Internet subscribers to adopt a new pricing scheme that toes the boundary of antitrust law. Current customers face a $15 (33 percent) monthly increase -- unless they subscribe to Comcast's cable TV service. Reaction to the move has been sharp, especially in California, where former AT&T Broadband cable subscribers have found themselves bombarded in recent weeks by a ubiquitous Comcast marketing campaign aimed at boosting Comcast's cable Internet subscriber numbers. Before the price hike was even official, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sent a letter to Michael Powell, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, decrying what she called Comcast's 'monopolistic practices."
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 07:35:25 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Billionaire Russian media mogul/scamster Boris Berezovsky is Jewish:
Russian tycoon arrested in Britain on Russian fraud charges, sfgate.com, (from Associated Press), March 25, 2003
"Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky was arrested by British police Tuesday at the request of Russian authorities investigating him for alleged fraud. An extradition request charges Berezovsky with defrauding the administration of Russia's Samara region of the equivalent of about $13 million while he was director of a company called LogoVaz between Jan. 1, 1994, and Dec. 31, 1995. The Metropolitan Police said officers arrested Berezovsky in London early Monday. A LogoVaz associate, Yuli Dubov, also was arrested Monday, police said ...
Berezovsky, an influential member of former Russian President Boris Yeltsin's circle, was emblematic of the politically connected group of so-called oligarchs who amassed huge wealth after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The former mathematician expanded a modest used-car business into a widespread network of holdings, including LogoVaz, the business newspaper Kommersant and the general-interest newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta. At one time, he also held 49 percent of the shares in ORT television, the Russian television channel with the widest reach in the country."
Recent News - Italy
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 07:40:50 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Same theme. Same story, from a recent news item from Italy.
Anti-semitism fear as Italian TV chief under attack, Guardian (UK), March 10,. 2003
"Jewish leaders in Italy have expressed concern at an outbreak of anti-semitism after a rightwing newspaper yesterday made a thinly-veiled attack on the state broadcaster RAI days after a distinguished journalist of Jewish origin was chosen to lead its board of directors. Paolo Mieli, the former editor-in-chief of Italy's leading daily Corriere della Sera, was chosen for the job on Friday. Yesterday a front-page editorial in the rightwing Rome daily Il Tempo said that Italian television was being dominated by 'non-Catholic culture and sensibility', making direct reference to Mieli and two other journalists of Jewish origin. 'The entire TV system is dominated now by professionals of excellent quality, but with non-Catholic culture and sensibility, like the new president of RAI and the directors of the two major news programmes,' the editorial said."
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 07:47:06 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Here a Jewish media mogul in Canada, Izzy Asper (an ardent pro-Israel propagandist), apparently seeks to prove as accurate the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
Dateline Winnipeg, Economis, March 15, 2002
">Izzy Asper is] Canada's most powerful media mogul ... Mr Asper controls the country's most profitable television network and a chain of more than 100 newspapers across the country, which he bought 18 months ago from Conrad Black. But he has resisted moving the headquarters of his company, CanWest Global Communications, to Toronto, Canada's media capital. The company remains in Winnipeg, 2,100km (1,300 miles) to the west. As a result, Mr Asper has brought jobs to the city, as well as being a generous donor to local causes. But there is a more controversial aspect to Mr Asper's devotion to making Winnipeg great again. All of his family's papers, from British Columbia to Newfoundland, are now obliged to print company editorials, on national and international issues, written in Winnipeg. No subsequent deviation from the line they set is allowed in the local papers, which include the market leaders in most of Canada's big cities. This has provoked howls of protest, and not just because the papers concerned were used to substantial editorial independence before the Aspers took control. Canada is a country of several distinct regions. But ownership of its media is now highly concentrated. And nobody has as much control over what Canadians read and watch as theAspers. Mr Asper has strong opinions. He is a former leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba, and a friend both of Jean Chrétien, Canada's prime minister, and of Israel. Journalists fear that there is now no room for dissenting views: one columnist has been fired, another suspended and several stories killed because they expressed points of view the Aspers disagreed with."
Re(1): Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 07:56:37 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Jewish TV and newspaper mogul Izzy Asper is unusual in that his ethnocentic actions exemplify CLEARLY the problems of Jewish hegemony in the mass media, including Hollywood.
Canadian Media Giant Censures Editorials Deemed Critical of Israel, Arizona Daily Star, December 29, 2001
"Canadian newspaper readers are being warned not to expect a balanced opinion from their dailies after executive orders from the country’s largest media corporation were given to run a select number of national editorials and homogenize remaining editorials across the country so as not to, among other things, reflect negatively on Israel’s occupation of Arab land. Recently, media giant CanWest Global Communications Corp., owned by Israe (Izzy) Asper and family, announced that beginning Dec. 12 one, but eventually three, editorials a week would be written at corporate headquarters in Winnipeg and imposed on 14 dailies, which include the Vancouver Sun and Province, the Calgary Herald and the Montreal Gazette. CanWest also owns 50 percent of the nationally distributed National Post, which will be subject to the new directives as well. Furthermore, in addition to the imposed editorials themselves, all locally produced editorial column pieces will be forced to conform to reflect the viewpoints of the CanWest Global corporation. CanWest last year became Canada’s dominant newspaper chain when it purchased Southam News Inc. from Conrad Black’s holding company, Hollinger Inc., for a reported $3.2 billion Can. ($2 billion) The deal transferred ownership of the 14 metropolitan dailies and 128 local newspapers across the country."
Re(2): Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 08:07:56 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Yes, Mr. Levine, I know this is a trivial item, and I am getting a little "obsessed" with such censorial Jews (but, hey, in the free marketplace of ideas they can do whatever they want, if they paid for the privilege of owning media outlets, right?) who are controlling information in a blatantly totalitarian manner, but please forgive MY excesses:
Canada: CanWest 'muzzles' staff, Corporate Censorship, CanWest-owned papers across Canada have pulled and censored not only any articles which criticise the corporation, but also those that simply fail to toe its line, the principal tenets of which are support for Israel and for the government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Index on Censorship, April 2002
"Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) published a report on 15 April giving a balanced but firm view of the controversy surrounding allegations of corporate censorship in the CanWest Global media conglomerate. The report made it clear that 'freedom of expression includes the right of proprietors of news organisations to publish what they want in the media they own', but condemned CanWest for trying to 'muzzle its employees'. Since absorbing Hollinger, in the largest media take-over deal in Canadian history, the corporation, run by the Asper family, owns over 130 newspapers in Canada, including 14 major metropolitan dailies and a 50% stake in one of the country's largest national papers, the National Post. CanWest Global also has a television network in Canada and media interests in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. CanWest-owned papers across Canada have pulled and censored not only any articles which criticise the corporation, but also those that simply fail to toe its line, the principal tenets of which are support for Israel and for the government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. CanWest's contempt for editorial independence was formally expressed in December 2001, when it introduced a policy of imposing three centrally-produced editorials a week on all its major publications, through its subsidiary, Southam newspapers ...In January, Halifax Daily News columnist Stephen Kimber resigned (after fifteen years on the paper) when his column criticising CanWest was spiked. Two colleagues followed suit after they were not permitted to report on the resignation. Bill Marsden, an investigative reporter for the Montreal Gazette, has been monitoring CanWest's interference and directives: 'They do not want to see any criticism of Israel. We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East. We even had an incident where a fellow, a professor wrote an op-ed piece for us criticising the anti-terrorism law and elements of civil rights. Now that professor happens to be a Muslim and happens to have an Arab name. We got a call from headquarters demanding to know why we had printed this.' Various international Press organisation have condemned CanWest's behaviour. According to Robert Cribb, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, there have been many other cases of journalists on CanWest papers getting into trouble. He warned though that the real worry is the self-censorship that ensues: 'It's not the four or five we've heard about, it's about the dozens of journalists who self-censor as a result of this very public policy.' The management of CanWest remained defiant. 'I can say to our critics and to the bleeding hearts of the journalist community that it's the end of the world as they know it, and I feel fine,' declared David Asper, publications committee chairman, gleefully misquoting the REM song. The CJFE report said that media companies should defend freedom of expression because they are among its chief beneficiaries, and urged CanWest to cancel all pending disciplinary action against its employees, and to invite those who have left their posts to return to them. It also called for an Independent government enquiry look into the potential impact on free expression of media ownership concentration." [The Canadian Journalists for Free Expression Report about Asper and CanWest is here:
Jews, Media, and Censorship
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 09:39:47 PM
by Moishe Goyim
The Jewish Lobbby seeks to mold the Western world into a Judeocentric Banana Republic. Theirs is a racist, propaganda war against the rest of the world. Like Mr. Levine at this forum, Jews aim to restrict your access to information. The commonest method -- whether by Levine or by the organized Jewish Lobby -- is by ascribing to free speech about censorial Jewish power and influence the nomer of "anti-Semitic."
Jewish groups aim to block Al-Jazeera in Canada, Canadian Jewish Congress (by James Adams, Globe and Mail - Toronto), April 9, 2003
"Canada's two largest Jewish organizations say they plan to oppose an attempt by the Canadian Cable Television Association to carry the Al-Jazeera network on its members' digital-cable service. Calling the Qatar-based network 'anti-Semitic,' the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada will intervene in hearings against the CCTA plan. Last week, the association, as a prelude for licensing hearings, asked that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission include Al-Jazeera as part of a bundle of 'ethnic' channels on the CRTC's list of eligible satellite services. At the same time, the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations says it will intervene in favour of Al-Jazeera, arguing 'it would broaden the horizon of the Canadian public' with respect to issues in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Keith Landy, president of the Ottawa-based Canadian Jewish Congress, said his organization's 'close monitoring' of Al-Jazeera, started in 1996, shows that its programming and journalism is marred by 'blatant anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and the glorification of suicide bombers.' 'We certainly don't want this to appear as a political attempt to prevent another view from being aired,' Landy said. "But by granting them a licence, the kind of stories that they carry could contravene the Criminal Code,' as well as hate legislation, the federal government's terrorism act and broadcast regulations established by the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Joseph Ben-Ami, director of communications for B'nai Brith Canada, agreed. 'Al-Jazeera is quite well known as a network that transmits blatantly anti-Israel material and sometimes anti-Semitic material. It has no place in Canada, at least not under the sanction of the government of Canada' -- a reference to the CRTC, which operates as an arms-length adjudication body under the Canadian Heritage ministry. However, Hussein Amery, president of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, says interventions against Al-Jazeera by the CJC and B'nai Brith are 'a form of censorship and suppression of the media' at a time when concentration of media ownership is 'restricting our perspectives of the world.'"
Re(1): Jews, Media, and Censorship
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 11:07:07 PM
It's not true that I want to silence you - I laugh my ass off every single time you hit the post button! No-one has to call you a paranoid, schizoidal anti-semitic bigot: All you have to do is open your mouth, and you immediately remove all doubt. You're the best insurance policy against another Shoah we could ever ask for! Each and every hilarious stupidity out of you is the best friend the Jewish community could possibly have. Even Jules Streicher couldn't keep a straight face while reading your bullshit. Thanks for your patronage, and keep up the entertainment!
Re(2): Jews, Media, and Censorship
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 11:56:37 PM
by Moishe the Younger
YOU SAY: It's not true that I want to silence you - I laugh my ass off every single time you hit the post button! No-one has to call you a paranoid, schizoidal anti-semitic bigot: All you have to do is open your mouth, and you immediately remove all doubt. You're the best insurance policy against another Shoah we could ever ask for! Each and every hilarious stupidity out of you is the best friend the Jewish community could possibly have. Even Jules Streicher couldn't keep a straight face while reading your bullshit. Thanks for your patronage, and keep up the entertainment!"
RESPONSE: The difference between you and me is that I trust people's morality and intelligence -- once they have all the information they need -- to make a decision about issues of public concern. The steady data from mainstream sources about Jewish/Zionist moral fraud and exploitation is indicting.
Jewish hysterics and censorial dictates like yours guarantee more people into the "critical of Jews" ship. That is happening. God bless racist Israel for much of that, no? "Laugh" all you want. If this is "entertainment" for you, get lots of buttered popcorn and maybe a hyper-Coke high (you'll need it) as you watch the fraudulent infrastructure that supports your myths get slowly washed away.
History will decide who has the better sense of today's social currents, don't you think? My position is that of justice and compassion. Yours is that of stumbling apologetics for an ethnocentric clan network. In a real democracy, when people understand what they're "voting" for, your world will be that of dinosaurs.
Laughing or not, you can climb down off your pedestal now.
Re(1): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 14, 2003 at 01:39:22 AM
by James Jaeger
>Please tell me where you could find corporations that would hire "disenfranchised" people as their CEOs in ANY industry anywhere? Unless you define "disenfranchised," like you do, as non-Jewish.
When I use this term with respect to Hollywood, I am referring to those who rarely get to tell their unique stories on the silver screen compared to how often the Control Group -- such Control Group being comprised of mainly liberal, not-very-religious, white Jewish males of European heritage - gets to tell theirs. How many Palestinians and African Americans do you know of who have helmed a major studio? Zero. Thus, it is people like this that could be considered disenfranchised. But the term does not necessarily refer to just non-Jews. I would consider a conservative Jewish female who was very religious to be amongst the disenfranchised as we have seen no studio heads that fit this description either.
>Oprah Winfrey is much too busy running her own mega-business to also run WB - which, given her status as "disenfranchised," seems to be remarkable: I guess she just made some kind of deal with ZOG, whom were nice enough to let her have her own conglomerate.
Yes, you are correct, she's probably too busy. But what I meant when I used the term "an Oprah Winfrey" (accent on the word "an"), was as an example of any intelligent African American woman who would have the ABILITY (such as Oprah would) to run a major movie studio were she to desire to do so and were she granted the opportunity.
>By the way, it's certainly not true that "Everybody has as much of a right to speak as they have to be heard," because the First Amendment gives you no right to be heard whatsoever. It only grants you the right to speak; to not be prosecuted for what you say. It does not mean that anyone has to listen to you, or that you have the right to have access to the mass media or press. or to inject your opinions into the "marketplace of ideas". You simply cannot be jailed for what you say, within the constitutional guidelines. That doesn't mean it's not desirable to have as many civil voices represented in the public discourse of the marketplace of ideas as is possible, but that's not the same thing as a constitutional right to be heard. Of course, there's always public access.
Yes, I see what you're saying: technically no one has a legal right to be listened to in the same way a person has a legal right to speak up, but from an ethical and moral point of view, everyone has the right to be heard. Possibly, if people were better listeners the world would have fewer conflicts. Thus I believe that a moral and an ethical obligation takes rank over a mere legal obligation. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution may have gotten it only half right in that "less kind, less gentle" age in which the U.S. was born. No one listens to anyone today. Everyone struts around spewing their verbiage because "they have a right to freedom of speech." Again, more emphasis needs to be placed on the ethical responsibility to listen and less placed on the legal right to speak. All law descends from ethics and all ethics descend from philosophy, so you can see the realm of the legal is crude at best.
>Also, the fact that entertainment businesses are publicly traded; i.e., subject to equity ownership, does not mean that they are subject to the same restrictions and regulations that a public institution like a government agency would be, and I think you know that. That's a sophism.
The major studios are publicly held corporations. They are NOT private corporations. The reason they are public companies is because they had to file with the SEC under Regulation D, or some such regulation, before they could issue securities and capitalize the corporation. Because these entities are public companies, they are held to a much higher standard than private companies or private corporations. For one, the accountants must be CPAs and that is where the term Certified PUBLIC Accountant comes from. This means these studios, being public corporations, MUST follow certain public policies ranging from the accounting standards they must use, such as GAAP, down to their hiring practices. If you are a public corporation you are OWNED by the PUBLIC. The public is comprised of a much wider demographic than liberal, not-very-religious, white, Jewish males of European heritage. Since this diverse public owns each of the MPAA studio/distributors it is incumbent for each such owner, each stockholder, to have ZERO tolerance for ANY discrimination in his or her company. It is also incumbent upon the board of directors, pursuant to its FIDUCIARY responsibility, to have ZERO tolerance for ANY discrimination since that is illegal and the corporation is expected to follow the law just like any natural person. Since the Board has this FIDUCIARY responsibility to ensure the stockholders -- stockholders which again are a DIVERSIFIED DEMOGRAHIC -- that there is no discrimination, this same Board is subject to dismissal and/or legal action if it fails to make such assurances. By looking at the roster of top executives in the studios over the past many decades, it is probable that discrimination is occurring and thus these Boards are in violation of their fiduciary responsibilities to the stockholders.
>I'm sure there are Irishmen that could run movie studios just as effectively as Geffen and Katzenberg. But hiring a chief executive officer to run a media corporation, for good reason, is done on the basis of seniority and experience.
There are many people who are qualified to run a major studio. Running a studio is a VERY simple job because it actually has LITTLE TO DO WITH BUSINESS ACUMEN. Directing a feature is the difficult job because it is all about technical skill. The movie moguls of yesteryear were successful to the degree they could pick projects they felt, in their gut, the public would like. One does not need a Harvard MBA to do this and, in fact, such a degree probably hinders.
>Because the movie business was founded primarily by Jews, within the lifetimes of many people still alive today, it's unsurprising that many of the people with the most seniority and experience in the studios are Jewish.
True, but now it's time for a change. It's been 90 years already. Time to let some others drive the new car.
>There ARE successful non-Jewish execs, and more of them today than in the Golden Age of the studio system. That's because, as older Jewish executives are dying off, they're not always being replaced with Jewish counterparts. I have no reason whatsoever to think that trend won't continue and expand.
Well we'll see. I hope you're right. I hope we can say that John's list of studio executives at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist will be much different in five years, with many more of the disenfranchised on it.
>Equal Opportunity legislation pertains to overall hiring patterns.
Exactly. And when one looks at the "overall hiring patterns" as evidenced by the record over the past 90-some years, one can see that a pattern of bias favors liberal, not-very-religious, white Jewish males of European heritage. Look at the list at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist. The "overall hiring pattern" is right under your nose.
>If not having a minority CEO alone made you a violator, than 95% of all corporations would be guilty. If your reply is that they should be held to be guilty on that basis,
No, they should not be guilty on this basis; they are guilty on the antithesis of this basis.
>why exactly is it you are singling out film studios specifically when the vast majority of corporations would then be criminals - other than the fact that they won't greenlight your pet dog blockbuster?
Just because WASP industries might have discriminate against the employment of Jews in the past, or might still be doing so, does not make it okay for it to happen in the movie business. Post hoc ergo propter sum = no good. The only reason I'm singling out the movie business is because this is my business in that it's the business I know and work in. If I were Jewish working in some WASP-dominated business and I felt there was discrimination going on there, I would probably be a part of some "FIRM" for that business. Discrimination in any business is not okay and in the movie business it's less tolerable because this is a mass communication business that socializes and indoctrinates (brainwashes) the public in ways that are as subtle as they can be violent. Thus a democracy cannot operate properly in a biased communication environment where a narrowly defined group sets the standards. Ask Adolph Hitler.
>And how much experience in Hollywood could you really have, if you don't perceive money to be the prime motivation behind decision-making, despite Mr. Cones's assertions?
No. Money is NOT the primary motivation in Hollywood. This is a ruse. If you don't believe me read the book called FATAL SUBTRACTION. This book, written by lawyers, gives the blow-by-blow account of Art Buchwald's struggle with Paramount Pictures. After an intense discovery and well into the trial, the case was suddenly settled out of court the moment the judge called for a review of Paramount's financials. Paramount was trying to justify their practice of cross collateralization as necessary to reduce risk. Since there is far less risk in the movie business than the studio wanted to go on record with, they settled with Buchwald immediately. Were their books to be exposed to public scrutiny, it would become evident that the movie business at the studio level is far LESS risky than we are all led to believe. Since the movie business IS less risky than the industry represents, it takes LESS business acumen to run a studio. Since it takes less acumen to run a studio, executives who can "make money" are not what Hollywood's all about. A moron can run a major studio, and many do. If this moron-executive simply has a good "gut" instinct as to what movies he should greenlight, and he simply tows the company lines, he's in the Control Group forever. All he has to do is play musical chairs from studio to studio from time to time and be re-cycled no matter HOW he conducts business. Look at David Begelman. Why hasn't THIS story been made into a movie. Answer: because it exposed the industry's Control Group for what it is. Oh, but it's okay for the Hollywood industry to make a movie about a bunch of WASPs in BARBARIANS AT THE GATE.
Beyond the fact that MOVIES ARE NOT RISKY AT THE STUDIO LEVEL, there is the political agenda movies serve. For instance the movies, and the media, have served well to keep the country brainwashed on the idea that we need to pump all this money into Israel for 50 years or that we need to attack Iraq just so Israel can have what it considers to be a "safer neighborhood." The Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry serves as the most powerful propaganda machine yet devised to fuel indoctrination on what should be our foreign policy.
Thus in summary: Money is the smokescreen that is used to justify 1) risk, 2) involvement, 3) ability as such relate to the production of theatrical motion pictures.
>You were certainly very quick to throw around that "cattle" thing without the slightest amount of validation, just because it suited your prejudices - are you really sure you've vetted the former accurately?
I think Jim Jenks addressed this issue appropriately.
>I'm sure you are not interested in the ethnic composition of the police force: you don't perceive it as "Jewish". If the same percentage of the police force that is now Irish were Jewish, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
What you don't seem to understand is this has nothing to do with Jews. If the top ranks of the studios were all Irish, you would hear the same argument from me and probably John Cones. You keep trying to make this all a Jewish thing so you can obfuscate the greater issues of lack of diversity. Is this so difficult to understand?
>About the status of your presences' welcome in various newsgroups, you can see my other post.
Being welcome in a public NG by some or all of its posters is one thing and being banned from a private website is another. I have posted over at a number of public NGs over the years and had much argument. So what? If some can't take the truth, or are apologists for the system, so what. Why do you even bring this up? What relevance does what other people at different places and times have to do with what you and I are discussing here and now? I'm not running for some popularity contest as you would imply I should be. The call for change is not ever a popular move with some.
Re(3): Jews, Media, and Censorship
Posted on April 14, 2003 at 01:37:12 PM
by Mitchell Levine
Re(4): Jews, Media, and Censorship
Posted on April 14, 2003 at 09:11:16 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Your comment has the moral, factual, and intellectual equivalant of me calling you, say, a Dung Beetle.
When you are only able to muster a single word, a kind of expletive, in response to all I have said to you, it underscores the fact that -- when confronted with facts and reason -- you are incapable of speech.
It's kind of like spitting onto passing cars off the edge of a skyscraper.
Good argument, Mr. Levine!
Re(5): Jews, Media, and Censorship
Posted on April 14, 2003 at 11:51:02 PM
by Mitchell Levine
Death to ZOG!!!
Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 15, 2003 at 11:52:24 AM
by John Cones
This discussion forum is devoted to the discussion of film industry reform, not the broader issues you guys keep trying to bring onto this site. Please limit your comments to film industry reform.
Re(1): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 15, 2003 at 07:57:40 PM by
Moishe the Younger
YOU SAY: This discussion forum is devoted to the discussion of film industry reform, not the broader issues you guys keep trying to bring onto this site. Please limit your comments to film industry reform.
RESPONSE: Well, herein lies the problem. Your fine research is posted online at this web site. A Jewish visitor arrives to call it "anti-Semitic." Viola! We're "off-topic." You can't ignore such a charge, so you must defend yourself from the smear (although you are getting very, very tired of it by now and more often than not are inclined to merely refer to former posted defenses).
The next Jewish (usually) visitor/clone also accuses your premises to be "anti-Semitic." And it's a loop. They're standing out there in cyberspace in a long line, guaranteeing that the places you'd like to go with the web site fail. Because they drag you into a mud bank where FIRM can only spin its wheels in an "off-topic" argument that entails endless argumentative verbiage on non-film terms.
As long as Jewish self-obsession continues to force FIRM into another defense against the charge of "anti-Semitism," FIRM, as an expression of activism, will never be able to get off the ground.
As long as people are intimidated by the charge of "anti-Semitism" and its censorial power, they will be very wary of supporting the open idea of film reform.
As long as the upper tiers of the Hollywood hierarchy are overwhelmingly Jewish, no one is going to risk destroying their career by publicly criticizing the facts of Jewish hegemony.
As long as you post limits to discussion to be absolutely about the subject of film, any Jewish visitor can come along (as they always do), complain about anyone examining Jewish power in Hollywood as an act of bigotry, push FIRM back another three spaces in wasted energy, and defeat your focus on "on-topic" issues.
Until the "off-topic" accusation of anti-Semitism is thoroughly broken (and an understanding of this entails the entire matrix of Jewish history and identity), FIRM cannot be a "movement" in any sense of the word, except as a nice online repository for some of your writings.
That said, you will probably emphasize again your insistence upon limiting discussion to the "film" subject. Fine. But I am merely highlighting here the dilemma that FIRM -- as it is presently constituted -- is trapped within. The terms of ideological engagement are set for you by those who hold power. You cannot choose your activist battlefield.
I am underscoring for you the absolute Wall which you face. If this Wall is not openly confronted somewhere, by somebody, if this Wall is not openly named, it is certain that a "film reform movement" is hopeless folly.
Re(2): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 15, 2003 at 11:04:45 PM
by Mitchell Levin
"Jewish self-obsession"? Who are you kidding? The only thing you ever can or will talk about is The Jews. Pop a couple Xanax and try to think about something else for a minute or two, or find a site where your rants are congenial. I wanted to talk about antitrade and RICO.
Like Mussolini said about Hitler, you're a gramophone with exactly three tunes, and when the last one finishes, the first one starts all over again.
Re(3): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 15, 2003 at 11:43:30 PM by
Moishe the Younger
Mr. Levine, here's your opening sentence at this discussion forum, April 9th:
"Simply claiming not to be antisemitic doesn't prevent you from perceived as such when your actions belie your words."
I guess there's nothing Jewish clone-like about that?
You want to talk about "antitrade" and "RICO?" Really? But, oh. An aside. You need to clearly arrange the table to your specs for the discussion, no?
Jewish identity defines itself as antithetical to the omnipresent "anti-Semitic" Other.
That's the generic starting point for any discussion, per the Jewish Collective. Overtly or covertly.
And, yes. Alas. Your obession with "anti-Semitism" is -- true to form -- leading me off-topic.
Seen any good movies lately?
Re(4): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 16, 2003 at 01:45:42 PM
by Mitchell Levine
Hardly. Yes, I wanted to discuss antitrade and RICO, but no, I didn't "need to clearly arrange the table" to my "specs for the discussion " - John Cones did when he asked the group to limit their discussion to film industry reform, and not your fear of, contempt for, and revulsion by Jews. If those boundaries aren't broad enough to contain your sentiments, there are plenty of other sites where you can converse with like-minded individuals about the Holohoax, ritual infanticide, and the Trilateral Commision floridating the water supply.
If this is not true, then please direct us to a single post you've made to the site in which you haven't mentioned, derogated, or slandered Jews.
Jews don't define Jewish identity as "antithetical to the omnitpresent 'antisemitic' Other" - antisemites do. Jews define Jewish identity as having been born to Jewish parents, and/ or possibly, but not always, believing in Judaism.
And it is certainly not the case that the "Jewish Collective" is incapable of withstanding legitimate criticism of Israel or even the Jewish community. That's why you see Jews engaging in it themselves, and even discussing it with non-Jews, which does happen. But your rhetoric is not "legitimate" as a whole: You simply use legitimate criticism as a front to vent your prejudices in what you hope will be a more socially acceptable form.
As far as good movies go: Memento, The Caveman's Valentine, Phone Booth, Gangs of New York, Ghost World, and I thought Spiderman was very entertaining, if not great cinema. I don't know how many of those were produced, written, or directed by Jews, but I'm sure your complexes will not allow you to restrain yourself from telling us.
Re(5): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 16, 2003 at 09:10:36 PM
by Moishe the Goyim
I could take your comments on, line by line, but time is short. Let's just do a couple things for now:
YOU SAY: Jews define Jewish identity as having been born to Jewish parents ...
RESPONSE: Imagine if Norweigans dominated Hollywood, the way Jews do. Imagine that Norweigans were to be found all over the world, in many different countries, but the key to entre into the Norweigan tribe and networking was -- as you note about Jewish identity above -- racially based.
Now. Even a drugged oppossum should be able to recognize the problem here. And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Per Spiderman, from the [Jewish] Forward in 2002:
"Sure, Spiderman's great. He's a nebbish who happens to have super-human powers. He's got radioactive blood, he detects trouble with his Spider sense, he catches thieves just like flies, all while smashing box-office records by taking in $114 million his first weekend as a movie star. According to Dan Raviv,however, the real heroes of Marvel Comics are the two Israeli men at the company's helm, Isaac (Ike) Perlmutter and Avi Arad. In this real-life drama, they're the two little guys who wrestled Marvel away from sparring billionaires, transforming a bankrupt company into a highly profitable one. Exactly how two underdogs beat seasoned tycoons at their own game is the kind of fairy tale that movies are made of, and it makes for interesting reading in Raviv's latest book, 'Comic Wars: How Two Tycoons Battled Over the Marvel Comics Empire and Both Lost' (Broadway Books). The good guys are the immigrant owners of a small toy company — albeit one with exclusive rights to license Marvel toys. And the bad guys are two titans of finance: Ronald Perelman, the Revlon chief and takeover artist who ran Marvel into bankruptcy, and corporate predator Carl Icahn [both Perelman and Icahn are also Jewish] — a model for Michael Douglas's character in 'Wall Street' — who attempted a hostile takeover. In the end the Israelis, predicting the Marvel superheroes' ability to jump from comic book pages to the silver screen, unexpectedly seized control of the company ...
The story of Marvel is a Jewish one indeed. Founded in 1939 by Martin Goodman, Marvel was a part of the so-called "golden age" of comics, when hordes of young Jewish writers and artists, most of them struggling immigrants' sons, created armies of imaginary superheroes like Superman and Captain America, whose mission was to wage war against Nazis and their ilk. At Marvel in particular, the key players throughout the decades, including Jacob Kurtzberg and Stanley Lieber — better known as Jack Kirby and Stan Lee, the creators of the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man in the early 1960s — have been almost exclusively Jewish." [KEYS, L., 5-10-2002]
Jews influence way too much. Such dominance is healthy for no one, including Jews.
It's time to turn back to genuine democracy, unless people have forgotten what that term means.
Re(6): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 11:34:30 PM
by Mitchell Levine
Sorry, but Jews do not constitute a race.
A race is defined as a social sub-group sharing genetically-inherited biological characteristics.
Thus, you can't convert to a race. You can convert to Judaism.
So, Jews aren't a race.
Also, a genuine political democracy is a society in which political leaders are elected, not officers of corporations, or plenty of other things.
For example, students do not elect their superintendents; churchs do not elect their priests; and, most significantly, the very people whose function it is to interpret the Constitution, the justices of the Supreme Court, are not elected, nor did the Framers intend for them to be.
Political democracy does not imply that private industries will be internally composed in such a way that the proportions of the ethnic groups that make them up will be statistically cognate to their variance in the population at large.
In a planned economy, like that in the former Soviet Union, such a thing might be countenanced, but in the U.S.A.,due to our democratic tradition, anyone that has an idea and can raise capital can start their own company, regardless of their race, religion, or ethnicity.
If 100% of the people who want to venture into technology are Jewish and they can find capital, so be it. If 25%, 35%, 75%, or 0% are Jewish, that's perfectly legal too. Race and religion are simply not issues. If the Founding Fathers felt that the law of our land was supposed to ensure statistical ethnic parity, they would have said so. They didn't.
Publishing long lists of Jewish people who own successful technology companies or media outlets in an effort to excite the public into anti-Semitic fervor by trying to convince them that the Jews are going to take over society and destroy Christianity means nothing.
And no law will ever be passed to controvert that here. You are simply going to have to get used to a world where there are many successful Jewish business people, whether that suits your prejudices or not.
If you don't like it, move to a communist country.
Re(7): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 09:37:51 AM
by Moishe Goyim
My dear Sir,
Your position is fraudulent. If I had a dime for every Jew who tried to hide innate Jewish racism I'd be able to buy back Israel for the Palestinians.
The Biblical "sacred seed" in the genetic lineage of Abraham, Isaac, etc. has always been the foundation of Jewish identity.
The entire Jewish "Reconstructionist" movement, for example, was invented in response to such a current of racism.
I've got tons of research on Jewish identity as "racist." It's at our web site.
For quick purposes, let's turn to Moshe Greenberg for the beginning of an answer to all this, a scholar described by the periodical Conservative Judaism as "one of the leading scholars of Hebrew scripture in the world, formerly the Chair of the Department of Bible Studies at Hebrew University in Israel. As a young man, Greenberg's first introduction to the racist foundation of Jewish religious literature was in Sefer Hatanya, the central works of Habad hasidim [one of today's ultra-Orthodox groups, also spelled 'Chabad']. Greenberg noted in 1996 that:
"What emerged for me, from the study of the first chapters of the book and their antecedents was the discovery that the main stream of Jewish thought is permeated by the genetic spiritual superiority of Jews over Gentiles, disconcertingly reminiscent of racist notions of our time. Living in Israel for the past twenty years in a Jewish majority that is no more sensitive to the feelings of minorities within it than Gentile majorities are.... [with] Jews in their midst, I have come to realize the vitality of Jewish racist notions, and I am more than ever convinced that the hold Judaism will have on this and future generations will be gravely impaired unless these notions are neutralized by an internal reordering of traditional values." [GREENBERG, p. 33]
Is it possible to "convert" to Judaism? Theoretically, yes, but there are tiers of innate discrimination. There explicit Hebrew terms for such converts, and they are second class "Jews." Judaism is not a proseletyzing religion. Also "liberal" Reform and Conservative conversions are not accepted in Israel, which is dominated by the Orthodox.
I've got an entire chapter about Jewish assimiation and conversion to Judaism. There's some juicy stuff. Here's the quote by a Jewish scholar that I use to close that chapter:
"There is a debilitating hesitancy," wrote Raphael Baaden, a Jew by birth, in 1996, "around the question of conversion [to Judaism]. It cannot be positively encouraged [by Jews] ... because, well, it can't. Instead, it seems we should concentrate on exhorting Jews to marry Jews -- that is (although it's usually not stated in these terms). A halakhic ruling about the inclusion of certain Jews -- namely those with Jewish mothers and non-Jewish fathers [i.e., the classical religious ruling of who is a Jew] seems to have been fashioned within a discourse of racial purity into a threatening statement of exclusion. This discourse of racial purity clouds our thoughts continuously, in particular when the question of conversion arises." [BAADEN, p. 11]
There's plenty more like this from Jewish scholarship, which I'll share with you some time.
Want to be a convert to Judaism? First, a bizarre as it sounds, if you're male you need to slice your penis. Then, according to the following Jewish scholar, here's where you'll traditionally rank on the Jewish pecking order, one rank up above freed slaves:
In Jewish tradition, notes Dan Rottenberg, even among Jews,
"there were complex rules regarding who could marry whom, for the groups constituted a distinct social pecking order, as follows, starting at the top:
1) Kohanim (priests) -- male descendants of Aaron, who was a brother of Moses and a descendant of Levi.
2) Levites -- other male descendants of Levi, who served as assistants to the Kohanim.
3) Israelites -- all other Jews of unblemished heritage (that is, descendants of Jacob who had not intermarried with non-Jews).
4) Halalim -- offspring of some forbidden marriages entered into by priests.
5) Gerim -- converts to Judaism.
6) Harurim -- freed slaves.
7) Mamzerim -- bastards.
8) Netinim -- descendants of the Gibbeonites, who were circumcised at the time of Joshua (1200 BC?) and were not regarded as full Jews because their conversion was effected by trickery.
9) Shetukim -- persons unable to identify their father.
10) Persons unable to identify either their father or their mother.
Not included in this list were gentiles and slaves, who had no legal status at all in Jewish law at the time, since Jewish law applied only to Jews.[ROTTENBERG,D., 1977, p. 60]
Yours in clan love,
Re(8): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 04:41:13 PM
by Mitchell Levine
All of this is irrelevant. Your usual habit of mindlessly stretching the topic to accomodate your psychoneurotic need to vent anti-Semitic bitches, no matter how unrelated to the point they might be, strikes again.
The point is that you CAN convert to Judaism, which undermines the argument that Jews are a race, as people with entirely different inherited biological characteristics CANNOT form a race by definition. You cannot elect to join a race: You must be born into it. You cannot become white, black, asian, or anything else by choice.
This has nothing to do with whether it is difficult to convert to Judaism; or unpleasant, in your mind, to convert to Judaism; or whether it fits your crackpot theories as to what constitutes "Jewish indentity"; or whether it meets your personal standards of how such conversions should be conducted, etc.
It simply means that it IS possible to convert to Judaism, therefore Jews do not meet the criteria of a "race" as it's standardly defined: a group uniformly sharing inherited biological characteristics.
By the way, my uncle Sal Valardi converted to Judaism before marrying my Aunt Ida, and no one rejected, ostracized, or mistreated him in any way. He worshipped with us, became an Israeli citizen, and, in fact, I didn't even know he was a convert until I was in my twenties. When he died a year ago, all his Jewish relatives sat shiva for him, and he was greatly missed by them. I've never met anyone whom converted to Judaism that ever said they experienced anything different.
I'm not saying that no one ever does, just that it's not near as common as you imply.
Re(8): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 04:04:23 PM
by Moishe Goyim
I made a typo on the quote by Jewish scholar Raphael Baaden. And it is really, really worth reading correctly:
"There is a debilitating hesitancy,"
wrote Raphael Baaden, a Jew by birth, in 1996,
"around the question of conversion [to Judaism]. It cannot be positively encouraged [by Jews] ... because, well, it can't. Instead, it seems we should concentrate on exhorting Jews to marry Jews -- that is (although it's usually not stated in these terms) BORN Jews ... A halakhic ruling about the inclusion of certain Jews -- namely those with Jewish mothers and non-Jewish fathers [i.e., the classical religious ruling of who is a Jew] seems to have been fashioned within a discourse of racial purity into a threatening statement of exclusion. This discourse of racial purity clouds our thoughts continuously, in particular when the question of conversion arises." [BAADEN, p. 11]
Where does one find such commentary? In Time? In Newsweek? On Fox News? From guys like Mitchell Levine? No. You'll find this kind of thing in the esoteric Jewish in-house journals that mostly Jews read about what Jews -- as a collective entity -- really think.
Re(6): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 12:27:00 AM
by Mitchell Levine
The difference is that if Norwegians dominated the film industry, you wouldn't even notice.
Re(7): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 10:06:31 PM
by Moishe Goyim
I would indeed.
And you'd be starting a web site called "Film Industry Re-reform Movement" with 4,000-5,000 pissed-off Jews (a third of them millionaire lawyers), multi-million dollar contracts with the Anti-Defamation League, a commitment of tanks and mortars from the prime minister of Israel, Jewish suicide bombers, and a permanent protest rally for "Affirmative Action" stretching Jewish bodies with lit candles from downtown New York to central Los Angeles.
I exaggerate as you know, but only slightly.
Re(8): Limit Comments to Film Industry
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 11:51:49 PM
by Mitchell Levin
And you'd still be complaining that there were too many Jews in the movie business, although you'd probably celebrate the appearance of the first Jewish suicide bomber in history.
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 11:47:11 AM
by John Cones
This is sort of like being a kindergarten teacher trying to keep the kid's attention on one subject for any length of time. Oh well!
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 02:40:57 PM
by George Shelps
The problem is JJ (aka Moishe Goyim and Jim Jenks). He is the sort of trash that your premise dredges up. I think you ought to re-examine the inclusion of a Jewish component of your profile of the Hollywood control group. I would say political liberalism and atheism are probably more defining. By the way, can you cite ONE PERSON who was prevented from entering the film business because he/she was not Jewish? Just one example.
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 04:31:05 PM
by Mitchell Levine
I appreciate the sentiment, George, but on purely logical grounds, I do have to object: It's impossible to name anyone whom was prevented from having a film career, because, by definition, as a consequence, no-one would have heard of them in the first place.
Your heart was in the right place, though.
Also, for your own good, please stop worshipping used bagels-and-lox wrappers as God.
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 05:09:09 PM
by George Shelps
Oh, surely you can find someone who stopped trying to get into the film business because he/she found they were discriminated against because they weren't Jewish.
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 08:43:11 PM
by Mitchell Levin
Is there any real way to validate that the actual reason they were unsuccessful was in fact because they were non-Jewish, and not simply because they sucked?
There ARE numerous successful non-Jewish people in the movie biz. That phenomenon does require explanation, if the "Jewish conspiracy" theory is correct.
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 09:39:53 PM
by Moshe Goyim
"Numerous?" Jews are 2.5% of the American population. You expect every SINGLE person in Hollywood to be Jewish? Now, that would look a little strange, yes?
Do you expect every successful actor to look like Seinfeld? If you're going to dominate the media, no one's stupid enough to make it so blatant. Onstage is one thing. Those who make the call about who's onstage is another.
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 10:23:37 PM
by Mitchell Levine
Like James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese, Walter Hill, Francis Ford Coppola, Michael Cimino, and Quentin Tarrantino?
You're right - they're probably just shabbas goys!
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 09:47:58 AM
by Moishe Goyim
Alas, I don't know the details about everyone in the world. But let's look at Coppola as a logical paradigm:
Paramount's (Jewish) head of production, Robert Evans, decided to do a film version of the popular book about the Italian mafia, The Godfather. But when he and the number two man at Paramount, Peter Bart (also Jewish), "screened [old] mob movies, [they] realized they had all been written and directed by Jews. Evans concluded he needed an Italian if he was going to 'smell the spaghetti.'" [BISKIND, p. 14]
Enter Francis Ford Coppola.
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 03:51:07 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Trash? Moi? Mr. Shlepper is the kind of guy who prays to used lox-and-bagels wrappers, searching for clues to the Second Coming on the next Manhattan garbage barge.
He WORSHIPS ignorance. And, like any muck-sucking bottom crawler, he kisses the feet of the Jewish Lobby. Worse, his nose is so brown, he could probably grow foot-long carrots up there.
In the spirit of his broadening of the discourse about the power elite in Hollywood, I suggest we all begin to look for avid knitters in red socks and onion sacks as the real common denominator.
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 05:14:16 PM
by George Shelps
No, you moron, I believe it would be better if the movie industry were more ethnically and politically diverse. But I'd like to see someone step forward and tell their story about how they were stopped in their progress towards a film career because they weren't Jewish. Just one example, please.
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 05:56:31 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Moron? I think you're confusing me with Congressman Moran, who had the guts to name the Jewish Lobby behind the Iraq invasion and who had taken the Lobby's heat since.
And, per your incessant wail about a case of someone being discriminated against because they WEREN'T Jewish, that's not really the exact issue. The game is the opposite of how you frame it: The idea is not necessarily to keep goyim out, the idea is to keep Jews in. It's an entirely difference premise than you seek evidence for. Sometimes it's intention, sometimes it's by default: "Birds of a feather flock together."
Example, from Tom King's biography about Jewish mogul David Geffen:
Geffen worked in the mailroom for six months until "he was stopped by Scott Shukat [also Jewish], who offered him a job as secretary to Ben Griefer [also Jewish], one of the office's most respected television agents ... Brooklyn born and raised in Queens, Shukat ... too, had lied on his employment application at the Morris office, listing his stage name, Scott Logan, Jr. But when he arrived at the office on the first day and saw the executives' names on the company directory in the lobby -- Letkowitz, Kalcheim, Griefer, Weiss, and so on -- he hustled back to the personnel office and told them his given Jewish name." [p. 52-53] [KING, T., 2000]
So why do you work so much overtime in advocating blindness when any half-wit could name the elephant that is sitting on him?
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 06:02:55 PM
by Moshe Goyim
This comment, by Daniel Noble, was posted at FIRM before:
"Nobody else has stepped in to claim a piece of the media pie because nobody else is allowed in. The doors only open to jews or whoever is independently successful. In 1989 I encountered a group of young foreign tourist antisemites in the Hollywood McDonalds, who were trying to convince a group of young midwestern American tourists that: "Your film industry is COMPLETELY JEWISH!!!".
This inspired a telling experiment that I did in late 1989. I sent 200 copies of a letter seeking any entry level opportunity, but used two different pseudonyms - one blatantly gentile on 100 copies and one blatantly jewish on the other 100 copies of the letter. Without revealing the actual names used, let's say they were "Christian Liam O'Grady" and "Brent Irving Friedman". Well, many offers of entry level opportunities started coming in under the jewish name, and ONLY under the jewish name. There were more than 20 positive responses. One major production company sent two scripts to see how I would cover them, to see if they could use me as a reader. A schlock company was ready to hire me as an assistent. Was I interested in pursuing television animation writing at Disney Television Animation? Two major name persons didn't offer opportunities but did sent notes of encouragement. And one of these persons, a female, surely must rank among Hollywood's fifty biggest names! I was stunned at the positive response! But the other 100 letters, identical except the gentile signature, generated not a single positive response! I've been holding onto my response letters, and initially I investigated the possibility of self-publishing a small book or pamphlet chronicling the experiment, and once researched self publishing in the downtown L.A. library in the early Nineties. But then along came the web, which is cheaper and has a larger potential audience. I will eventually be scanning and posting every response in a tell-all website, which Hollywood isn't likely to appreciate, given the dozens of names that will then be exposed. One of the reasons I have not done it yet is because I was considering repeating the experiment on a grander scale and utilizing more precise scientific accounting of the experiment and results. The first time was a bit sloppy - I didn't even keep track of which letter went where. Anyhow, personally I went from being indifferent to jews to being angry at what has irrefutably proved to me that ethnic nepotism is massively prevalent. This cheats America out of having an American culture factory. One has to imagine a parallel: India-Indians, (who have the worlds biggest industry, something like 800 annual movies) imigrate into Israel, and set up India-town neighborhoods. They then proceed to make all of Israels movies and television shows for the Israelis, hiring a few token Israelis to work in subservient positions. What would the Israelis think of an Indian created national culture? One more note: An inside source informed me that because jews have come under fire for creating tasteless programming from conservative sectors, a secret directive suggesting that Hollywood keep an eye out for talented tasteless gentile filmakers, like the Farrely brothers, as a way of deflecting such criticism." (DN)
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 10:40:11 AM
by George Shelps
The William Morris Agency as founded by a Jew (William Morris), was built into a Hollywood powerhouse by a Jew (Abe Lastfogel)....and has been a predominantly Jewish business...so why shouldn't Geffen try to fit in?
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 03:34:31 PM
by Moishe Goyim
Thank you for underscoring the problem.
That you don't grasp it is baffling. Ignorance is bliss, is it not?
Taking your inane logic, we may likewise say the same thing about America: since WASPs "founded" it (Native Americans are another story, right?), Jews, Blacks, and everyone else should never have merited any gripes.
Please think your thoughts through for once.
This all isn't really that difficult to understand. You're trying really, really, really hard to be ignorant.
Lighten up. Relax. Smell a rose. Take a deep breath.
Maybe try smelling salts to stir you from your stupor?
Posted on April 17, 2003 at 09:59:12 PM
by Moshe Goyim
Unspoken context here: Jewish dominance of Hollywood, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and the omnipresent, pro-Israel Jewish Lobby. If Jack Shaheen dares to speak the obvious, he doesn't get media coverage, except as an "anti-Semite":
Shooting the Arabs. They're the studio's villains of choice when comes to depicting terrorists, arms dealers or torturers. And after September 11, it looks like getting worse. Author Jack Shaheen escorts Sean Clarke through the shabby history of the Hollywood Arab, The Guardian (UK), April 17, 2003
"If Hollywood does take up the story of blonde, blue-eyed Private Jessica Lynch, there's at least one man who won't be optimistic about the film's treatment of her Iraqi captors. Professor Jack Shaheen has spent 20 years cataloguing Tinseltown's portrayal of Arabs in over 900 movies. He's found that, with very few exceptions, Arabs are presented in the movies as 'subhuman' and destable to a degree that the studios would no longer dare with any other ethnic group. Shaeen's new book, Reel Bad Arabs, compares the case of Pocahontas - Disney's Native American animation, on which Native American groups were widely consulted in order to produce an acceptable portrait - with that of Aladdin, one of the Arab and European world's most cherished folk tales, which features 'hook-nosed Arabs' singing of their milieu: 'it's barbaric, but hey, it's home.' This, as Shaheen doesn't point out, in a story set in the Baghdad Caliphate, the most culturally powerful and one of the most enlightened polities of its time.
'The tragedy' he admits, 'is that we've begun to unlearn other stereotypes' - about Blacks, Jews, Native Americans. 'But we haven't with this one. And 9/11 took it to another level' ...
Shaheen even thinks the dehumanisation of Arabs in Hollywood can affect the US public's attitude to war in Iraq. 'For instance,' he says, 'we hardly ever see Arab suffering. Look at the war coverage - it's almost invisible. It's almost as if the bombs are falling on empty buildings. And that's been true historically, when every news report that comes out of Israel rightly shows Israeli suffering, but wrongly passes over Palestinian suffering. We have not allowed ourselves to empathise with Arabs or see them as being like us' ...
But when asked who's to blame for Hollywood's prejudices, he identifies a less obvious culprit: the Arab American community itself. 'Hollywood can villify anything and everything Arab without getting any pressure not to do that. There's no lobby in Hollywood. There are two power centres in the US; Washington DC and Hollywood. One influences policy, and the other influences perception. No Americans of Arab heritage have recognised the importance of lobbying those who impact perception.'"
Re(1): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 10:45:44 AM
by George Shelps
Ever seen LAWRENCE OF ARABIA? One of the great movies of all time. Arabs are portrayed with nobility and heroism throughout the film.
Re(2): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 11:38:44 AM
by John Cones
Now, let's see. Jack Shaheen produces years of research showing that "with very few exceptions" the 900 or so Hollywood movies reviewed consistently portray Arabs and Muslims in a negative and/or stereotypical manner, and then George Shelps feels that by naming one of the exceptions, that's some kind of response to this research? I don't quite follow the logic there.
Re(3): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 03:47:32 PM
by Moishe Goyim
The Arab and Arab-American intelligentsia is a natural ally of FIRM (among many others -- virtually any ethnic/religious group -- Blacks, Poles, Christians, Muslims, etc. -- that the Jewish Lobby smears).
When the day comes that FIRM can find its inherent people power base, and all these groups can recognize their common interest around the Hollywood theme, this web site would begin to lift off.
This power base is not just disgruntled actors, screenwriters, and other film careerists. Those who have been shafted by the intrinsic biases of Hollywood are HUGE in number.
An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 03:01:17 AM
by Dennis Hartwig
The following is an open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Dear Mr. Jaeger,
It is unfortunate that I have to begin by saying I am not Jewish or subscribe to any other religion nor am I a Liberal. The reason I bring this up is to convey the fact I have no motive for sending this other than antipathy. Furthermore I believe many groups in this country are thin skinned and easily offended, so it takes a lot for me to send a letter like this.
You have forwarded many emails to me in the last year. Being very busy I never had a chance to read them. Once I did I found them chilling. After receiving a disquieting email from you I went back and read other emails forwarded to me. I thought I may have misread your message but instead I discovered the depth of their racism. I also read a response you sent to a January 2nd email from an individual asking to be taken of your list. In your email you write, you can not be called an anti-Semite because Jewish people are a “large supra-national political party,” and they are no different than any other political parties. You gone on to state: “To say someone is therefore anti-Semitic is the same to me as saying they are anti-Democrat or anti-Republican, meaning that they disagree with such entities platform and/or agenda because, at the end of the day, all three entities act in the same ways and create effects that can be seen as socio-political.” I am sure you convinced yourself this is true and in your mind you are not being a racist. You fraise your arguments so that no matter how you respond it will reinforce your own ideas of a conspiracy and that you are some sort of a martyr. This is the same rationale racist’s organizations have used for years to justify their beliefs. Even if you are naive enough to believe this and are honestly trying to help filmmakers, I wonder how you can explain an April 18, 2003 email you forwarded signed “Yours in clan love, Moishe.” I quite sure, circulating KKK sentiment is not the way to help filmmakers. According to your rational I guess the “Clan” is not anti-Semitic nor is any other terror or hate group for that matter.
You asked me to go to the FIRM Discussion Forum and get familiar with the full context of the argument as it relates to the film industry and the mission of FIRM. I have visited the FIRM Discussion Forum and read your “Mission Statement.” Maybe you should go back a read it again. A lot of it seems very hypocritical. Furthermore it is not necessary to read your “information” to get familiar with the full context of the “argument.” All you need to do is turn on CNN or read a newspaper. This is the same abhorrence that has been going on for thousands of years. Not just in the context of the Jewish issue but all haltered aimed towards any group. It is the same hatred the Catholics feel towards the Protestants in Ireland. It is the same hatred the September 11th hijackers felt towards the United States. It is the same haltered felt between groups all over the world whether they are in power or not in power. Your ideas are incorrect, short sided and full of hate. I could point out case after case, proving your theories false but that is not the point I am trying to make.
You also wrote in your email “It's not really fair to be critical of me when all I'm trying to do is stimulate honest debate on these issues.” This is not an honest debate. You are very clear on where you stand on this issue. Furthermore it is not a debate at all. This is clearly a forum spreading Jewish conspiracy theories, blaming others for their own failures and whining about how things are not fair. Well guess what. Life is not fair and nether is Hollywood. Deal with it. Speaking of Hollywood, there is almost no talk about actual filmmaking. I do not hear any exchanging of ideas about filmmaking or about over coming adversity in the industry. Where are the ideas?
Anyone who has read your website can see you care less about filmmaking and more about conspiracy theories. In the section entitled “What Really Going on in Hollywood” the word Jew appears 459 times and that is only one small part of the site. I am not going to play the game of naming how many people in this industry achieve successes that are not Jewish.
While working with filmmakers and establishing contacts in the industry I have come across many anti-Hollywood people and originations. MEC is not one of these. This is a veiled attempt at an anti-Semitic organization. Although one similarity you have with many other groups, is your utter lack of responsibility for your own failures. On March 10, 2001 you wrote: “I made a lot of mistakes in my career. One of them was thinking that if I was totally enthusiastic and totally schooled in my craft it would HAVE to lead to wild success. Here's where I went wrong I didn't pay enough attention to the people-politics factor in the Biz.” You never considered the fact that no one is entitled to success. Success comes from years of hard work and doggedness. I am also sure you never considered the fact you may not have any talent. These are hard facts to deal with. Very few people succeed in an industry where everyone wants to. When they don’t it is always someone else’s fault.
Frankly it is not whether you are a racist or not racist that bothers me. It is your complete lack of inspiration and creativity. MEC’s website reeks of failure and bitterness. Instead of inspiring young filmmakers, your site is dedicated to disillusionment of them. Page after page your site reinforces the idea that they can not succeed, no matter how hard they try because there is a conspiracy keeping them out. It is a lot easer to give up in dissatisfaction than come up with solutions.
Once upon a time you did have some interesting ideas. What happened to them? It seems as if they where abandoned. Your site is now full of half measures and unfulfilled actions. Your last “press release” was five years ago. What are you doing to finance films, develop them or distribute them? I am not referring to talk, I am referring to action. If you ever had innovations in Independent Film your message gets lost in all of your Jewish propaganda. Is your purpose advancing filmmaking or spreading your political beliefs?
I will continue to seek new and initiative ways to achieve success. Even if you are right and there is some plot to keep us out, that just means we have to be persistent in our efforts and not resort to defeatism.
It is difficult to get across tone in an email so I want to be clear in why I took the time to write this. From speaking with you I know you have spent a lot of time looking for truth in life. As we all have. I am pleading with you to reconsider this position. I think you got involved in this project for the right reasons. Do not let hate be your legacy. Before you jump to your defense and try to rationalize this message away, STOP. Go back and read it again and reflect on it with an open mind. Then ask yourself, what am I trying to accomplish. It is never too late to turn it all around.
You never answered my question I emailed you with, so I will ask it again. To what end do you hope to reach?
Re(1): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 08:35:49 AM
by Moishe the Goyim
Dear Mr. Hartwig.
I do not speak for Jaeger, FIRM, or anyone else on this message board.
But the information Mr. Jaeger apparently fowarded that said:
“Yours in clan love, Moishe”
you take out of context. I wrote that. The context is sarcasm. The name "Moishe" is Hebrew for Moses. The "clan love" refers to the JEWISH version of tribalism. You will find in some dictionaries reference to Jewry as the exemplary "tribe." Sorry if Jewry as an exemplary tribe offends you, but this is true. If you had followed the current of exchanges here at this discussion forum you would realize that your assertion here (that someone is endorsing the KKK) is ridiculous. Your own hysterical convictions lead you past even the point where you might grasp what you're reading.
You seem to be interested in misrepresenting the context of the debates here. And, as you in essence say, you really have not read much of them. Your own convictions precede (and obscure) anything posted here.
YOU SAY: I quite sure, circulating KKK sentiment is not the way to help filmmakers. According to your rational I guess the “Clan” is not anti-Semitic nor is any other terror or hate group for that matter.
RESPONSE: Again. You are excerpting the "clan" reference COMPLETELY out of context. You are not understanding what you're reading, because you're not reading very much, nor very deeply. If you are offended by "KKK sentiment," fine. Then you should be aware that there are Jewish currents sentiments like this too, especially in Likud-driven Israel. These pro-Israel currents exist in Hollywood. Israel is the epitomy of nationalist "hatred." Please get educated about this.
YOU SAY: I have visited the FIRM Discussion Forum and read your “Mission Statement.” Maybe you should go back a read it again. A lot of it seems very hypocritical.
RESPONSE: Like what? You systematically make accusations, but never back them up with any substance.
YOU SAY: Furthermore it is not necessary to read your “information” to get familiar with the full context of the “argument.”
RESPONSE: How can you rationally and morally discuss an issue if you refuse to inform yourself about it?
YOU SAY: All you need to do is turn on CNN or read a newspaper. This is the same abhorrence that has been going on for thousands of years.
RESPONSE: Why are you not interested in the Jewish version of the "hatred" you are so interested in? Why do you position yourself as defender Jewish hegemony in Hollywood?
YOU SAY: Not just in the context of the Jewish issue but all haltered aimed towards any group. It is the same hatred the Catholics feel towards the Protestants in Ireland. It is the same hatred the September 11th hijackers felt towards the United States. It is the same haltered felt between groups all over the world whether they are in power or not in power.
RESPONSE: You seem to throw out the word "hate" as if it is the provenance of everyone on the planet, except for Jewry. Social, political, and economic forces have a role to play in what you call aimless "hate." In order to get rid of "hate," we must have a sound understanding of the REASONS of social discord and suffering of all and any peoples. To call blindly, blissfully, call someone a "hater" is nonsense.
What do you "hate," Mr. Hartwig. Apparently, per your own criteria, you "hate" FIRM and anybody who has anything different to say than you.
YOU SAY: Your ideas are incorrect, short sided and full of hate.
RESPONSE: Nonsense. Your position is "incorrect, short sided and full of IGNORANCE." But, by your same argument, your animosity here I could call "hate." You are hostile and irrational to a rational position: that of an interest in genuine democracy.
YOU SAY: I could point out case after case, proving your theories false but that is not the point I am trying to make.
RESPONSE: So you don't "point out" a single "case" to defend your argument. That's a neat trick. Your case is tried and true: smear, smear, smear. Come up for breath. Then smear, smear, smear. And, crucially, don't offer anything to genuine dialogue. Implore the world not to "hate!" Please! This is the rationale of a third-grader. To assuage inter-ethnic hostility there must be public forum from all quarters about injustices implicit in our social, economic, and political system.
Only then can what you inanely call "hate" evaporate. (And your "hate" is merely animosity towards chronic injustice. It's easier to dismiss this as "hate" rather than say what you're reall doing: defending the racist, ethnocentric status quo).
YOU SAY: You also wrote in your email “It's not really fair to be critical of me when all I'm trying to do is stimulate honest debate on these issues.” This is not an honest debate. You are very clear on where you stand on this issue. Furthermore it is not a debate at all. This is clearly a forum spreading Jewish conspiracy theories, blaming others for their own failures and whining about how things are not fair.
RESPONSE: It is a genuine "debate" in that you are free here to make your argument. Now, it helps to be informed about what you are talking about.
YOU SAY: Well guess what. Life is not fair and nether is Hollywood. Deal with it.
RESPONSE: Well said. Those who object to Jewish influence and power are "dealing with it" as they can. You apparently forbid this.
YOU SAY: Speaking of Hollywood, there is almost no talk about actual filmmaking. I do not hear any exchanging of ideas about filmmaking or about over coming adversity in the industry. Where are the ideas?
RESPONSE: There are plenty. You leap to wild conclusions without delving into the issues.
YOU SAY: Anyone who has read your website can see you care less about filmmaking and more about conspiracy theories. In the section entitled “What Really Going on in Hollywood” the word Jew appears 459 times and that is only one small part of the site.
RESPONSE: My God! You counted? Talk about obsession! Perhaps you should start counting the word "American" in all accounts of the Iraq war?
YOU SAY: I am not going to play the game of naming how many people in this industry achieve successes that are not Jewish.
RESPONSE: Of course. Because you can't. You just make smears, which is the foundation of moral, intellectual, and factual defense of Jewish hegemony.
RESPONSE: While working with filmmakers and establishing contacts in the industry I have come across many anti-Hollywood people and originations. MEC is not one of these. This is a veiled attempt at an anti-Semitic organization.
RESPONSE: This is the standard accusation against anyone who dares to investigate Jewish power and influence. Your position is morally bankrupt. You accuse, but offer no substantial argument. You also ignore the immensity of information about Jewish influence in Hollywood.
YOU SAY: You never considered the fact that no one is entitled to success. Success comes from years of hard work and doggedness.
RESPONSE: Far more important to "success" is connections, nepotism, friends in the industry, and so forth. Anyone who just fell off the turnip truck KNOWS this. There are probably more screenplays in Hollywood than there are grades of grass. Which ones get filmed? Right. There's an objective scale that measures each one's "talent."
YOU SAY: I am also sure you never considered the fact you may not have any talent. These are hard facts to deal with. Very few people succeed in an industry where everyone wants to. When they don’t it is always someone else’s fault.
RESPONSE: So, let's see. How come you're kissing Jewish butt so deeply? Looking to sell a screenplay? Are you already entrenched deeply in Hollywood with your own wonderful "talent?"
YOU SAY: Frankly it is not whether you are a racist or not racist that bothers me. It is your complete lack of inspiration and creativity.
RESPONSE: More and more, this post sounds like a set-up against Jaeger (and, by the way, I wish to undescore that I in no way speak for him, FIRM, or anyone else here. In a free society, I have a right to make my own arguments). Who are you? What is real YOUR motivation in protecting racist, chauvinist, and ethnocentric interests?
YOU SAY: MEC’s website reeks of failure and bitterness. Instead of inspiring young filmmakers, your site is dedicated to disillusionment of them. Page after page your site reinforces the idea that they can not succeed, no matter how hard they try because there is a conspiracy keeping them out. It is a lot easer to give up in dissatisfaction than come up with solutions.
RESPONSE: The "solution" is clear: Democratic access to power. A reactionary position like yours contributes to the burying of the real issues of liberation deeper from view.
YOU SAY: Once upon a time you did have some interesting ideas. What happened to them? It seems as if they where abandoned. Your site is now full of half measures and unfulfilled actions. Your last “press release” was five years ago. What are you doing to finance films, develop them or distribute them? I am not referring to talk, I am referring to action.
RESPONSE: Personal attacks are the bottom line for those who have no moral, intellectual, or factual argument.
YOU SAY: If you ever had innovations in Independent Film your message gets lost in all of your Jewish propaganda.
RESPONSE: It is not Jaeger's "Jewish propaganda" at stake here, it is YOURS.
YOU SAY: Is your purpose advancing filmmaking or spreading your political beliefs?
RESPONSE: Obviously the premises of democratic action in the film world threaten you? Why?
YOU SAY: I will continue to seek new and initiative ways to achieve success.
RESPONSE: This "open letter" is obviously a well-planned tactic to such "success." Hey, you can become a hero to Jewish chauvinism! Get your screenplays handy, there may be doors opening to you pretty soon.
YOU SAY: Even if you are right and there is some plot to keep us out, that just means we have to be persistent in our efforts and not resort to defeatism.
RESPONSE: Here is the only thing that makes even a kernel of sense in your "open letter." On one hand, you condemn Yaeger. But here you open the door to suggest that he may in fact be right. Your complaint then veers to his "defeatism" in combatting injustice in Hollywood. Make up your mind, Mr. Hartwick.
YOU SAY: It is difficult to get across tone in an email so I want to be clear in why I took the time to write this. From speaking with you I know you have spent a lot of time looking for truth in life. As we all have. I am pleading with you to reconsider this position. I think you got involved in this project for the right reasons. Do not let hate be your legacy. Before you jump to your defense and try to rationalize this message away, STOP. Go back and read it again and reflect on it with an open mind. Then ask yourself, what am I trying to accomplish. It is never too late to turn it all around.
RESPONSE: The same can be said for you. Wake up. Stop supporting "hate." Stop supporting chauvinism. Stop supporting ethnocentrism. Stop supporting ignorance. Fight for the right to free, open discussions that will enhance the freedom for EVERYONE.
YOU SAY: You never answered my question I emailed you with, so I will ask it again. To what end do you hope to reach?
RESPONSE: I don't mean to speak for Jaeger, but if you cared to read anything at this web site, you'd find that the anser to your question here is everywhere: democracy. A fair access to the privatized social, political, and economic mechanism that define culture. FIRM focuses on the Hollywood dimensions to this.
They're not too hard to understand.
Re(1): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 12:59:56 AM
by George Shelps
"Once upon a time you did have some interesting ideas. What happened to them? It seems as if they where abandoned. Your site is now full of half measures and unfulfilled actions. Your last "press release" was five years ago. What are you doing to finance films, develop them or distribute them? I am not referring to talk, I am referring to action."
You have hit the nail on the head, Mr Hartwig. I am a shareholder in MEC, I've known James Jaeger for a number of years. He once had a passion for the film business and a lot of great ideas.
But he has gotten sidetracked by FIRM.
It's all very sad.
I call upon him to return to his former idealism!
Re(1): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 01:00:19 AM
by James Jaeger
In short, everything Moshe Goyim said I agree with and he couldn’t have said it better. (Thanks Moshe, I appreciate your response to Mr. Hartwig's ignorant and harassing personal assault on me.)
It is obvious you (Dennis) have not read very much of the material at FIRM (or you simply don't desire to comprehend it) nor do you have any idea what we're doing with MEC.
As far as new filmmakers: I am probably one of the very few in the film industry who tell it like it is to new filmmakers. I am positive where positive events/opportunities are present, and negative where needed change is necessary. To this end, I have been selling books for over 10 years at prices ranging from $69 to $500 each, with no returns and many repeat sales. Many features have been made as a result of my books and I have sold these books to people ranging from novices/students to MPAA studio executives to major hedge fund managers in Switzerland. In fact, my sales have been tripling each year. Someone out there KNOWS that I am putting out the truth even if you don't.
And the same can be said for John Cones whose book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD!, you cite. Great book, even if the word Jew appears to many times in it for your particular level of confront.
>You never answered my question I emailed you with, so I will ask it again. To what end do you hope to reach?
You can read the mission of FIRM at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/fmission.htm and the mission of MEC at http://www.mecfilms.com. If this doesn't answer your question, then I guess you need to enroll in a refresher reading course.
Re(2): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 04:50:21 PM
by Moishe the Goyim
Ho! Is this a conspiracy against Mr. Jaeger?
Re(2): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 06:45:06 PM
by Dennis Hartwig
>In short, everything Moshe Goyim said I agree with and he couldn’t have said it better. (Thanks Moshe, I appreciate your response to Mr. Hartwig's ignorant and harassing personal assault on me.)
I am disappointed you did not what to address any issues I put forth. Instead you elected once again to refer to me your website and an individual (Moshe) who does not even have the courage to use his real name. Whose arguments are formulated in vain of a bad high school debate team, with points that rise slightly higher than “I’m rubber your glue.” I thought you both said he does not speak for you?
>Mr. Hartwig's ignorant and harassing personal assault on me.
Anyone that disagrees with you must be “ignorant” and not understand what you are trying to say. You can not grasp that they have a different point of view. It must be that they just can’t comprehend your genius.
Synonyms for “harassing” are: distressing, troublesome, worrying, difficult, painful, and stressful. Maybe if my statements are causing you “harassment” that shows some insecurity in you beliefs.
You call it dialog when someone agrees with you. But it is a “personal assault” when they do not. I thought you said it was the Jews that had the thin skin?
>“Many features have been made as a result of my books and I have sold these books to people ranging from novices/students to MPAA studio executives to major hedge fund managers in Switzerland. In fact, my sales have been tripling each year. Someone out there KNOWS that I am putting out the truth even if you don't.”
I am sure pedaling these books will bring Hollywood to its knees.
If Jews control the MPAA, the studios and the financing, does this mean Jews are buying your books? And if so does that mean you are helping the “Jewish Conspiracy?” And if these individuals are not Jewish and they are successful does that must mean there is no conspiracy? Or maybe as your defender “Moshe” put it; “they are kissing Jewish Butt” to become successful. Now I know you wouldn’t be helping Jewish Butt Kissers, would you? Ok, if they did not have to kiss Jewish Butt maybe only part of Hollywood is controlled by Jews. But wait, then it would not be a conspiracy. It is all so confusing. Thank god you are here to straighten this entire conspiracy out for us.
>”It is obvious you (Dennis) have not read very much of the material at FIRM (or you simply don't desire to comprehend it) nor do you have any idea what we're doing with MEC.”
It seems neither do your stock holders.
I regards to the question you refuse to answer (“To what end do you hope to reach?”). I can only hope you have not reached that end.
Re(3): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 06:12:35 PM
by Mitchell Levine
Yes, J.J., it's a conspiracy! Time to take your Thorazine! Nighty-nite!
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |