June 6, 2003 - June 15, 2003
Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?
Re(8): Late Response to George Posted on June 6, 2003 at 12:06:42 AM by George Shelps Gentiles could have established Hollywood if they wished, but didn't, in no small part because there were many, many options open to them. It's one of the reasons why there's numerically fewer of them in the business. __You're probably right. But the prior to the establishment of the studio system, there ~was~ a "gentile" dominance of the film industry: the Motion Picture Patents Trust, which was a monopolistic organization led by Thomas Edison designed to control movies by controlling the patents to cameras and projectors. There was only one Jewish member, Siegmund Lubin, of Philadelphia. The Trust was declared an illegal monopoly by the Supreme Court. Carl Laemmele, founder of Universal Pictures, flouted the Trust, and he became one of the first Jewish moguls. So it's not quite true that Hollywood was initially founded by Jews...but the studio system of the 20s-60s definitely was. Re(9): Late Response to George Posted on June 7, 2003 at 10:22:38 AM by George Shelps So, ironically, the movie business ~might~ have developed into a predominantly non-Jewish industry had it not been for the illegal attempt by the Trust to control it at its birth. Hollywood proper developed when film-makers wanted to escape the the reach of the Trust by locating close to the Mexican border. The Trust hired "goons" to disrupt productions and smash unlicensed equipment. Carl Laemmle's IMP (Independent Motion Picture) company was one of the first to relocate to the West. It became Universal. Cecil B DeMille, Jesse Lasky, and Samuel Goldwyn also came to California to shoot THE SQUAW MAN in a barn-studio that still stands today as a museum. That team formed the basis of Paramount Pictures. Re(10): Late Response to George Posted on June 7, 2003 at 01:15:01 PM by Mitchell Levine Thanks for the interesting historical perspective, George. Maybe Jenks will post on his site! Re(9): Late Response to George Posted on June 7, 2003 at 00:46:30 AM by Mitchell Levine OK, fair enough. Is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer our last hope? Posted on June 4, 2003 at 03:59:48 PM by A Worried Gentile Tell me if I'm wrong, but if I have undestanded it right, MGM, the studio which is established by jews, and once was one of the most "insiders" controlled studio in Hollywood, is now owned by Kirk Kerkorian who is an outsider. I have checked their members of board and executives backgrounds, and thus there is some jews, it seems to be that roster of their members of board and executives have more diversity than other studios in Hollywood. Re(1): Is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer our last hope? Posted on June 4, 2003 at 06:12:16 PM by Moishe the Goyim From: Jewish Tribal Review http://www.jewishtribalreview.org Another non-Jewish mogul who spent some time in the Hollywood limelight was Kirk Kerkorian, of Armenian heritage. He bought control of MGM in its dying years in the 1970s, and later United Artists. And, like anyone who expects to survive in the mass media world, he too surrounded himself with Jewish partners, executives, agents, lawyers and others of the standard movie-making and news world parade. His first choice to run the studio was his "tennis-playing friend" Herb Jaffe, who turned his offer down. [BART, p. 32] Others at Kerkorian's MGM included president and CEO Frank Rosenfelt; Frank Rothman (later CEO of MGM/UA); and Frank Yablans (another head of MGM at a different time). When Gentile Alan Ladd Jr. was picked to be share power as president and CEO with Yablans, "the nucleus of his own team" was all Jewish: Jay Kanter, Richard Berger, and John Goldwyn. [BART, p. 231] Other prominent Kerkorian-era chiefs included Chief Financial Officer Sidney Sapowitz; production heads David Begelman, Daniel Melnick, Freddie Fields and Paula Weinstein; Herbert Solow; Peter Bart; lawyer Gregory Bautzer ("Kerkorian's eyes and ears in the filmmaking community"); [BART, p. 17] Roger Birnbaum, Ileen Maisel, and Lee Rich, among others. Kerkorian had earlier built his fortune in Las Vegas, where he had many Jewish business associates, including Jewish mobsters Meyer Lansky and Moe Dalitz. [BART, p. 47-51] Kerkorian was also beholding to Jewish criminal financier Michael Milken who helped sell MGM "junk bonds" to finance some Kerkorian enterprises. [BART, p. 129-130] Perhaps as summary to all this, former MGM Jewish executive Peter Bart notes that when Kerkorian eventually began negotiating over a year's time to sell MGM off, the then-head of the company, Alan Ladd, "became a sort of Wandering Jew of executives, which was ironic since he was he was one of the few non-Jews to ever become a head of production." [BART, p. 255] There was apparently a Jew in the shadows here though. "The strongest influence on Laddie's [Ladd's] career was probably [his father's] second wife, a former starlet and agent named Sue Carol." (She was also Jewish ; her original name was Evelyn Lederer). [FABER, STEPHEN/GREEN, MARC; cited at FIRM, 2001] Re(2): Is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer our last hope? Posted on June 6, 2003 at 01:07:07 PM by A Worried Gentile So conclusion is that a non-jewish person can raise into important position in Hollywood, but not without kissing "insiders" butts! CBS' "60 Minutes Posted on June 3, 2003 at 00:03:36 AM by Jews at 60 Minutes Here's the list of staff at CBS' "60 Minutes" news program. How many Jews can you spot? For starters, the head of the program is Don Hewitt. He's Jewish. Then, 3 of the 6 top on-air personalities are Jewish (Safer, Wallace, and Stahl). 1 of the 2 "Contributing Correspondents" are Jewish (Bob Simon even has a second home in Israel). The other, Christine Amanpour, as I recall, is married to a Jew. Then there's the Ruths and Esthers, Finkelsteins, Lieberthals, etc. to flesh out the rest of the executive staff. Again, Jews are 2.5% of the U.S. population. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13503.shtml WHO WE ARE. Program Facts, 60 Minutes(CBS) Co-editors and Correspondents: Mike Wallace, Morley Safer, Ed Bradley, Steve Kroft, Lesley Stahl, Andy Rooney. Contributing Correspondents: Bob Simon, Christiane Amanpour. Creator and Executive Producer: Don Hewitt. Executive Editor: Philip Scheffler. Senior Producers: Josh Howard, Esther Kartiganer, Merri Lieberthal. Executive Story Editor: Victoria Gordon. Producers: Robert Anderson, Richard Bonin, Alden Bourne, Leslie Cockburn, Amy Cunningham, L. Franklin Devine, Shari Finkelstein, Paul Gallagher, Michael Gavshon, David Gelber Rome Hartman Peter Klein Nancy Krame, Graham Messick, Deirdre Naphin, Trevor Nelson, Catherine Olian, Harry A. Radliffe II, Michael Radutzky, Steven Reiner, Jeanne Solomon-Langley, Ruth Streeter, John Tiffin, Andrew Tkach. Director: Arthur Bloom Re(1): CBS' "60 Minutes Posted on June 8, 2003 at 05:20:05 PM by Moishe the Goyim I really don't see your point. Jewish Obsession with Antisemitism Gone Berserk Posted on June 4, 2003 at 02:41:03 PM by mg The horrible virus/contagion of JEWISH NEUROSIS (of which Shelps and Levine are acute sufferers), gone mad: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1551.shtml The new anti-Semitism?, by Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada, June 3, 2003 "Anti-Semitism, like some plague-inducing virus, is 'evolving' -- or so warns Holocaust scholar Daniel J. Goldhagen in the American Jewish weekly The Forward. According to the author, the lessons of the Holocaust are slowly being forgotten and a 'free-floating' globalised hatred of Jews is being spread via the Internet and television. Goldhagen's piece, 'The Globalisation of anti-Semitism,' is one of the latest contributions to a growing body of reports by American and Israeli journalists and research centres purporting to show that a powerful new strain of racism is sweeping the globe. None of the authors is as disinterested as he claims: each hopes to silence criticism of both Israel and the muscular Zionist lobby groups within Washington that support Israel. Goldhagen's trick is to turn traditional Christian anti-Semitism on its head. Where once the anti-Semites accused the Jews of being the contagion carriers -- harming their neighbours by spreading their uniquely 'diseased' financial, professional and moral ideas -- now it is the non-Jew who must be quarantined. We are all anti-Semites unless we can prove otherwise. 'Globalized anti-Semitism has become part of the substructure of prejudice in the world,' Goldhagen writes. 'It is relentlessly international in its focus on Israel at the center of the most conflict-ridden region today, and on the United States as the world's omnipresent power.' The rise of Arab anti-Semitism, which has no obvious connection to historic European hatred of Jews, is explained away: 'Essentially, Europe has exported its classical racist and Nazi anti-Semitism to Arab countries, which they then applied to Israel and Jews in general." The process, however, has not stopped there, according to Goldhagen. "Then the Arab countries re-exported the new hybrid demonology back to Europe and, using the United Nations and other international institutions, to other countries around the world. In Germany, France, Great Britain and elsewhere, today's intensive anti-Semitic expression and agitation uses old tropes once applied to local Jews -- charges of sowing disorder, wanting to subjugate others -- with new content overwhelmingly directed at Jews outside their countries." The only way to prove one is not infected, Goldhagen implies, is by abstaining from any criticism of Israel and Zionist influences -- Christian as well as Jewish -- currently dominating Washington's policy-making circles ... The diagnosis from Goldhagen and others is that we, the non-Jews, are doomed to our age-old racism. It's in our genes: we are born in thrall to our prejudice. Where does such a thesis lead? In another time and place, it may -- like other philosophies of uniqueness and disease that preceded it -- take us along a route that leads to the horrible gas chambers of a warped imagination." Jews and the "Weather Underground" film Posted on June 4, 2003 at 09:14:38 PM by mg Another Jewish in-house dialogue: Jews make a film about the radical Weather Underground who -- surprise!-- were mostly Jews. Yet another Jewish communist angle. The filmmakers are Jewish, as are the following in the film: Rudd, Dohrn, Jaffe, Gilbert, Gitlin http://www.nypress.com/16/23/film/film2.cfm Molotov Memories Or, whitey on the moon,New York Press "Every documentary has a subject, but a good documentary also evinces a theme. The Weather Underground pursues those white student radicals of the 60s who split off from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to form a more desperate sect of bomb-planting revolutionaries. Their disgust with American policy during the Vietnam War was a particular expression of generational backlash. These former students were in a position to take issue with all the benefits of skin and caste they enjoyed. Acting upon their embarrassed self-awareness as fortunate whites, they felt, as one interviewee says, 'a duty and an obligation' to overthrow what they clearly perceived as a 'racist, genocidal, unjust' government. When the crazed dream disintegrated, and after years of hiding from the FBI, they came back to society as professors, local activists, virtually anonymous Americans. Filmmakers Sam Green and Bill Siegel cleverly pace the interviews with telephoto shots of crowds on streets and in corridors: Anywhere. Anyone. A totally successful re-integration. It’s a story that has gone back underground. Today, it’s an almost forgotten history carrying an archaic sense that being young meant devotion to an idea and a passion for issues. But The Weather Underground is most interesting when forcing those old radicals into self-examination. They’re brought close to realizing that though times have changed, youthful recklessness has not. Mark Rudd admits mixed feelings: "Knowledge of the U.S.’s position in the world was too big. I still don’t know what to do with it." Some, like Naomi Jaffe and David Gilbert, haven’t entirely let go. Others remain embittered, like Bernardine Dohrn, now married to Bill Ayers and with two children. Dohrn still wears that 'I have nothing to smile about' look on her face that she had when a young firebrand. Now chagrined, they have some small understanding that their dangerous folly ('like a Children’s crusade gone mad') was an excess of privilege and timeless naivete. Some of this realization comes post 9/11 ... Mark Rudd is quoted: 'I cherished my hate as moral superiority'—a confession of blistering honesty that conveys the heat of privileged activism. Something more was going on than kids acting on principle. And arrogance wasn’t just a trait of the dangerous ones. An SDS conservative, Todd Gitlin, is interviewed about the 1968 convention that saw the group splintered ... They dared to challenge: 'White youth must choose sides now. You’re either one of the oppressed or one of the oppressors.' That only sounds simple; it’s a complicated truism you’ll never hear from Eminem." Jewish Porn Film Mogul Posted on June 5, 2003 at 01:15:39 AM by mg FIRM needs a subdivision for Jewish hegemony in the porno movie world, which is an off-shoot of Jewish Hollywood. Van Nuys, in the San Fernando Valley, is the largest porno production area in the world. It too is Jewish-dominated. And, like Jewish-dominated Las Vegas, it readjusts traditional values to hedonistic decadence: See, for example: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/criporn.htm http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,1640,49603,00.html Prime-Time Porn Borrowing tactics from the old Hollywood studios, Vivid Entertainment has ditched the plain brown wrapper and is taking the multibillion-dollar sex-film industry mainstream, By Paul Keegan, Business 2.0, June 2003 Issue "On a sunny day in New York City, Steve Hirsch ... switches off CNN and goes right for the porn channel. "These are mostly video compilations," he says dismissively as he flips past the ads -- Extra Busty Beauties, Real Hard Sex, More Dripping Wet Sex, Lots of Filthy Sex, Filthy Sex Fantasies -- then stops. 'Here we go.' It's a glitzy head shot of Jenna Jameson, the reigning superstar of porn, appearing in her latest release, I Dream of Jenna, billed as 'a comical adventure with 10 of the nastiest sex scenes ever filmed!' Hirsch is 41 years old. He has a broad, handsome face and deep California tan, and he wears his collar open, revealing glimpses of a massive chest earned from pumping iron three days a week. Jameson's film is just what he was looking for -- not a compilation of steamy scenes but an actual movie with a story line, high production values, and a star-studded cast led by the vixen he calls 'by far the biggest star in the history of the adult business.' But Hirsch won't actually watch this movie -- he couldn't care less about Jameson's sexual escapades. What really turns him on is the business of porn. Nineteen years ago, he and a partner scraped together $20,000 to found Vivid Entertainment of Van Nuys, Calif. Today, Hirsch is a multimillionaire, Vivid is the biggest XXX film studio in the world, with revenue estimated at $100 million, and it has Jameson locked up in a seven-year deal. More important, Hirsch is the executive most responsible for transforming a disreputable underground industry into a mainstream, multibillion-dollar business. It now sends hard-core movies to TV screens across America through hotel chains like Marriott (MAR) and Hilton (HLT) and satellite and cable operators Comcast (CMCSK), DirecTV, and AOL Time Warner (AOL) (publisher of this magazine) and is turning unknown strippers and models into celebrities overnight. You've probably never heard of Steve Hirsch -- and that's how he likes it. He'd rather have you focus on his Vivid Girls, porn stars he began manufacturing in 1984 by bringing back the old Hollywood contract system ... Jenna Jameson, porn's top star, gets royal treatment -- and brings in an estimated $15 million a year. All of which makes this soft-spoken businessman a striking emblem of what's happened to the world of porn in recent years. As the industry has grown to proportions befitting its obsession with size -- altogether, magazines, movies, websites, sex toys, phone lines, and strip clubs account for somewhere between $4 billion and $10 billion annually -- it has become so complex and competitive that only the smartest, soberest business minds can prosper. And though the XXX film business was once considered the sleazy underbelly of Hollywood, today Hirsch< lectures at the USC Business School and has a Dartmouth grad and MBA as co-chairman of his firm." Antisemite's obsession with Jews gone beserk Posted on June 5, 2003 at 05:11:14 AM by Mitchell Levine www.jewishtribalreview.org Re(1): Antisemite's obsession with Jews gone beserk Posted on June 7, 2003 at 02:56:03 AM by James Jaeger >They should be able to just program them into whatever mode they wish! The studio control group (the MPAA studio/distributors, a.k.a. "Hollywood") is trying to do something pretty similar to that right now in that they are seeking to tie up the computer code that would allow movies to be responsibly networked within the home by means of emerging WiFi technology and the new CODEC that Microsoft has created (Media 9) that will bypass the inordinately lengthy MPEG deliberations, a CODEC that provides VASTLY SUPERIOR image quality (resolution) ON A PC as compared to any non-PC media device (such as a DVD player, VCR or TV, digital or analog).(1) Here’s an excerpt from a WIRED article on the issue of control as it pertains to Hollywood and Microsoft: "But outsiders warn that the recording and film industries are not about to substitute marketplace experimentation for plying Capital Hill. Microsoft may consider legislation to be poison. To Hollywood, it's Valium. 'The IT guys don't think of integrating into the Washington power structure. The Hollywood guys do that like breathing,' says Mike Godwin, senior technology counsel for Public Knowledge, a tech policy organization. 'This is a real philosophical battle between sectors. If you told the major studios they could either make twice as much money or have more control, they'd pick more control. Same of Microsoft.'" To those who think Hollywood's basic motivation is money, and that every decision is "just modern economics," I would say wake up. James Jaeger --------------------- (1) For details, see the article about Hollywood's fight with Microsoft in the latest edition of WIRED (July 2003) Re(2): Antisemite's obsession with Jews gone beserk Posted on June 7, 2003 at 03:29:06 AM by Mitchell Levine To anyone so incredibly disingenuous as to suggest for a moment that Hollywood's basic motivation ISN'T money, I would say "wake up!" How gullible do you think people are? If not, then please give me an example of a project you've seen green-lighted that wasn't intended to make money. No one who's ever had even the slightest contact with the business could possibly believe that for a minute. Executives fear losing money worse then the rest of the world fears death! By the way, the thing you mention concerning Codec has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the point I was making in the quote you post. What I was saying is that the rabid obsession with marketing research and audience testing displayed by the studios and networks undermines your theory that the existence of "patterns of bias" in the entertainment industry is due to the supposed ethnic homogenity displayed in the top management of the studios, because "producers make films that reflect their interests." All available evidence indicates that the studios seek to make movies that reflect their potential AUDIENCE'S interests, so as to entice them to buy tickets. That's why they're always using every statistical means, demographic skew, and testing methodology they can to discover what the audience wants, so they can give it to them. Prejudices displayed in films are primarily the AUDIENCES, which is a cross-section of the mass of society. That's why they tabulate Q ratings, convene focus groups to audience-test endings and concepts, calculate demographic skews, etc. If the theory that the monolithic Jewish media control group in fact possesses omnipotent mind-controlling power was accurate, there would be no need for the vast research industry, because they wouldn't need to know what the audience thought - they could just force them to want whatever they'd like. The point you bring up is completely superfluous and totally unrelated to the topic under discussion Microsoft vs Hollywood Posted on June 7, 2003 at 03:06:30 AM by James Jaeger The studio control group (the MPAA studio/distributors, a.k.a. "Hollywood") is trying to tie up the computer code that would allow movies to be responsibly networked within the home by means of emerging WiFi technology and the new CODEC that Microsoft has created (Media 9) that will bypass the inordinately lengthy MPEG deliberations, a CODEC that provides VASTLY SUPERIOR image quality (resolution) ON A PC as compared to any non-PC media device (such as a DVD player, VCR or TV, digital or analog). The issue comes down to this: Either Microsoft and its allied PC-centric industries/methodologies will control the future of filmed entertainment OR the MPAA studio distributors will control the future of filmed entertainment by attempting to hold Microsoft and PC-centric firms hostage to their content base. Microsoft will inevitably win and Hollywood's days are numbered for the following reasons: 1. The movie-going audience is on Microsoft's side because they just want content cheap and anyway they can get it, on all devices possible. 2. Technology is on Microsoft's side because computer code and digital technology will increasingly govern the production of motion pictures, digital talent, connectivity, security, special FXs, delivery and recoupment. 3. The Internet, as an alternative distribution network, is on Microsoft's side because it removes the studio/distributors’ monopoly on distribution, hence financing. 4. The fact that the Independents are by far the majority content providers works in Microsoft's favor because this takes the premium off the studios’ content, especially as quality increases (due to technology) and production funding becomes more abundant (due to alternative distribution without "creative accounting"). 5. The probability that Microsoft represents the first Bose-Einstein condescent we have ever seen in a scale-free network (i.e., the network of Windows operating system users forms a scale-free network that now makes it almost a physical impossibility that any other corporation (or group of corporations, such as the MPAA studios) will be able to dominate the OS infrastructure of the PC-centric market. Not even Unix, Linux, Sun or Mac (which Hollywood predominantly uses), comes even close to Microsoft’s 86% market share in the OS universe. Here’s an excerpt from a WIRED article on the issue of control as it pertains to Hollywood and Microsoft: "But outsiders warn that the recording and film industries are not about to substitute marketplace experimentation for plying Capital Hill. Microsoft may consider legislation to be poison. To Hollywood, it's Valium. 'The IT guys don't think of integrating into the Washington power structure. The Hollywood guys do that like breathing,' says Mike Godwin, senior technology counsel for Public Knowledge, a tech policy organization. 'This is a real philosophical battle between sectors. If you told the major studios they could either make twice as much money or have more control, they'd pick more control. Same of Microsoft.'" To those who think Hollywood's basic motivation is money, and that every decision is "just modern economics," I would say wake up. James Jaeger ------------------------- (1) For details, see the article about Hollywood's fight with Microsoft in the latest edition of WIRED (July 2003). Media and Sports article? Posted on June 7, 2003 at 09:21:22 PM by Moishe Media and Sports article? Or a discussion of Jewish networking/spider webbing? (Remember, all 4 of today's major professional U.S. sports commissioners are Jewish: Tagliabue (football), Stern (basketball), Selig (baseball), and Bettman (hockey). Can you pick out the six Jews in the following article? ABC Hopes NBA Can Rebuild Momentum, by Rudy Martzke, USA TODAY, June 6, 2003, p. 2C "The NBA Finals hardly seem to be capturing the public's imagination ... "Im sure ABC and ESPN are worried,' says Larry Novenstern, whose Deutsch Inc. ad agency represents NBA sponsors Mitsubishi and Expedia.com ... ESPN/ABC offered make-good ads starting in Game 1 of the Finals, Novenstern said. TNT, with playoff ratings up 28%, does not have to, President David Levy said ... NBA Commissioner David Stern told the Mike and the Mad Dog Show this week on New York's WFAN radio, "You are absolutely right. Fewer people will watch on a cable network than on a broadcast channel ..." ABC's vice president Mark Mandel and ESPN programming production chief Mark Shapiro are upbeat ... ESPN is close to signing former UCLA coach Steve Lavin as a basketball analyst." Re(1): Media and Sports article? Posted on June 7, 2003 at 09:50:43 PM by Mitchell Levine Notice that the only "crime" these people can be accused of is simply being Jewish. And the Jewish Tribal Review is anti-bigotry! Re(2): Media and Sports article? Posted on June 7, 2003 at 09:55:47 PM by mg JTR points out the incestuous current in popular culture so that we all may rethink Jewish cultural hegemony towards justice and a a TRUE democracy. Ethnocenric "bigots" like yourself try to brand the investigation Jewish bigotry and obsessive ethnocentrism as bigotry itself. You are failing in your attempt. Sorry. As long as the flood of Jewish bigotry and incestuous self-promotion exists everywhere in culture, the potential for new media posts about it will be just about daily. Levine, you are sticking one of your appendages into the hole in the dike to prevent the public from rethinking Jewish influence and dominance, but when the dike blows, lots of people are going to be hollering in your ear. Better to admit Jewish hegemony, and announce the problem to the public in small increments, don't you think? Sitting on a pressure cooker ain't the way to go. And continuous denying of the problem only paints you deeper into the Nest of Fraud. Re(3): Media and Sports article? Posted on June 7, 2003 at 10:04:13 PM by Mitchell Levine No, you idiot, YOU define the refusal to let your bigotry, lies, and horseshit stand unchallenged as "bigotry." There is no "hegemony," asshole - just American citizens excercising their rights. The only "fraud" is your attempt to pervert democracy, which the Founding Fathers designed to prevent themselves from being treated the way you wish to handle Jews - you've already gone on record as calling for pogroms. Every time one of your lies is exposed, you just move on to one more. People aren't stupid. They know what a hate group is, and that's what you are. Re(4): Media and Sports article? Posted on June 8, 2003 at 00:21:46 AM by mg No, "you idiot," YOU steadfastly man the bastion of Jewish bigotry against all those who dare to challenge it. In your world view, "American citizens excercising their rights" is something akin to the impoverished who "choose" to live in their ghettos, right? Those who are crushed by the Jewish Propaganda Machine CHOOSE it, yes? You are such a fraudster that you claim I advocate "pogroms." By that token, if making things up is fair game for you, you've claimed twice here to be the Messiah and I think it's time you committed yourself to round-the-clock observation. The struggle for justice against any exploiter isn't "hate." But activism in support of a racist, ethnocentric status quo IS. That's where you come in. Repent, "hater." Let's all pray for an end to Jewish bigotry NOW. Re(5): Media and Sports article? Posted on June 8, 2003 at 00:48:42 AM by Mitchell Levine "YOU SAY: And after they stand up and say this, what next? RESPONSE: Political activism. Whatever the "people" decide. Democracy in action." You know exactly what you meant, fraudster! Democracy is when people live under the rule of the Constitution, which specifically grants Jews the equal right to pursue success in the movie business as everyone else. That success does not constitute "bigotry," and whether or not you like it is irrelevant. Success by Jews at levels that activate your prejudices does not in any way constitute exploitation or hegemony, as the Constitution specifically grants each of those individuals the right to their success, if they can achieve it. You don't have a right to dictate what ethnic groups are entitled to be baseball commisioners, technological innovators, or Hollywood executives, nor does anyone else, especially considering that you have no evidence that those individuals achieved their positions for any reasons other than their own competence. Nothing you can do will ever change that. The only justice is your own personal continued social marginalization. Re(6): Media and Sports article? Posted on June 9, 2003 at 10:31:07 PM by mg Democracy has been completely coopted by monied interests; prominent among them are Jews. One person=one vote is nothing compared to the media monopoly machine (and attendant Judeocentric Lobby) that shapes what people think. "Democracy" has been raped by guys like you. Democracy didn't originally mean "Those who can buy influence, rule." You're confusing "democracy" with a berserk capitalism. Democracy and capitalism are not equal concepts. One has coopted the other. Judeocentric interests are major players in this subversion. YOU SAY: You don't have a right to dictate what ethnic groups are entitled to be baseball commisioners, technological innovators, or Hollywood executives, nor does anyone else, especially considering that you have no evidence that those individuals achieved their positions for any reasons other than their own RESPONSE: We may take your logic and apply it to plantation slaveholders, British colonialism, etc. Social Darwinism. Those who band towards power, rule. In your morals and logic, that's fine. No one under the thumb of Judeocentrism has the right to protest, because the Jewish Web is a manifestation of "democracy." It is NOT a manifestation of democracy. It is an expression of a power group who have seized to much of the steering wheel, and who guide us all towards their chauvinistic interests. As you know. Nothing new to you here. Re(6): Media and Sports article? Posted on June 8, 2003 at 01:00:08 AM by Mitchell Levine By the way, are you the Stu Harvey in Detroit that registered the jewishtribalreview.org domain? Re(7): Media and Sports article? Posted on June 9, 2003 at 10:54:23 PM by Boris No. I'm the "Tharsaille" in Los Angeles. Re(7): Media and Sports article? Posted on June 10, 2003 at 01:04:31 AM by Mitchell Levine No, you cannot apply that logic to plantation slave-holders or British colonialism because one of those activities is illegal and unconstitutional; the other the actions of a foreign government outside the boundary of the U.S. Constitution - unlike being a baseball commisioner, technology innovator, or Hollywood executive. As all of the latter are perfectly legal, constitutionally sanctioned activities, the Constitution - the heart of democracy - forbids disallowing the people you slander their posts simply because you happen to be psychotically prejudiced against them. Democracy has always meant one thing: rule by the representatives duly elected by the people UNDER the rule of the Constitution. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that the above-mentioned individuals have broken the law, which you neither you nor Jaeger and Cones ever have, then all your meaningless rhetoric cannot change the fact that the Founding Fathers disagreed with your irrational hatred. In fact, they became the Founding Fathers just to escape it. If the "media monopoly machine" was so omnipotent in its power to force people to agree with it against their will, it wouldn't need to calculate endless indices, skews, ratings, and chi-tests to figure out what its' audience wanted: it could just force it to want whatever it wished. Maintaining that Jews have the equal right to their success DOES NOT constitute either "Judeocentricism" or "bigotry," and neither does a refusal to let your lies and illogical horseshit stand unchallenged. Resistance to bigotry isn't bigotry. Article written for Shelps Posted on June 7, 2003 at 09:29:00 PM by mg This article was tailor-made written for George Shelps, illustrating clearly what a fool he is with his love affair with the racist Jewish state that even loathes Christianity. Shelps, you're suck a sucker to the Jewish Lobby that they call you "Tootsee-Roll-Pop" behind your back. Shelps! Stop kissing Jewish Butt and let your lips grow back! http://www.counterpunch.org/gancarski06062003.html Nathan Sharansky's View of Jesus "Crucifixion is a Privilege", By ANTHONY GANCARSKI, CounterPunch, June 6, 2003 "Never let it be said that Israeli Cabinet Minister Natan Sharansky doesn't know how to cut a promo. On the June 2 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal Sharansky, who the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel dubbed 'the long-imprisoned symbol of the Jewish struggle for freedom and human rights', was asked by a caller to reconcile Jewish support for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth [apparently, said caller had access to the Zogby of the day] with the idea that 'Jews... are the Chosen People.' To me, the caller sounded like a garden-variety heckler, the kind a slick operator like Sharansky, recently lauded by the Jerusalem Post for having 'opened his traditionally Russian-based party to the Anglo community', should've been able to squash with just a smile and a reminder to C-Span viewers to support their local AIPAC representative. After all, the former Soviet Refusenik wasn't in Washington to enjoy the June balm; a cynic might suggest that it was Natan's 'turn' to bid for Congressional contributions. But I digress. How did Sharansky respond to this heckler? In a long-winded fashion, he explained that Israel [and by extension, all of those who keep the Jewish Sabbath] have special prerogatives, responsibilities to God and his creation due to their unique positioning in Yahweh's eyes. So long-winded was Sharansky's response, in fact, that one could've missed him saying that 'the crucifixion of Christ' was a 'privilege.' Mistakes happen, apparently, and Messiahs get offed. Sharansky, who thought Jonathan Pollard deserved to be freed, since he committed espionage not for an enemy but for one of America's many friends in the world, is entirely willing -- on a fund-raising trip to the US, no less! -- to write off the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth as a clerical error. Sharansky, who in 1997 denied that such an entity as the 'Russian mafia' existed, right around the time he threatened to bolt from the Israeli guvmint because his party didn't have final say on who the Israeli Ambassador to Moscow would be, cuts quite the figure. In a country where politicians have built careers around piddly crap like cutting funding to the NEA, leading the charge against flag-burning, and protecting our nation's youth from the menace of reefers, or blunts, or whatever the rappers call them on ClearChannel radio these days, Sharansky makes light of the crucifixion of Christ in the United States. May I remind Sharansky why that's a problem? The United States, nominally a Judeo-Christian nation, fortifies Israel in no small part because of the Christian Zionist assumption that such profligate aid buys certain Christians the best possible seats for the impending end times. A lucrative cottage industry, the US-Israel alliance, as everyone from Pat Robertson to Bill Kristol can attest. But loose talk like Sharansky's will undermine the foundation of that cottage, built on the illusory foundation that there is such a thing as a shared 'Judeo-Christian' interest to use Israel as a pivot point for US domination of what is called the Middle East. No skin off my nose, though. I know why Sharansky, an advocate of massive Russian immigration into the war-torn state of Israel, has come to America. To secure another billion, or two. To remind Congress that the last few dozen stragglers who refuse Israel unconditional support need to be purged. To observe the American scene. And it's just as well that his trip stateside coincided with the President's absence. If Bush had heard Sharansky, who accepted $85,000 in 'charities' from Israeli convict Grigory Lerner [international embezzler, with ties to the apparently mythical Russian Mafia], downplay the significance of Christ's crucifixion by claiming that it's just another 'privilege' due 'the Chosen People', he may have choked on a pretzel." Re(1): Article written for Shelps Posted on June 7, 2003 at 09:56:45 PM by Mitchell Levine Notice this was posted by a guy whom himself DENIES THAT THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY GOD! What an opportunist! Yeah, Jenks, that really proves all Jews hate Christians. Re(1): Article written for Shelps Posted on June 9, 2003 at 02:13:59 AM by George Shelps Just picked up on this thread, starting with the original article. No, Jenks, I support Israel as a homeland for an oppressed minority and in compensation for the Holocaust....I don't agree with Judaism when it comes to Jesus or Christianity, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Israel should be supported. Re(2): Article written for Shelps Posted on June 7, 2003 at 10:03:29 PM by mg Jewish detesting of Christ is intrinsic to Jewish folk and identity tradition. YOU KNOW THAT, you fraudster! Sharansky isn't a corner bagel pusher. He was the "Russian Jewish victim" poster boy who American Jewry rallied around and now he's a major player in the Israeli government. He spoke what Jews think. Jewish tradition takes statisfaction in their alleged crucifixion of Christ. You know it. I know it. In all fairness, don't you think Elmer Fudd Shelps ought to know? Re(2): Article written for Shelps Posted on June 9, 2003 at 10:47:14 PM by mg YOU SAY: ... for an oppressed minority and in compensation for the Holocaust ... RESPONSE: To call Jews "an oppressed minority" is one of the most grotesquely STUPID statements I have ever heard. They are among the economic and political elite in just about every country they are in today. And by what right do you serve as an activist to punish the Palestinian people for your beliefs about the European-oriented "Holocaust?" Who do you think you are, God? Re(3): Article written for Shelps Posted on June 7, 2003 at 10:07:23 PM by Mitchell Levine YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN! YOU DON'T THINK SHELPS REALIZES THAT?!!! Detesting a man who preached "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love thine enemies" is something no rational person would ever do. And I've never met anyone who hated Christ, except you. Re(4): Article written for Shelps Posted on June 8, 2003 at 00:15:26 AM by mg Christ is fine by me. Bear in mind he LEFT the Jewish fold. Emphatically. He is, in Jewish lore, the consummate Jewish betrayer. Christian universalism and afterlife emphasis has NOTHING to do with traditional Judaism. Christ is the guy who overturned all the Jewish moneychangers at the temple (something they were "forced into" in Europe, right?) Zionist "Jerusalem Post" FINALLY Gets It Right Posted on June 8, 2003 at 05:23:47 PM by Moishe the Goyim Editorial: How about a Jewish state? If yesterday's summit in Sharm e-Sheikh is any measure, President George W. Bush's efforts to create a new Middle East are stalled. There could hardly be a greater contradiction between Bush's clarion calls and bold action for freedom, and the leaders he failed to challenge at that Egyptian resort. At the same moment that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is being urged to all but tattoo on his arm his commitment to a Palestinian state, the Arab side is not being asked to even hint at its acceptance of a Jewish state. What is the grand result of the Sharm summit? President Hosni Mubarak pledged that the Arab states would fund only the Palestinian Authority. He admitted, in other words, that organizations that are openly committed to terrorism, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, were still receiving financial support from Arab countries. It is, of course, encouraging that now, 22 months after September 11, and 33 months after the current Palestinian jihad began, the Arab states have committed to stop the funding of terrorism. It is also nice to hear them say that terror has no justification, no matter what the cause. And it is significant that the Arab states have now participated in the US-led boycott of Yasser Arafat. But isn't Bush's bar being held a bit low? Why, after all, are there two summits, yesterday's in Sharm and today's in Aqaba? Because Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, the author of the much-lauded Saudi peace plan, could not sit at the same table with Israel's prime minister. This is progress? This is the new Middle East? Twelve years ago in Madrid, the Saudis and even the Syrians sat with prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, who would not have uttered the words "Palestinian state" under pain of death. If Bush wants to get anywhere with this, he must stop avoiding and accommodating Arab intransigence and deploy the moral clarity that has been his hallmark. He must call the Arab world to end the conflict it began, not in 1967, but in 1947, when it rejected the United Nation's partition of this land into "Arab" and "Jewish" states. Today, the issue is not Israelis who cannot utter the words "Palestinian state," but Arab leaders Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and Mubarak who cannot utter the words "Jewish state." Like the defunct Cold War, the Arab-Israeli conflict is not symmetrical, but a matter of aggression and expansionism by one side and self-defense by the other. No non-Muslim nation has ever supported the Arab insistence that Israel is illegitimate, yet the West has continued to tiptoe around Arab aggression, rather than reject it head on. Let us not delude ourselves. Peace will be produced not by diplomacy, but by an Arab decision to accept not only Israel's de facto existence, but its legitimacy as a Jewish state. Diplomacy that allows the Arab world to dodge this fundamental issue not only invites failure, but could actually set back the cause of peace. At stake now is not only Arab-Israeli peace, but America's entire war against the terrorist network. Either the war in Iraq was a worthy but isolated purging of tyranny or, as Bush declared on the USS Abraham Lincoln, "a crucial advance in the campaign against terror." What we see now is a US government that seems to have put Palestinian statehood at the top of its post-Iraq agenda. We are not against a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state, but if this cause is to be integrated into the war against terrorism, its focus must be changed. The old myth was that the lack of a Palestinian state was what was preventing peace. The new realization should be that Arab acceptance of Israel's legitimacy is peace, and that statehood will be a byproduct of ending the attempt to drive Israel into the sea. Destroying Israel remains a critical plank of the militant Islamic agenda, and Palestinian statehood has for decades been seen by the Arab world as a means to that goal. If militant Islam is America's target, it should be focusing on destabilizing Iran and demanding up front that the Arab world speak, not just of Israel, but a Jewish state. Then we will know that we are on our way to a new Middle East, rather than more of the same. Re(1): Zionist Posted on June 8, 2003 at 06:39:20 PM by Mitchell Levine You psychotic idiot, did you even bother reading this before you posted it? The point of the article is that it's the PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY's rejection of Israel's right to exist that's holding up the peace process, NOT an Israeli refusal of Palestinian nationalism. This article is CRITICAL of your bullshit, irrational propaganda hate mythology. PLEASE TRY AND GET A BRAIN BEFORE OPENING YOUR MOUTH! Someone at your inane hate site must have one! Note: I know that will never happen, it's rhetorical. Re(2): Zionist Posted on June 9, 2003 at 10:39:26 PM by Mitchell Levine Hey Levine. Two can play at this game. I'm Mitchell Levine. And I confess. I'm a Jewish bigot. Forgive me for crucifying Jesus. I personally pounded the nails in. More "Neo-Con" Nonsense Posted on June 8, 2003 at 05:27:37 PM by Moishe the Goyim How about a non-Oslo approach?, By Charles Krauthammer On May 23, just a week ago, the official newspaper of the supposedly reformed Palestinian Authority carried a front-page picture of the latest suicide bomber dressed in suicide-bomber regalia. It then referred to the place where she did her murdering as "occupied Afula.'' The town of Afula is in Israel's Galilee. It is not occupied. It is not in the West Bank or Gaza. It is within Israel. If Afula is occupied, then Tel Aviv is occupied, Haifa is occupied, and Israel's very existence is a crime. This bit of incitement and delegitimation was, to my knowledge, reported in not a single American newspaper. It is simply too routine. It is the everyday stuff of Palestinian newspapers and television, schoolbooks, and sermons. Appearing, however, after the Palestinians had presumably adopted new leadership committed to (1) ending terrorism and (2) accepting Israel, this outrage caught the eye of Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Satloff brought it to American attention, noting that "It is difficult to imagine a more chilling message to Israelis who doubt Palestinian commitment to a two-state solution." President Bush, engaging his personal prestige in the Arab-Israeli peace process, is headed to Middle East summits in Egypt and Jordan. He is in danger, however, of heading straight back to Oslo, that eight-year exercise in delusion and self-deception that led to the bloodiest fighting between Israelis and Palestinians in 50 years. Dennis Ross, chief US negotiator through the Oslo process, has admitted that one of the great failings of Oslo was the willful refusal of both Americans and Israelis hungry for peace to confront Palestinian violations of the agreements, most notably the incitement to kill Jews and the constant propaganda delegitimizing Israel's right to exist. There was some hope for change when Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) became Palestinian prime minister and spoke of ending the violence and accepting Israel. But as of now, Abbas has done nothing. And just this week Yasser Arafat demonstrated who is the real boss of the Palestinians when he deliberately forced a postponement of a summit meeting between Abbas and Ariel Sharon. Until Abbas is in control, the US president's visit will constitute a reward for nothing more than cosmetic reform. THE ONLY logic of Bush's visit is that perhaps a photo-op with the president of the United States will elevate Abbas and give him the authority to do what he has to do. But the premise of the president's Middle East policy, announced June 24, 2002, was that the United States would help the Palestinians achieve statehood in response to real Palestinian reform, not just words. Moreover, the road map for peace, which the Palestinians say they have accepted, explicitly demands of the Palestinian leadership "sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure." Abbas is talking very differently. His objective, he says, is to persuade the suicide bombing specialists Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades to accept a temporary cease-fire. This would be a disaster for any prospect of peace. It means that the terrorists who have been hunted down by Israel ever since it finally decided to strike back after the Passover massacre of 2002 would receive immediate sanctuary time to rebuild, regroup, rearm, and prepare for the next, more deadly orgy of violence. If what Abbas means by "peace" is that the terrorists just lie low for a while, then it is not a peace of the brave but a peace of the knave. If that is what President Bush accepts as "peace," he not only will have betrayed Israel, he will have doomed American policy because he will have ratified a prescription for continued and much more bloody violence. The requirements of a successful summit are clear. Abbas has to take real steps to curb terror. Let him begin in just one city. Israel will withdraw, but only if Abbas asserts authority and actually goes after the terrorists in that town. No revolving-door arrests. No temporary cease-fire. Nothing less than "sustained ... operations aimed at ... dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure." And Abbas has to do something even simpler: Stop official Palestinian media from extolling suicide bombers. Stop official Palestinian media from referring to Israel as occupied territory. Talk about peace in Arabic, not just in English the way Anwar Sadat did 25 years ago. Israel reciprocated then; it will reciprocate now. Without such elemental steps by Abbas, however, no peace is possible and the new Bush peace initiative will amount to nothing more than Oslo redux. Re(1): More Posted on June 9, 2003 at 10:33:31 PM by The Real Moishe Well, someone is coopting my nomer: Moishe the Goyim. These last couple of postings weren't mine. So long as they're just articles, I guess it's no big deal. But readers should realize with multiple Goyims posting here now, the CONTENT is the issue, and not the poster. Correction Posted on June 9, 2003 at 10:36:58 PM by the Real Moishe So, I read the article. Charles Krauthammer is Jewish, and Judeocentric. Someone has co-opted "Moishe the Goyim" to post pro-Jewish garbage. This is probably another Levine trick to subvert open public discourse. But, hey, I'll just shift names, and post the good stuff. People can sort through all the garbage for the truth. Re(1): Correction Posted on June 9, 2003 at 11:59:38 PM by Mitchell Levine Sorry, jackass, no such luck. By the way, you never answered my question: are you the Stu Harvey of Detroit, Michigan that's listed as the domain registrant of your site? More Jewish Fraud Posted on June 9, 2003 at 10:43:53 PM by Zorro The name "Moishe the Goyim" has been stolen by some Jewish fraudster (no doubt Levine) because there is no Jewish recourse but to try and confuse all issues. This is what Thedore Herzl (the "father" of Zionism) called "noise" (propaganda/smokescreens). So at this point, posted names mean nothing. It's up for the reader to sift through more Jewish games and trickery to understand the REAL. This little event only underscores a common expression in Jewish popular discourse: lies, chicanery, and fraud. Hey, don't worry. Sure you're overmatched with the Truth. The Truth will just keep popping up under other names. Re(1): More Jewish Fraud Posted on June 10, 2003 at 00:11:47 AM by Mitchell Levine Bullshit. You're incompetent to determine "truth"; to do that requires the functional capacity to distinguish between fantasy and reality, something you're obviously totally incapable of. No one needs to resort to lies or chicanery to deal with you. They can continue to do exactly what gets done to you every time you post: easily logically refute your inane, hilariously incoherent, factually ignorant, childish horseshit. That's all anyone needs to do, and given your terminal lack of demonstrable intellectual aptitude, it's not exactly tough. Re(1): More Jewish Fraud Posted on June 10, 2003 at 01:13:28 AM by Mitchell Levine This whole thing's a bullshit front: no one that would bother to buzz-kill you would ever title the post: "Zionist 'Jewish Forward' FINALLY gets it right." Only an anti-zionist would have expressed that term as tacitly perjorative. You just invented this crap as a cover for failing to read the thing before you posted it, in your zeal to register one more slander against Jews. Re(2): More Jewish Fraud Posted on June 10, 2003 at 00:16:39 AM by Weinberg Hmmm. You don't really state anything in your comment above, except spew vomit. Perhaps you need to take a course in something where you can actually accomplish something within your intellectual and moral realm: making jello? Re(3): More Jewish Fraud Posted on June 10, 2003 at 01:07:12 AM by Mitchell Levine Apparently, your "intellectual realm" doesn't include the realization that as a proper noun, "Jello" must be capitalized. And you edit a website? Mel Gibson Persecuted By Jews and Their Lackies Posted on June 9, 2003 at 11:16:58 PM by Hector Jews and their lackies "want changes" in Gibson's script. So what else is new? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32987 Mel Gibson to sue religious groups? Actor reportedly threatened to file suit over criticism of Jesus film, World Net Daily, June 9, 2003 "Actor-director Mel Gibson is preparing to fight back against religious groups that have criticized his portrayal of Jews in his new film about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, reports the Melbourne Herald Sun. According to the paper, Gibson has threatened lawsuits against both the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League. The groups have been critical of Gibson's film portrayal of Jewish complicity in the execution of Christ. The actor reportedly is part of a traditionalist Catholic movement that holds to the belief that Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. The movement rejects changes made in Catholic doctrine in the '60s that eliminated the emphasis on Jewish guilt, the Herald Sun reports. Gibson's film, 'The Passion,' finished shooting in Rom last month. The dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, but no subtitles will be included. According to the paper, Sister Mary Boys, professor of practical theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said, 'The Anti-Defamation League and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reviewed the script and we wrote a report that was sent to Mr. Gibson's company. 'We have concerns about the role of Jews in the movie and we were hoping to get some changes. Mr. Gibson's company has retaliated by threatening a lawsuit.'As WorldNetDaily reported, Gibson has lashed out against those he says were planning to 'dig up dirt' on him and his family. "Whenever you take up a subject like [Christ's crucifixion] it does bring out a lot of enemies," he said." Re(1): Mel Gibson Persecuted By Jews and Their Lackies Posted on June 10, 2003 at 00:29:06 AM by Mitchell Levine Of course, obviously Jews should WISH to be portrayed as somehow collectively responsible for killing Christ, regardless of the fact that propagation of this myth led directly to their genocide! How dare they suggest to Mel Gibson he make a change! Next thing you know, black people will be asking not to be portrayed as welfare-collecting, fried chicken-eating, booty-scratching ghetto crack whores! What effrontery! Re(2): Mel Gibson Persecuted By Jews and Their Lackies Posted on June 10, 2003 at 04:31:55 AM by George Shelps Of course, obviously Jews should WISH to be portrayed as somehow collectively responsible for killing Christ, regardless of the fact that propagation of this myth led directly to their genocide! How dare they suggest to Mel Gibson he make a change! __Sorry, Mitchell, but it did not lead to Nazism, if that's what you mean. Nazism was anti-Christian as well as anti-Jewish. Re(3): Mel Gibson Persecuted By Jews and Their Lackies Posted on June 10, 2003 at 05:02:56 AM by Mitchell Levine It didn't directly lead to Nazism, although there are some historians who believe Hitler considered himself (as opposed to was) a good German Catholic. Wistrich's Hitler and the Holocaust makes this argument. However, as any European cultural historian will tell you, the latent antisemitism of the nation was based fundamentally on a medieval heritage of theological anti-Judaism centered primarily on charges of deicide. For example, in the Aryan Christ, about a thinker I greatly admire, Carl Jung, Adler is quoted as saying "Jung was certainly antisemitic, but all Europe was antisemitic. Jews were considered Christ-killers." That element is the key component which provided public support (or toleration) for the antisemitic plank in the Nazi platform. Hitler's racist element was primarily his (and the other Nazis and proto-Nazis like Chamberlain) unique contribution. Of course, that doesn't mean that genocide is the fault of Christ (whom certainly taught exactly the opposite) or Christianity (which certainly taught to heed Christ). People who advocate or tolerate hate AREN'T Christians. They're exactly what Christ would have called them - hypocrites, as are Jews that support the JDL. Re(4): Mel Gibson Persecuted By Jews and Their Lackies Posted on June 10, 2003 at 11:15:15 AM by George Shelps It didn't directly lead to Nazism, although there are some historians who believe Hitler considered himself (as opposed to was) a good German Catholic. Wistrich's Hitler and the Holocaust makes this argument. ___Well, if you check the website of Rutgers University, you will find links to long-suppressed CIA documents on Nazi files which outlined a Nazi plan to decimate the Christian Church after Hitler had won the war. Nazism was a pagan religion all its own, and certainly was not going to be allied with a religion founded on a Jewish messiah!! However, as any European cultural historian will tell you, the latent antisemitism of the nation was based fundamentally on a medieval heritage of theological anti-Judaism centered primarily on charges of deicide. ___Some was, but generally, anthropologically, "outsiders" are ALWAYS viewed with suspicion in any culture. For example, in the Aryan Christ, about a thinker I greatly admire, Carl Jung, Adler is quoted as saying "Jung was certainly antisemitic, but all Europe was antisemitic. Jews were considered Christ-killers." ___I was never taught that in my religious education. That element is the key component which provided public support (or toleration) for the antisemitic plank in the Nazi platform. Hitler's racist element was primarily his (and the other Nazis and proto-Nazis like Chamberlain) unique contribution. ___Anti-semitism is ugly, but Nazism is not the same as anti-semitism. There is no necessary step from disliking Jews to wanting to murder them. But, yes, it did create a climate for toleration of Hitler's diatribes. Of course, that doesn't mean that genocide is the fault of Christ (whom certainly taught exactly the opposite) or Christianity (which certainly taught to heed Christ). People who advocate or tolerate hate AREN'T Christians. They're exactly what Christ would have called them - hypocrites, as are Jews that support the JDL. ___Yes, that is true. The idea of Jenks "defending" Christianity would be laughable if it weren't so obscene. Re(5): Mel Gibson Persecuted By Jews and Their Lackies Posted on June 10, 2003 at 01:13:31 PM by Anonymous George, I hate to sound like Cones (although I'd certainly prefer that to sounding like Jaeger or Jenks), but my historical comments weren't meant to pertain to contemporary American Christitans, but Weimar-era Europeans. No one's suggesting for a moment that you or Christianity are liable for genocide. Not even all mid-century gentile Germans believed or were taught that antisemitic propaganda (although apparently Mel Gibson belongs to a movement that does.) However, those that taught the cultural, extra-biblical doctrine of collective Jewish guilt for the Crucifixion - and not ALL Christians or churches - DID contribute to the Holocaust in a tangible way. That doesn't indict you or, for that matter, any contemporary American Christians. The issue of Hitler's religious ideology is a contentious one. Of course, many, if not the majority, of historians agree with your perspective: a number of treatments of Nazi occultism have convincingly argued for that portrayal. Given the complete, characteristic irrationality of Hitler, the Nazis in general, and their worldview, trying to draw fim, consistent conclusions in this area is probably difficult to impossible. The theory I mentioned is just some historians interpretation and speculative conjecture. It's not difficult to imagine that someone that has little compelling regard for logical consistency could embrace a nationalist secular Aryan religious paradigm, and at the same time consider themselves confirmed in their own mind by their former Catholicism. That hardly means the church would have agreed, whatever their role in the matter might have been. Besides in a society with a state church, the line between religion and nationalism becomes blurry anyhow. Given Hitler's generally authoritarian, fascist predispositions, he would have wanted to dominate every social institution unilaterally, including the church. That doesn't necessarily mean that he rejected it, just that he wanted to subordinate it. On the other hand, it also doesn't mean he didn't personally reject it, or even that he had any consistent thoughts about the subject at all. He was a psychopath, after all. Jew Hypocrisy: Enough is Enough! Posted on June 10, 2003 at 03:24:09 AM by The Real Moishe The Seven Noahide Laws -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jews are commanded to observe hundreds of laws, non-Jews are expected to follow seven that are presumed to date from the time of Noah. Judaism regards any non-Jew who keeps these laws as a righteous person who is guaranteed a place in the world to come. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Not to deny God. 2. Not to blaspheme God. 3. Not to murder. 4. Not to engage in incestuous, adulterous, bestial or homosexual relationships. 5. Not to steal. 6. Not to eat a limb torn from a living animal. 7. To set up courts to ensure obedience to the other six laws. Re(1): Jew Hypocrisy: Enough is Enough! Posted on June 10, 2003 at 10:30:06 PM by Anonymous The original "real Moshe" didn't post this. The "real Moshe" is trying to accommodate by aiming for film issues. Re(1): Jew Hypocrisy: Enough is Enough! Posted on June 10, 2003 at 05:09:22 AM by Mitchell Levine Irrationally hating, prosyletizing hatred for, and slandering and bearing false witness against the Jewisn people in this context, falls under the category of "blaspheming God." By the way, none of this supports your argument about supposed Jewish anti-universalism, particularly considering the fact that the "other" being referred to weren't Christians, but pagans. PLEASE!!! Posted on June 10, 2003 at 07:29:55 PM by James Jaeger Could everyone that posts to this site PLEASE stick to the subject of film and film reform. Before you originate one (more) post or answer one (more) post, would you PLEASE go to our Mission page at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/fmission.htm and read the mission of FIRM (again). Then with the mission freshly in mind, PLEASE try to make your post one that is CONSTRUCTIVE. Try to see what's good about Hollywood and the MPAA and the U.S. motion picture industry, etc., and point that out. Then, AFTER there's been some positive criticism, go ahead and bring up some areas that could be improved. Give your view of how this might be done otherwise, don't criticize. Nothing is all bad -- including Hollywood. And by the same token, nothing is all good and above criticism, as long as such criticism is well thought out and offers constructive solutions. I realize that much of what has been argued here these past several weeks touches on a very charged area and I personally feel it's sometimes healthy to bring out issues that the mainstream media will not allow to be discussed. But this can go to the extreme, so cool it. Keep the argument within the parameters of FIRMS's Mission, otherwise off-topic or outright hostile posts are going to start getting deleted off this site. Thanks, James Jaeger Re(1): PLEASE!!! Posted on June 10, 2003 at 08:19:02 PM by mitchell levine If you want to delete ALL the off-topic posts, OR the off-topic antisemitic posts, fine - but please don't expect me to be defamed without the opportunity to defend myself. Re(1): PLEASE!!! Posted on June 11, 2003 at 02:28:23 AM by George Shelps James Jaeger wrote: otherwise off-topic or outright hostile posts are going to start getting deleted off this site. ___Begin by deleting every single post from now on by Jenks!!! World on Fire Posted on June 10, 2003 at 10:54:18 PM by Bernard Kane It seems that this has EVERYTHING to do with the future of Hollywood: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EF07Aa01.html Minority rule, majority hate. World on Fire, by Amy Chua, Review by Sreeram Chaulia, Asia Times, June 7, 2003 Can two seemingly unrelated issues like globalization and violent ethnonationalism actually have a priori linkages? Yale University professor Amy Chua's new book takes the globalization debate into uncharted territory via myriad comparative examples to show the explosive collision between free market democracy and ethnic hatred ... In post-Communist Russia, six out of the seven wealthiest and most powerful oligarchs, wielding mind-boggling political and economic leverage, are Jewish. Owing to the virulent history of Russian anti-Semitism, this racial profile of the nouveau riche has not gone unnoticed. How, it is being asked on the streets, did members of a minuscule 'outsider' ethnic minority come to wield unimaginable might since 1991? Chua notes that political anti-Semitism is on the rise, as a majority of ordinary Russians believe 'they have been impoverished at the expense of rich Jews.' References to 'Zioncrats' and 'bloodsucking Yids' who hijacked privatization and stole the wealth of the Russian people are commonplace ... Besides cultural and historical enmities, the Middle East is a conflict between 221 million, largely poor Arabs, against Israel's starkly prosperous 5.2 million Jews. Arab squalor and mass frustration runs headlong into Israel's highly educated, skilled and Westernized Jews. That is why 'one often hears half-admiring, half-contemptuous grumblings about Jewish wealth, greed and moneymaking tendencies' among common Arabs. (p 222) Rapid democratization of the Arab states, being pushed by the US government as a cure-all, will exacerbate ethnonationalist hatred for the market-dominant Jews and fuel even greater bloodshed." World on Fire: How exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability by Amy Chua, Doubleday, New York, 2003. ISBN: 0-385-50302-4. Price: US$26. 340 Pages Re(1): World on Fire Posted on June 10, 2003 at 11:58:16 PM by Mitchell Levine Actually both of these two phenomena are explicable without discussing Hollywood. The "wealth" of the Russian people was primarily non-existent because it was hijacked by the Tsars and the Communist Party. Like Catherine said: "the Russian people have always suffered." Because of the unbelievably intense, world-famous antisemitism , Jews were highly persecuted, suppressed non-entities with virtually no options. Some chose to be criminals. They became the world's best-educated, best-organized organized criminals. The social infrastructure collapsed, the institutional criminals retired and ceded to the underground criminals, and a tentative, provisional federalist government can't compete with the highly empowered, socially accepted criminal authority. The Russian mobsters, unfortunately, seem to be more effective leaders, and they pulled their reins from the mob that created them at the Kremlin. The Islamic fundamentalist nations also suffer from the consequences of the misalignment of inflexibility of a dogmatic, traditionalist worldview with the needs of existing in a modern economic world. A priveleged aristocracy of petroleum billionaires controls virtually all wealth in a system which has no provisions whatsoever for social redistribution of resources. The political structure is entirely subordinated to the dictates of the Shariah, which forbids such economic necessities as lending at a profit or civil investment. Thus the countries will in general materially decline even as its plutocrats continue expand their wealth and influence - as long as the oil reserves last. This problem is simply inherent to the internal dynamic of this society, and will probably never change as long as fundamentalism is embraced. The Israelis are a democracy, tight with the U.S., and unrestricted by the dogmatic particulars of those regimes. Luckily for America, we have things that neither of these countries have, most importantly constitutional democracy. Re(1): World on Fire Posted on June 20, 2003 at 11:45:16 PM by James Jaeger "World on Fire" is a good book. I read it. James Jaeger Queen Noor tells all about Hollywood (and more) Posted on June 10, 2003 at 11:20:49 PM by Luke The MEDIA avalanche declares Jordan's American-born Queen Noor is "anti-Semitic." What would a rational person think, weighing the evidence about Jewish power? Drama Queen http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/907852.asp QUEEN NOOR told Harry Smith, the anchor of CBS's Early Show, that she hopes her book "will bring a human face and present historical, cultural and most importantly, human perspectives on the headlines that people see so often on the Middle East, but don't get the reality." Maybe so, but the book is full of anti-Semitic canards about Jews, both American and Israeli. You might expect this kind of froth from Syria or Iran, but from the queen of Jordan? The Husseins of Jordan aren't exactly a bellicose clan. Westernized and less radical than their neighbors, they are considered peacemakers in a region full of epic grudges. They brought archfoes Syria and Iraq to the table in the '80s; they made peace with Israel in the '90s. And Queen Noor has been at the center of Jordan's reputation for political moderation. Born in 1951, the daughter of prominent Arab- American businessman Najeeb Halaby, the former Lisa Halaby is an articulate, beautiful Princeton graduate who was swept off her feet by the late King Hussein, a courtly Middle Eastern monarch who liked horses and Harleys. Predictably, Noor's fairy tale has beguiled the media. Reviewers have cited her apparent humanity and dignity, as well as her gift for breezy anecdotes, such as the one about how she and her husband got along swimmingly with the Qaddafis. ("They were a delightful and charming couple," the queen recalls.) CNN's Larry King also got in on the action. "I don't know these things, you know—little Jewish guy from Brooklyn. I don't know. Highness. Majesty?" King then asked the queen a question about the Middle East that he admitted was naive: Why can't all these people get along? We got no answers when the queen appeared Wednesday night on the premiere of "Topic A With Tina Brown" on CNBC. Unfortunately, the former editor of Talk, too, shrank from the hard questions. If Queen Noor wants peace in the Middle East, why does she object to Egypt's treaty with Israel? And why does she blame Israel—"the root cause of almost all the bitterness and frustration in our Arab world today," according to her husband—rather than the repressive policies of her own kingdom or those of her neighbors? It turns out that—with the exception of Yitzhak Rabin, with whom her husband King Hussein signed a peace treaty, and Steven Spielberg, whose Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade turned the caves of Petra into a troglodytic tourist trap—the queen, in her memoir, has harsh words for Jews. What seems to bother her about them? Their prominence in America and the importance of the subject of Israel in American politics. She trots out well-worn anti-Semitic clichés as if discovering them for the first time. "More than any other country in the twentieth century, America had witnessed the highly successful migration, integration and assimilation of Jews from all over the world who achieved influence and power at the highest levels," she writes, providing no concrete examples. "And their unifying issue—whether they were politically left-wing, right-wing or centrist—was Israel." The queen then takes aim at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Washington lobby group. There she sees a sinister conspiracy: "Confronting the power of the Zionist lobby for the first time was sobering," she recalls. "AIPAC's supporters were CEOs of large American corporations and representatives of top levels of media and entertainment businesses, financial institutions, legal and medical professions, and increasingly, the highest reaches of government." CARICATURES AND CUT-OUTS In Israel itself, the queen finds a media mafia that silences all criticism of the state. "I first learned about this bias, in the years prior to my marriage, from American correspondents covering the region," she writes. "They frequently complained about writing dispatches that they considered evenhanded only to find that their editors at home had rewritten them with a pro-Israel slant." And then there's the Jewish racket in Hollywood. In the '90s the queen, after little effort, gave up lobbying the Motion Picture Association for a more balanced portrayal of Arab culture. "[M]any of the top executives at the major studios [President Jack] Valenti represented were Jewish, and though they were liberal, they were deeply loyal to Israel and Israeli politics." Taken together, Noor's observations about Jews cast into question her memoir's agenda. If she really takes issue with the way in which Hollywood makes cartoon cutouts of Arabs, she might consider dusting off some of her own black-hat caricatures. While some of the opinions in this book are meant to give her credibility in the Arab world, her resuscitations of conspiracy theories, and her use of the word "Zionist," are facile, if not reactionary. Reading her memoir as a Middle East primer, you'd think not only that "Jews" were a single political and cultural entity, but that Jewish people never wanted peace or a solution to the Palestinian problem. Yet a poll conducted late last year by Americans for Peace Now (a branch of the Israeli peace movement) and the Arab American Institute found that 87 percent of Jewish-Americans said Palestinians have the right to live in an independent state. In the end, Queen Noor's sympathy for Rabin seems to be a fig leaf for her simple-minded rhetoric and convenient omissions. Maybe this memoir will advance her standing in the Jordanian court, which is fraught with intrigue over who should be second in line to her stepson King Abdullah. If Jordan was in fact once a moderate, Western-leaning kingdom, however, Queen Noor's memoir is a grim reminder of how polarized the region has become since Rabin's assassination in 1995. That year King Hussein went to Rabin's grave to praise peace. His wife may now want to bury it. Derbyshire's latest... http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire061003.asp 3) Our very best efforts at creating a meritocratic education system always turn up the same unhappy results: students of Ashkenazi-Jewish and East or South Asian ancestry are over-represented among the educational successes, while students of West African ancestry are over-represented among the educational failures. (4) All sorts of theories are available to explain (3) — John Ogbu's is only the latest. Unfortunately we don't know which theory is true. Possibly just one of the theories is true. Possibly the true cause is something nobody has thought of yet. More likely the truth contains elements, in different proportions, from several theories. (5) Until we understand the causes of (3), the most meritocratic system of education we can devise will produce a society with a highly paid cognitive elite in which persons of Ashkenazi-Jewish and East or South Asian ancestry are over-represented, a class of manual and service workers in which black people are over-represented, and a clerical or small-entrepreneurial class in which white gentiles are over-represented. (6) Such a society would be grossly offensive to American sensibilities. (See (2) above.) It would also, in all probability, be unhappy and unstable. (7) Adjustments to the meritocratic principle therefore need to be made: "affirmative action," imposed "diversity" quotas in businesses, anti-discrimination laws, and so on. We must trade off some meritocracy for social harmony. Re(1): Queen Noor tells all about Hollywood (and more) Posted on June 11, 2003 at 00:20:52 AM by Mitchell Levine Queen Noor's theory that Israel is the root cause of unrest in the Arab world is bullshit. The root cause of unrest in the Arab world is the incompatibility of their policies with the needs of being a modern economic state. The Israelis are scapegoats. If she was so concerned, she would not fail to support the peace treaty with the Egyptians, and would absorb the Palestinians herself. Nothing wrong with affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, but "quotas" and "anti-meritocracy" are simply anti-constitutional and therefore anti-American. Also, they tend to lead to lowered productivity and economic viability, which doesn't exactly lead to social happiness or ethnic harmony. Check out Russia, for example. Education is inherently "meritoricratic," unless you wish to abandon the grading system, at which time it will cease to be education. What About......? Posted on June 11, 2003 at 04:59:19 AM by J-Boy If "not so religious men of Eastern European Jewish origin" so completely dominate Hollywood film-making, how would you Jew-haters explain LA-based aspiring scriptwriters, directors, etc. "of Eastern European Jewish origin" who are unsuccessful at "breaking into show business?" I personally know several people who fit that description. Wouldn't your assertions suggest that the vast Zionist Conspiracy jump at the chance to include them in their quest for world domination? Or, gee whiz, maybe talent does have something to do with it. Re(1): What About......? Posted on June 14, 2003 at 11:01:06 PM by Henry There are only so many seats in the Hollywood House. To fit ALL Jews, they'd have to morph into mini-midgets. As much as you might like to fit all your cousins into your Mercedes, some are going to have to take another car. Re(2): What About......? Posted on June 16, 2003 at 03:42:17 PM by James Jaeger John Cones' thesis is NOT that there is no diversity in the talent, staff, crew levels of Hollywood -- it's that there is strong evidence that there is a lack of diversity in the TOP MOST levels of the MPAA studio/ distributiors in Hollywood (see http://www.mecfilms.com/FIRM/control.htm#execlist). James Jaeger Re(3): What About......? Posted on June 16, 2003 at 09:59:48 PM by George Shelps John Cones' thesis is NOT that there is no diversity in the talent, staff, crew levels of Hollywood -- it's that there is strong evidence that there is a lack of diversity in the TOP MOST levels of the MPAA studio/ distributiors in Hollywood. ___But if this lack of diversity at the top doesn't lead to a lack of diversity at all other levels, what's your beef? You're assuming that the writers and directors ("talent") are all automatons who are required to toe the line of the "control group." What evidence do you have that this is so---beyond the need for films to make a profit so that the business can grow? Who Controlls Hollywood Posted on June 16, 2003 at 11:08:03 PM by James Jaeger >You're assuming that the writers and directors ("talent") are all automatons who are required to toe the line of the "control group." They're not automatons; I wouldn't go that far, but there are definitely lines that they will not cross. On a personal level, I do know people who are close to several of the major stars. One such person told me that the studios basically call the shots. The screenplays come in "set up" at a particular group of studios the talent works mostly with and they get read by the star's agent and his close development circle. Then the star picks his next project from this pile of screenplays. That's the way it works. No one rocks any boats, least of all people who are making tens of millions of dollars per picture. The illusion is that the stars and/or the agents are in total control. Not true. The studios don't want anyone knowing they call the shots because then it incrreases their traffic. The feeling I get is that the stars are even a little scared of the studios.(1) I was amazed to see this, as I always thought it was the other way around -- but it is NOT. Of course there are stars that come off as being outspoken, or "independent thinking" or "difficult to work with," but a lot of this is their studio-made, or studio-approved, or studio-tolerated persona.(2) The studios take any negative or anything they didn't originate and use their machine to play it up or twist the spin. They're masters at it and they have the tools like no other person or industry. James Jaeger ----------------------------- (1) Look how ex-CAA founder/agent, Michael Oviz, "the most powerful man in Hollywood" was treated as soon as he left his power niche as an agent and started trying to play the part of studio exec. He basically got eaten alive. The agents nor the stars hold true power in Hollywood. This is part of the illusion. The control group of the studios call the shots. Even Lee Garmes, my mentor, told me this George. You have told me that you always respected Lee. Well do you think Lee was lying to me? Lee may never have identified the control group as John Cones has, but there was never any doubt who called the shots. This is one of the reasons Lee went Indie after shooting about 100 pictures for all the majors, including GONE WITH THE WIND. He wanted more freedom as an artist and he wanted to see young filmmakers have it as well. He also wanted to see a better, more fair way the money was shared. I was working for and with him at the time he formed Academy Artists and was setting up a new company. I edited his last film and I was at lunch with him and his entourage almost every single day for several years. I know what the temperament of the industry was and is and therefore I can tell the people who visit this website that what John Cones and I have been saying at FIRM is completely true and the people here that are trying to say it isn't true are inexperienced in the industry and/ or naive. Even Max Youngstein, who I knew, worked with at BRILLIANT FILMS and retained as a consultant, told me that the industry was run by a control group, the same group John Cones describes. Once Max gave me a government task report describing how the industry works. It said that the supply of features was artificially lowered by the "studio oligopoly" in order to increase demand so a minimum amount of money would have to be spent on production and marketing. Max is also quoted in FATAL SUBTRACTION here and there making remarks about operation of the industry. There is plenty of evidence who controls Hollywood, and as observed at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm. (2) As you know, I also used to work with Errol Flynn's personal manager, Jackson Barrett Mahan, for many years. Barry explained how the industry works and how he had to handle Flynn and deal with the studio bosses (one of which was Jack Warner, who he knew on a personal level). Re(1): Who Controlls Hollywood Posted on June 17, 2003 at 02:11:38 AM by George Shelps >You're assuming that the writers and directors ("talent") are all automatons who are required to toe the line of the "control group." They're not automatons; I wouldn't go that far, but there are definitely lines that they will not cross. On a personal level, I do know people who are close to several of the major stars. One such person told me that the studios basically call the shots. The screenplays come in "set up" at a particular group of studios the talent works mostly with and they get read by the star's agent and his close development circle. Then the star picks his next project from this pile of screenplays. That's the way it works. ___That's not the way it always works. I know screenwriters who are hired by performers to develop projects totally independently of any "pile of screenplays." And the top directors initiate their own scripts, sometimes write them, too. No one rocks any boats, least of all people who are making tens of millions of dollars per picture. The illusion is that the stars and/or the agents are in total control. Not true. The studios don't want anyone knowing they call the shots because then it incrreases their traffic. The feeling I get is that the stars are even a little scared of the studios.(1) I was amazed to see this, as I always thought it was the other way around -- but it is NOT. Of course there are stars that come off as being outspoken, or "independent thinking" or "difficult to work with," but a lot of this is their studio-made, or studio-approved, or studio-tolerated persona.(2) The studios take any negative or anything they didn't originate and use their machine to play it up or twist the spin. They're masters at it and they have the tools like no other person or industry. __This is conspiracy-oriented thinking, James. There are many power centers---like Lucasfilm, to name one---who are not answerable to this clique. (1) Look how ex-CAA founder/agent, Michael Oviz, "the most powerful man in Hollywood" was treated as soon as he left his power niche as an agent and started trying to play the part of studio exec. He basically got eaten alive. The agents nor the stars hold true power in Hollywood. ___Ovitz wasn't used to being second in command and he lacked administrative and executive abilities. He later failed in starting his own management company. Being an agent is different from running a studio, takes different skills. Very few studio heads have come from the agencies. One, David Begelman, was a notorious disaster. This is part of the illusion. The control group of the studios call the shots. Even Lee Garmes, my mentor, told me this George. You have told me that you always respected Lee. Well do you think Lee was lying to me? __Lee, whom I respect as a camera artist, was a cinematographer principally and not a writer or a director (with the exception of some co-directing efforts with Ben Hecht) or a producer. Lee may never have identified the control group as John Cones has, but there was never any doubt who called the shots. This is one of the reasons Lee went Indie after shooting about 100 pictures for all the majors, including GONE WITH THE WIND. He wanted more freedom as an artist and he wanted to see young filmmakers have it as well. He also wanted to see a better, more fair way the money was shared. I was working for and with him at the time he formed Academy Artists and was setting up a new company. I edited his last film and I was at lunch with him and his entourage almost every single day for several years. I know what the temperament of the industry was and is and therefore I can tell the people who visit this website that what John Cones and I have been saying at FIRM is completely true and the people here that are trying to say it isn't true are inexperienced in the industry and/ or naive. ___Well, that is not true of me. I will put my knowledge of the film industry up and film history (especially) up against yours or Cones's anytime. Even Max Youngstein, who I knew, worked with at BRILLIANT FILMS and retained as a consultant, told me that the industry was run by a control group, the same group John Cones describes. Once Max gave me a government task report describing how the industry works. It said that the supply of features was artificially lowered by the "studio oligopoly" in order to increase demand so a minimum amount of money would have to be spent on production and marketing. __Yes, I know the author of that report personally. It was written decades ago before the rise of the independent film and multiple outlets for films besides theatres. Basically, James you overstate your case. Yes, there is a group of extremely influential executives who fit your sociological profile....but they are an "influence group" not a "control group," because they do not call the shots for writers, directors, and even actors who have the box-office clout to do as they please. An "Influence Group" Posted on June 20, 2003 at 08:26:52 PM by James Jaeger >Basically, James you overstate your case. Yes, there is a group of extremely influential executives who fit your sociological profile....but they are an "influence group" not a "control group," because they do not call the shots for writers, directors, and even actors who have the box-office clout to do as they please. An "influence group." Now maybe I can live with that characterization. Maybe things have changed enough over the past several decades that that term might be more appropriate. I wonder what John Cones would think of this term? James Those Deacadent Gentiles Posted on June 11, 2003 at 05:29:54 AM by Mr. G Handyman admits holding women as sex slaves SYRACUSE, New York (AP) -- A retired handyman pleaded guilty Tuesday to holding five women captive as sex slaves in an underground bunker over a 15-year period. John Jamelske, 68, pleaded guilty to five counts of first-degree kidnapping. Under a plea deal, Jamelske could serve 18 years to life. Each count carried a maximum penalty of 25 years to life in prison. Sentencing is scheduled July 15. "He's been very agitated and remorse-stricken. He's been very troubled at times over the past several weeks," said J. Michael Forsyth, Jamelske's lawyer. When asked if Jamelske knew what he was did was wrong, Forsyth said, "It took a while for him to come around to that realization." Jamelske has been held without bail since he was arrested April 7 on charges of holding a 16-year-old girl hostage for nearly seven months in a two-room concrete dungeon he built under the back yard of his suburban Syracuse home. The two small rooms contained a small tub, a bucket for a toilet, a microwave oven and a mattress. The 16-year-old girl was able to sneak a phone call to her sister when Jamelske took her out in April to run an errand after six months of captivity, police said. In a whispered call, she told her sister she was being held captive and raped. The call led police to a weathered, blue, ranch-style house, hidden behind a wall of 20-foot evergreens and fenced off from neighbors. Following Jamelske's arrest, police identified four other women who said they were abducted and raped by him dating back to 1988. Authorities say the victims included a 14-year-old girl taken in 1988, a 13-year-old girl in 1995, a 53-year-old woman in 1997, a 26-year-old in 2001 and the 16-year-old. According to investigators, some of the victims said they went willingly with Jamelske after being offered a ride or coaxed into his car. The youngest teenagers had histories of running away from home. The 26-year-old woman told police she was high on drugs when she accepted a ride from Jamelske in 2001. She went to police after she was released following two months of captivity, but was unable to lead investigators to the house. The older woman, who was held nine months, also was unable to tell police where she was held. One of the teens was held for nearly two years, the other for 13 months, police said. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/10/captive.women.ap/index.html Re(1): That's DECADENT Posted on June 11, 2003 at 10:25:17 AM by Mitchell Levine Please stop this. Lowering yourself to Jenk's standard accomplishes nothing, as does your post. Re(2): That's DECADENT Posted on June 11, 2003 at 01:24:48 PM by Mr. G Mitchell---Are you actually under the false impression that anything gets "accomplished" here? As far as I can tell, this board consists of 3 Jew-haters (Jenks, Jaeger, and Stu), one Jew and one Christian. And occasionally me. For the record, I wasn't "lowering myself" to Jenks' standard; I was satirizing it. Re(3): That's DECADENT Posted on June 11, 2003 at 09:58:30 PM by Mitchell Levine If you're going to do satire, be funny. Re(4): That's DECADENT Posted on June 12, 2003 at 03:06:52 AM by Mr. G Perhaps 'satire' was the wrong word. 'Pointing out the ridiculousness of their views' is more accurate. In any case, I don't see any reason to maintain any supposed 'moral high ground' when dealing with or making fun of these hateful pieces of shit. Let them rot in hell. Re(5): That's DECADENT Posted on June 12, 2003 at 09:23:28 AM by Mitchell Levine Let them rot in hell, but don't get sent there yourself in the process. Re(6): That's DECADENT Posted on June 14, 2003 at 08:13:34 PM by Miguel El Soto Yours isn't not "satire." It's just stupid. "Gentiles" are everyone who's not Jewish -- from Chinese to Kenyans, from French to Brazilians. For every Jew, there's a few ga-billion non-Jews. Jews dominated the turn-of-the-century prostitution trade, the American smut industry, porno, and on and on. Even if you take the ga-billion people who aren't Jewish, THEY don't dominate these things. That tiny, tiny, tiny minority -- Jews -- do. So, um, how does that work? Re(7): That's DECADENT Posted on June 14, 2003 at 08:59:33 PM by Mitchell Levine Bullshit. There's no credible indication that the prostitution industry was dominated by Jews at the turn of the century, and the porn industry was primarily founded by guys like Hefner, Guccione, Flynt, and the Perraino and Mitchell Brothers. That's not to say that there's no Jewish players (some very successful ones these days), but that evidence hardly indicts Jews as THE dominating force in industries you don't seem to find congenial. Unless you take Jenks' site to be authoritative, as if that were wise. By the way, one of the most high-profile pornographers in Weimar Germany was Jules Streicher. And it's highly evident that the guys most likely to make complaints like yours are also the ones most likely to actually patronize pornographers and prostitutes, which is no crime (of victimization) other than hypocrisy. Which Mafia? Jews and Hollywood Posted on June 14, 2003 at 09:06:16 PM by Moishe the Goyim The Incredible Scam of the Jewish (Israeli) Mafia, including Hollywood's spotlight on the Italians: http://www.marchforjustice.com/6.13.mafia.php "The New Mafia", By Mark Glenn, The March for Justice "It didn't change the fact that America was discovered by an Italian and later named after one. It was and still is a racism with which Americans are comfortable. They aren't offended by the huge amount of business created and maintained by an entertainment industry that depicts Italians as a violent, greedy, treacherous and lascivious people. Names like Vinny, Rocco, Guido, and Tony are passed around in jokes without a second thought as to what the whole business of gangsterism implies when it is applied to a group of people. Shows like the Sopranos win rave reviews from American audiences, and movies like the Godfather have acquired their own cult following. And to a certain extent, it is understandable as to how it got this way. After all, the whole business involving the Italians and the Mafia is an established fact of history, and only a fool would try to say it didn't happen. But imagine if someone today did try to refute it. Suppose someone tried to sell the story that the Mafia never existed, that the whole concept had been orchestrated back during the turn of the last century as a result of Anti-Italianism, an attempt by jealous others to drag the good name of the Italians through the mud and to justify displacing them of any acquired power or influence in American society. Interestingly enough, 60 yrs or so ago, when people spoke (in hushed tones) of a quiet yet powerful criminal conspiracy organized along a single nationality of people, there were those who denounced them for it, using some of the same arguments listed above. And who denounced them? Members of this criminal conspiracy and the political lackeys who were on their payroll. They used all the familiar terms; Racist, anti-Italian, anti-Catholic, bigot. Yet today, the existence of this criminal conspiracy is an established fact, and only someone who is either making a joke or else deliberately wishes to be ridiculed tries to deny it. Now consider the upset that occurs today when someone suggests that there is a criminal conspiracy, much like the Italian Mafia that is operating again, only on a bigger scale, and instead of being run by the Italians, it is run by Israelis. The reactions by these gangsters and their controlled mouthpieces, the media, (and in particular, right-wing talk show hosts) are almost identical to the reactions by Italian gangsters and their defenders in the last century. People are branded as racists, bigots, jealous, envious, and now, thanks to 50 years of daily propaganda, Nazis. It is very effective. Criticize Israel for anything, and you will be called any of the above and ruined for life. Consider what happened to Pat Buchanan throughout his career as a commentator and presidential candidate. Now, as a result of the browbeating he has received for exposing these people for what they are, he barely ekes out snippets of the truth for fear of the backlash. Not limiting the scope of their warfare to only assassinating their opponent's character, they may kill him physically as well. Consider the case of Randy Weaver's wife and son. Mr. Weaver made the mistake of openly calling this criminal conspiracy for what it is, the Kosher Mafia, and they tried to murder him and his family for it. At the very least, you can expect a letter from some government agency telling you that they need to "talk to you" about some matter, usually involving an audit or an inspection, and the harassment will continue for years. Tactics like these and many others not listed are not new, although those individuals using them, members of the New Mafia, would prefer that the rest of America pretend that they don't exist. What else do you call a well-run organization with long reaching tentacles that wields silent, yet powerful influence in government, finance, and media? An organization that extorts over 6 billion dollars a year from the American taxpayers? An organization that can hush-up war crimes 50 years old of such enormity that they scream out to heaven for justice? An organization that can pick up the phone, call the President of the United States and order him to bomb another nation back into the stone age on completely false pretenses? An organization that deals in illegal arms sales, the sex-slave business, drugs, counterfeit money, money laundering, prostitution and the protection racket on a world wide scale? Talk about it being run by the Italians, and everyone calls it the Mafia. Talk about it being run by the Arabs, and everyone calls it terrorism. Talk about it being run by the Israelis, and everyone calls it a wacky conspiracy theory created by anti-Semites ... We, the Americans, have been given a 'contract' by the New Mafia to carry out a series of "hits" in the Middle East in bringing the other families to heel. The New Mafia has done a good job of laying the propaganda groundwork years ahead of time by bringing to prominence ardent supporters of this crime family such as Limbaugh, Liddy, Savage, Hannity and the others. They have done their jobs well, deflecting attention away from the real causes of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, and instead blame it on kindergarten-level explanations such as 'hatred for freedom' and other such nonsense. They have polished up the image of the New Mafia, like Capone used to do with his soup kitchens, by calling Israel 'the only democracy' in the Middle East, despite the fact that the tactics they employ against even their own citizens fly in the face of everything we hold dear as Americans. And, last but not least, they, the New Mafia, have for 50 years, inculcated into the minds of Christian Americans the idea that they are dysfunctional, prudish, backwards, racist, and therefore that they are directly to blame for the tribulations that caused many of them to suffer and die. The unspoken understanding operates like this: 'You owe us. We have suffered terribly because of you, and now you are going to allow us to move about as we please without restraint, and without the hassle of scrutiny or public criticism' ... The Italians have La Cosa Nostra, the Irish have the PIRA, the Germans have the Nazi's, the Colombians have the drug cartels, the list goes on and on. However, we should not make the mistake of letting this consideration of national origin nor the sensitivity of race-related issues get in the way of us acknowledging that a criminal conspiracy exists in our midst. To do so puts us as a society, indeed as a world, in great danger, and to ignore the existence of such a criminal conspiracy allows it to continue in its destructive path, like a cancer, eating up all the life in the body. If we, as Americans, can be brave enough and honest enough to call the Old Mafia what it was, namely a criminal conspiracy run by Italians, than there is no reason why we shouldn't call the New Mafia, a criminal conspiracy run by Israelis, what it is." Jews, Jews, Jews, and More Jews Posted on June 14, 2003 at 10:21:37 PM by Dylan Flaunt it, baby! What do Superman, Italian movie families and Dick Van Dyke have in common? They're all secretly Jewish, says David Herman, Guardian (UK), June 12, 2003 "In an early episode of The Simpsons, Krusty the Clown is invited to dinner and says grace in Hebrew. 'He's talking funny talk,' says Homer. Lisa points out that Krusty is Jewish. Homer is incredulous. 'A Jewish entertainer? Get out of here!' The whole programme turns out to be a strange meditation on the history of Jewish entertainers in the US. ... The history of Jewish entertainers in America, from The Jazz Singer to The Simpsons, is examined in a major exhibition at New York's Jewish Museum. At first glance, the story looks familiar enough: the rise of Jewish entertainers from Lower East Side slums to Hollywood. Most were descended from Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe and Russia at the turn of the century, including Harry Houdini - the son of a Hungarian rabbi - Louis B Mayer, Al Jolson, the Warner brothers and the Marx brothers. Sam Goldwyn was born Shmuel Gelbfisz in Warsaw, Irving Berlin was born Israel Baline in Russia, and Kirk Douglas, real name Issur Danielovitch, was the son of Russian immigrants. A hundred years later, Adam Sandler's career took off with his performance of The Chanukah Song on Saturday Night Live, and today hardly a top American TV show is without a Jewish character, from Rachel in Friends to the Broflovskis in South Park, from Toby Ziegler to Grace Adler. But as the exhibition makes clear, the story of Jewish entertainers in the US is far from straightforward. Instead of the rise from rags to riches of myth, the real history is full of twists and turns, of silences and disguises. Jewish entertainers disguised themselves in many ways. Most obviously, they changed their names. David Kaminsky, Joseph Levitch and Benny Kubelsky are hardly household names. Danny Kaye, Jerry Lewis and Jack Benny are. The same goes for Edward Iskowitz (Eddie Cantor), Nathan Birnbaum (George Burns) and Emanuel Goldenberg (Edward G Robinson). Even a younger generation were forced to Americanise: Leonard Schneider (Lenny Bruce) and Melvin Kaminsky (Mel Brooks) broke through in the 1950s and 60s, Roseanne Barsky (Barr) later stil ... One of the most telling examples comes from 1950s TV drama. Many of its pioneers were Jewish, most famously Paddy Chayefsky. A contemporary of his, writer Ernest Kinoy, recalls how in the days of live TV, 'You'd come into Studio One, or NBC, and Philco, and you'd tell them this long story about this marvellous Italian family. And they would say, 'It's too Jewish.' Because they knew very well that it wasn't an Italian, but it was a Jewish family. Paddy Chayefsky did it a number of times. The Catered Affair is about an Irish family ... Marty, the Italian butcher ... It was because a number of the Jewish writers would come in with material, and the networks would say, 'It's too Jewish. The rest of America won't understand.' " Won't understand - or won't like? As the exhibition makes clear, anti-semitism was never far away in the attacks on Jewish Hollywood moguls in the 1920s, or in the radio broadcasts of Father Coughlin, a popular radio personality in the 1920s and 30s. In one of his most controversial broadcasts, Coughlin criticised the disproportionate media interest in Kristallnacht, insinuating undue Jewish influence at work. He went on to speculate on the strange media silence over the murder of '20 million Christians' by the Soviet communist regime: 'Why, then, was there this silence on the radio and in the press? Ask the gentlemen who control the three national radio chains; ask those who dominate the destinies of the financially inspired press - surely these Jewish gentlemen and others must have been ignorant of the facts or they would have had a symposium in those dark days.' McCarthyism later revived an older discourse linking Jews with communism, and six of the so-called Hollywood 10 (screenwriters, producers and directors held in contempt of Congress for refusing to admit or deny communist affiliation) were Jewish. Throughout the golden years of Hollywood, there were plenty of reasons for Jews to play down their Jewishness and promote their integration into the mainstream. An industry run by Jewish moguls was notoriously quick to play down its Jewishness, which never simply disappeared - how could it? - but instead took on all manner of disguises. The story was just as complicated on television. On the one hand, you had stand-up comedians like Milton Berle, Eddie Cantor, Jack Benny and George Burns fronting their own prime-time shows through the 1950s. Perhaps the most famous example was Sid Caesar's Your Show of Shows, whose writers included Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Larry Gelbart (best known now for M*A*S*H), Carl Reiner and Neil Simon. On the other hand, although these stars were Jewish, they could not be seen to be Jewish. According to Jeffrey Shandler, one of the exhibition's curators, "Until the mid-1970s, explicitly Jewish characters were seen in prime-time series only as comic foils or as occasional guests." So, for example, Carl Reiner (who won eight Emmy awards between 1956 and 67), who based The Dick Van Dyke Show on his own experiences of writing for Sid Caesar, had to take out the Jewishness. Instead of Reiner and Caesar, the show had the all-American Dick Van Dyke playing the Gentile lead, Robert Petrie. You ended up with a strange kind of cultural ventriloquism, with non-Jewish characters like Marty and Petrie created by Jewish writers who wanted to write about their own experiences but couldn't. As a result, many of the achievements of mid-20th-century American popular culture now look as if they were written in code. The films of the Marx brothers and Billy Wilder, of course. Others are less likely. Superman was created by two young Jews, Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster. The humorist Jules Feiffer sees Superman as 'the smart Jewish boy's American dream'. One minute the shlemiel in glasses, the next minute Superman, all-American hero. 'It wasn't Krypton that Superman really came from," writes Feiffer, 'it was the planet Minsk." Or there's Philip Roth's take on White Christmas and Easter Parade: "The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ - the divinity that's the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity - and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow' ... [I]n the 1960s, things started to change. Jews became visible. In the 1960s the wigs, blackface and all-American shtick gave way to Lenny Bruce, Dustin Hoffman and Woody Allen. It was as if Clark Kent had stripped off his red and blue costume and appeared, blinking in the sunlight, with big nose, nerdy glasses and a foul but very funny mouth. A number of factors were at work. America discovered the Holocaust with the Eichmann trial and films such as The Diary of Anne Frank (1959), Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) and The Pawnbroker (1965). The Six-Day war and the Yom Kippur war changed attitudes to Israel (and to American Jews). There is the golden age of Jewish-American writing: Heller's Catch-22 (1961), Bellow's Herzog (1964), Mailer's The Armies of the Night (1968) and Roth's Portnoy's Complaint (1969). There was also a new generation of Jewish stand-up comedians, who were more upfront about their Jewishness: Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Tom Lehrer and Woody Allen. In an article called The Yiddishization of American Humor, published in Esquire in 1965, Wallace Markfield wrote: "The Jewish style, with its heavy reliance upon Yiddish and Yiddishisms, has emerged not only as a comic style, but as the comic style." Finally, there was a cluster of films in the late 1960s with a new generation of Jewish stars, who made no effort to conceal their Jewishness: Barbra Streisand in Funny Girl, Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate. At the same time, Woody Allen and Mel Brooks made their first films. Allen's wise-cracking shlemiel and the in-your-face Jewishness of The Producers ("Flaunt it, baby! Flaunt it!") had a huge impact on the image of Jews in American culture. On Broadway, Fiddler on the Roof ran from 1964-72, and through the 1970s and 80s Neil Simon, Stephen Sondheim and David Mamet created very different kinds of Jewish characters. In almost every area of entertainment, American Jews had joined the mainstream. Television, perhaps inevitably, caught on late. It wasn't until the mid- to late 1970s that Jewish characters began to appear on sitcoms: Rhoda Morgenstern on The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Alex Rieger in Taxi, Murray Klein in Archie Bunker's Place. And, above all, there was Holocaust (1978). It's not just a matter of ticking off Jewish characters or issues as they appear on prime-time TV or in major films. The point is that Jews were able to joke about being Jewish, without code or disguise... " More Jewish Film Fraud: This One is Poland Posted on June 14, 2003 at 11:39:19 PM by Moishe the Goyim Renowned Polish Film Producer Charged, Guardian (UK), June 7, 2003 "A producer of the Oscar-winning films ``The Pianist'' and ``Schindler's List'' was charged Friday with influence peddling, deepening a bribery scandal that has gripped the nation and touched the government. Prosecutors also are investigating why Prime Minister Leszek Miller initially failed to report the alleged crime. Lew Rywin, 58, is accused of soliciting a $17.5 million bribe from Agora SA, the publisher of the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper, in exchange for his lobbying the government for favorable media laws that would allow Agora to buy a nationwide broadcaster. `The indictment is based on undeniable proof that we obtained in questioning over 70 witnesses' said Zygmunt Kapusta, chief appeals prosecutor in Warsaw, who is running the investigation. Kapusta said prosecutors opened a separate investigation of Miller's failure to notify them when he learned of the alleged bribe attempt last July from Gazeta Wyborcza's chief editor. Polish law requires top state officials to inform prosecutors of any corruption attempts. Gazeta Wyborcza went public in December with allegations that Rywin solicited the bribe, claiming he represented Miller and `a group holding power.' The newspaper cited a conversation with Rywin that its chief editor secretly taped ... The scandal has contributed to the government's declining popularity, which has plunged as a result of Poland's economic woes and unemployment at nearly 19 percent - its highest level since communism ended in 1989. The alleged bribery attempt relates to a government bill that would have restricted private ownership of television and radio stations. Agora, which owns several local radio stations, had expressed interest in buying nationwide commercial Polsat television. The government and private media later reached a compromise on the bill, one reason Miller argues that the bribe charge makes no sense. Rywin's Heritage Films co-produced Roman Polanski's ``The Pianist,'' which won three Academy Awards this year, and co-produced Steven Spielberg's ``Schindler's List,'' which won the 1993 Academy Award for best film. Both films were partly filmed in Poland." Too Many Holocaust Documentaries Posted on June 15, 2003 at 10:42:45 AM by MG Throughout culture, those in power flood the world with their obsessions: Jews are victims, victims, victims, even as they rule so much: Holocaust Documentaries: Too Much of a Bad Thing?, By BARRY GEWEN, New York Times, June 15, 2003 "'When I began exploring how films have grappled with the Holocaust in 1979, there were merely a few dozen titles to warrant attention,' Annette Insdorf writes in her encyclopedic study 'Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust.' But for the book's third edition, published this year, she lists, together with the fiction films, 69 documentaries made since 1990 alone — a rate of almost one every two months. Elsewhere she estimates that there are at least six completed Holocaust documentaries that do not get distribution for every one that does. And the stream has continued at flood tide into 2003. Last month "Secret Lives," Aviva Slesin's emotionally complex film about Jewish children hidden by gentile families during the Nazi era, opened in New York. Shortly after, PBS showed Charles Guggenheim's "Berga: Soldiers of Another War," about Jewish-American soldiers captured by the Germans. "Bonhoeffer," Martin Doblmeier's intellectual, spiritually suffused account of the anti-Nazi German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is opening on June 27, two days before A & E broadcasts Liz Garbus's "Nazi Officer's Wife," the biography of a Jewish woman who survived by assuming an Aryan identity and marrying a Nazi party member. But simply listing these new films raises a troubling question: Are too many Holocaust documentaries now being made? Has supply outstripped demand? It's a question that makes people uncomfortable. Who would want to appear callous in the face of such suffering, or, worse, anti-Semitic? Yet there are definite signs of Holocaust fatigue. Perhaps because she is a survivor, Ms. Slesin is more forthright than most. 'I can't bear to see evil over and over again,' she says. 'Even I roll my eyes when I hear about another Holocaust documentary" — but then she quickly adds, "until I see what it's about." Stephen Feinstein, the director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, has sat on a selection committee for a Jewish film festival when more than 15 Holocaust documentaries were submitted. With each year bringing still more films, he says, 'you can't see them all.' Many of the films have become formulaic, using the same German footage, the same static interviewing techniques. "Get out of the talking-head format," Mr. Feinstein advises. Raye Farr, the director of the Steven Spielberg Film and Video Archive of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, says that filmmakers are too often taking the easy way out, showing an 'increasing inclination to go for sentimentality." With an undertone of exasperation in her voice, she says, "Crying is not very edifying.' Why do filmmakers have such an abiding interest in the Holocaust? In part, they are simply reflecting the extraordinary phenomenon that the Holocaust has become in American life. Publishers churn out books on the subject in voluminous numbers, state governments legislate the teaching of the Holocaust in public schools, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington greets millions of visitors each year. It would be odd if filmmakers didn't share this general fascination. And yet many of them feel a particular urgency about their work. As the documentarian Joseph Dorman observed in a recent interview, anyone with a relative who went through the Holocaust has a 'natural desire' to tell that story. Most of these films are made not for any commercial reason, and not really with an educational intent. They are works of moral witness ... Sometimes, it seems that Holocaust documentaries have a lock on all the awards: they have won five Oscars over the last eight years ... There has been a tendency of late among documentary filmmakers to concentrate on the more 'positive' side — gentiles who opposed Hitler or rescued victims; Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto and elsewhere; and of course the survivors themselves. These individuals are often presented as inspirational (although, with the millions of victims who are not here to go before the camera, there is nothing inspirational about the Holocaust) ... Yale's Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies has a collection of more than 4,000 testimonies. The Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, established by Steven Spielberg in 1994 following the success of "Schindler's List," is by far the largest. It houses more than 50,000 testimonies ... Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, speaks with the confidence and ebullience of a man who knows he sits astride a well-oiled machine. The center has its own movie division, Moriah Films, and it turns out a film about once every two years (not all of them about the Holocaust). Two, "Genocide" and "The Long Way Home," have won Oscars. Unlike everyone else involved in making Holocaust documentaries, Rabbi Hier says raising money has been "very easy," and since 1989 Moriah Films has collected about $15 million. The minimum gift the center accepts is $100,000 spread over five years, and Hollywood celebrities like Orson Welles, Elizabeth Taylor and Michael Douglas have volunteered their services as narrators for the films. The scrambling documentarians clustered on the East Coast can only stare across the continent with envy at this odd coupling of Hollywood star power and the awesome atrocity of the Holocaust. But rich or poor, every Holocaust documentarian is working the same territory, and some critics complain that the basic plot line of the Holocaust has become too familiar by now to permit genuinely original work." Re(1): Too Many Holocaust Documentaries Posted on June 15, 2003 at 12:19:56 AM by Mitchell Levine Did you read the article? The author writes: "Most of these films are not made for any commercial reason, and not really with an educational intent. They are works of simple moral witness." That's not consistent with your theory that they exist only so that "unfairly ruling Jews" can create the perception of Jews as victims. And if a quick read of your inane hate site is any indication, there's lots of evidence that Jews ARE being victimized by antisemites like you. Re(2): Too Many Holocaust Documentaries Posted on June 15, 2003 at 01:29:32 PM by George Shelps The Holocaust is not revisited just because it is a Jewish tragedy, but because it encapsulates the mysterious power of evil---something human beings have yet to understand. Re(2): Too Many Holocaust Documentaries Posted on June 15, 2003 at 01:33:00 PM by Zorro Did YOU read the article? We are swamped with rampant Judeocentrism. Enough Jewish narcissism! Americans are sick of being "victimized" by Jewish self-obsession. Self-obsessed Jews like Mitchell Levine are writing screenplays everywhere, passing out handkerchiefs to weep for the Jewish Power Elite. The article Levine ignores says this: "Publishers churn out books on the subject in voluminous numbers, state governments legislate the teaching of the Holocaust in public schools, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington greets millions of visitors each year." "Sometimes, it seems that Holocaust documentaries have a lock on all the awards: they have won five Oscars over the last eight years." Re(3): Too Many Holocaust Documentaries Posted on June 15, 2003 at 01:34:54 PM by Zorro There is nothing "mysterious" about evil: look at modern Israel. Everything evil about it is quite obvious, once one has the notion to look. The GREATEST evil is international Jewish support for that neo-fascistic hellhole. Re(3): Too Many Holocaust Documentaries Posted on June 15, 2003 at 04:01:34 PM by Mitchell Levine We are not "swamped with rampant Judeocentricism." If people felt "victimized" by excessive books and movies about the Holocaust, they would simply stop buying them and tickets to see them, which they don't. The fact that millions of visitors wish to visit the Holocaust Museum of their own free will demonstrates that millions of people are interested in the subject, not that anyone is "sick" of it, except your likeminded bigots. The fact that you are so incredibly insensitive to the extermination of millions of innocents because they didn't meet the approval of the Nazi Power Elite, whom were actually elected and held civic power, unlike businesspeople, really says a lot about you. Writing screenplays about the above experience doesn't make one "narcissistic" any more than anyone else writing about their experiences. Successful projects propagate more such projects. If people don't want them, they don't pay to see them. Unfortunately for your sensibilities, they do. Re(4): Too Many Holocaust Documentaries Posted on June 15, 2003 at 03:37:25 PM by Mitchell Levine Bullshit! Sharon sits down to talk statehood with the Palestinians, and Hamas walks out because they only support Israeli destruction. Then they sponsor suicide bombings and gunmen to kill innocent Israelis. Israel's the most democratic nation in the Middle East, and apparently the only one even interested in meeting the Palestinians half-way. There's absolutely no basis whatsoever to refer to the Israelis as 'neo-fascist" except your personality compulsions.
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |