Proving a Negative
Posted on July 3, 2003 at 02:27:28 PM by John Cones

Proving a Negative

Oh good grief! Here we go again! The Hollywood apologists trying to prove a negative statement by showing that there is no evidence to support a positive statement. The Hollywood apologists are arguing that because no one has sued the major studios for discrimination, there must not be any discrimination. Of course, they have failed to demonstrate that no one has sued the major studios for discrimination. On the other hand, they only assert that because those of us who claim there is evidence of discrimination havenít demonstrated there are lawsuits based on discrimination, there must be no discrimination. In addition to being utter nonsense, the Hollywood apologists are failing to recognize that there are many reasons why individuals may choose not to litigate such a complex matter, not the least of which, that it would mean the end of their chosen career.

John Cones

Re(1): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 3, 2003 at 10:39:43 PM by George Shelps


Proving a Negative

Oh good grief! Here we go again! The Hollywood apologists

___For myself, I'm absolutely nothing of the kind. The Hollywood system needs reforming, but not by instituting de facto ethnic, religious, or political quotas.

trying to prove a negative statement by showing that there is no evidence to support a positive statement. The Hollywood apologists are arguing that because no one has sued the major studios for discrimination, there must not be any discrimination.

__False. The charge is that you have not been able to bring forward even
anecdotal evidence of anyone who was
denied a film career because they didn't conform to the "control group" values or beliefs.

Re(2): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 06:32:28 PM by mg

YOU SAY: For myself, I'm absolutely nothing of the kind. The Hollywood system needs reforming, but not by instituting de facto ethnic, religious, or political quotas.

RESPONSE: Hollywood JEWRY reinforces ethnic, religious, and political biases. (pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, anti-Christian, and liberal/leftist). This bias is well-documented and must be remedied.

YOU SAY: False. The charge is that you have not been able to bring forward even
anecdotal evidence of anyone who was
denied a film career because they didn't conform to the "control group" values or beliefs.

RESPONSE: The victims of Jewish Hollywood are legion. These victis either 1) dare not go public for fear of risking their movie career, or 2) thanks to enormous Jewish propaganda efforts the Jewish domination of Hollywood is not recognized.


Re(3): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 09:13:39 PM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: For myself, I'm absolutely nothing of the kind. The Hollywood system needs reforming, but not by instituting de facto ethnic, religious, or political quotas.

RESPONSE: Hollywood JEWRY reinforces ethnic, religious, and political biases. (pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, anti-Christian, and liberal/leftist). This bias is well-documented and must be remedied.

___By what type of remedy?

YOU SAY: False. The charge is that you have not been able to bring forward even anecdotal evidence of anyone who was
denied a film career because they didn't conform to the "control group" values or beliefs.


RESPONSE: The victims of Jewish Hollywood are legion.

___Name just one.

These victis either 1) dare not go public for fear of risking their movie career, or 2) thanks to enormous Jewish propaganda efforts the Jewish domination of Hollywood is not recognized.

___As usual, you have no evidence.


Re(2): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 01:10:45 AM by James Jaeger

>False. The charge is that you have not been able to bring forward even
anecdotal evidence of anyone who was denied a film career because they didn't conform to the "control group" values or beliefs.

George, the way you frame this argument is totally incorrect.

You always say to the effect: Show me one person who has been kept out of, or denied a career in, the movie business because of discrimination by the control group.

That's not the way it happens. The control group doesn't deny anyone anything; they simply don't CHOOSE anyone who seems the slightest bit anti-Semitic or who seems to be "difficult." Everyone has heard stories (actually black PR) about people who have been "difficult" to work with (such as Orson Wells and Sean Penn). The charge is always from the POV of the Establishment. You never see the actual person charged come forward and say "No actually it was the studio that was being difficult not me." Were this to happen, the person would not work very much in Hollywood again. Such happened to Clifford Robertson after he was "difficult" for exposing David Beglemans's crimes at Columbia Pictures and the same thing happened to Orson Wells after he was "difficult" about writing a detracting story about Hearst.(1)

So the way the discrimination works is not that anyone is KEPT OUT (that's too crude), the way it works is they are simply SHUNNED. It's not even as active as shunning (as that could be actionable because it's too obvious). It's more like, as I said above, they simply are not CHOSEN -- their projects are simply not CHOSEN to be financed, or the writer is simply not CHOSEN to do the re-write, or the director is simply not CHOSEN direct the picture or the actor is simply not CHOSEN to star in the picture. Thus the crimes of discrimination in MPAA-infested Hollywood are not ones of COMMISSION, but ones of OMISSION.(2)

You keep asking for the smoking gun of COMISSION because you know it is very difficult to get because you also know the people that run Hollywood, the CONTROL GROUP, have had decades, if not centuries, of practice pushing, and NOT pushing power in exact directions, i.e., engaging in acts of OMISSION. I was in Scientology for 15 years and learned much about the mechanisms of pushing power. Hubbard was fanatical about how power is obtained, used and perpetuated. There is even one entire level on the Bridge dedicated to power and the handling power (level V) and the Ethics Conditions deal with how to ASSUME it and how to do POWER CHANGES. And this, of course, is one of the reasons the Jews will never fuck with the Scientologists, because they KNOW they know their game and can play it as well or better. And indeed, my hat DOES go off to the Jews, as Hubbard probably leaned and codified much of their technology on the acquisition, consolidation and transfer of power they learned and passed down through thousands of years. And of course the proof that the Church of Scientology has got at least some of this right is the fact that it IS still here and flourishing as a multi-billion dollar, global organization in the face obstacles I don't have the time to go into here. And BTW, none of this should be construed to be a slight to either the Jews or the Scientologists as this was not my intention. I am just trying to explain who knows WHAT about the subject of power and how this game is played in the movie business.

So, getting back to your quaint pleas for proof of acts of COMMISSION. I suppose someone COULD find such a proof. I'm sure there are conversations that go on behind closed doors where one member in the control group might ask another: "Does Brad spell his name Burger or Berger?" And I'm sure someday, someone (perhaps a group of next-generation activists) will plant microphones or micro-cameras all over the offices in the black tower at UNIVERSAL STUDIOS or under the tables at LA DOME and capture some incriminating dialog for the world to experience -- but, I'm also sure that, even if this were to happen, you and other Hollywood apologists would still cry insufficient evidence and demand another horizon of proof.

James Jaeger


------------------------------
(1) And funny how Hollywood never made a movie about the Begleman affair, yet Hollywood has plenty of money to make movies all about BARBARIANS AT THE GATE and homemakers who may have taken a wrong turn. But note: Hollywood doesn't make a movie about Bill Gates. Screw with Gates too much and he may move Microsoft out of the United States then possibly the U.S. would be the LAST country to get shipped Microsoft product updates. THAT could cripple even the U.S. government (who uses a considerable amount of Microsoft Windows operating systems to OPERATE their administrative computers). And of course if the U.S. government were crippled from an over-zealous bashing of Bill Gates, it would probably come down hard on Hollywood in some way, covert or overt.

(2) Then, of course, if one asks WHY his or her project was "NOT CHOSEN" the reasons are easy to make up: "It wasnít good enough; The story didnít move; The character development was poor; The ending sucks; We donít think westerns or Greek movies are marketable; No one wants subtitles or black and white; We did a movie in that genre last year" . . . . ad nausium. Meanwhile that same executive or that same studio is in process of green lighting some other project that has basically the same "faults" but was saved by the fact that it was written by a girlfriend or a wife or a crony who is affiliated with the control group and/or a (promising new) member of the tribe. Itís not only the perfect crime: HOLLYWOOD is the perfect crime. So you gonna tell me that an industry that sits around all day dreaming up plots with every imaginable crime canít dream up a series of real-life crimes to hide its tracks down discrimination ally? George, you are the one dreaming Iím afraid. You need to confront WHAT Hollywood actually IS, not what you would like to imagine it IS.





Re(3): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 04:04:40 AM by George Shelps

So, getting back to your quaint pleas for proof of acts of COMMISSION. I suppose someone COULD find such a proof. I'm sure there are conversations that go on behind closed doors where one member in the control group might ask another: "Does Brad spell his name Burger or Berger?" And I'm sure someday, someone (perhaps a group of next-generation activists) will plant microphones or micro-cameras all over the offices in the black tower at UNIVERSAL STUDIOS or under the tables at LA DOME and capture some incriminating dialog for the world to experience -- but, I'm also sure that, even if this were to happen, you and other Hollywood apologists would still cry insufficient evidence and demand another horizon of proof.

__I'm not a "Hollywood apologist," stop lying about me.

And if you can't come up with such a
"quaint" thing as hard evidence of
discrimination, all you have is a resentful case against a typical corporate "good old boy" network, something that exists in Main Line
Philadelphia, as well as in Hollywood.
--------------
HOLLYWOOD is the perfect crime.

___Conspiracy theory again?

So you gonna tell me that an industry that sits around all day dreaming up plots with every imaginable crime can't dream up a series of real-life crimes to hide its tracks down discrimination ally?

___You allege crimes but provide no
evidence. Find the evidence and I will
support you. But it has to be more than
networking or nepotism.

George, you are the one dreaming I'm afraid. You need to confront WHAT Hollywood actually IS, not what you would like to imagine it IS.

__Oh, shut up. Make a movie and get it
distributed and beat Hollywood in the
correct way.

Re(4): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 03:50:41 PM by James Jaeger

>___You allege crimes but provide no
evidence. Find the evidence and I will
support you. But it has to be more than
networking or nepotism.

Have you read FATAL SUBTRACTION, George? ___Yes ___No


Have you read INDECENT EXPOSURE, George? ___Yes ___No

>__Oh, shut up. Make a movie and get it
distributed and beat Hollywood in the
correct way.

I have made several movies since January 2003 and I'm working on a TV commercial now. I would like to be directing my next feature, FAIR WEATHER FRIENDS (or a screenplay of anyone's choosing provided they put up the money and produced responsibly). FWF would only cost $500,000 to make. Bring me the budget and -- provided I direct (without asshole-interference) and get final cut -- I will turn this $500,000 into at least $3,000,000 within 3 years. My director credits and director/editor demo reel are at http://www.mecfilms.com/jjres

James Jaeger

Re(3): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 03:37:33 AM by Mitchell Levine


George, the way you frame this argument is totally incorrect.

You always say to the effect: Show me one person who has been kept out of, or denied a career in, the movie business because of discrimination by the control group.

That's not the way it happens. The control group doesn't deny anyone anything; they simply don't CHOOSE anyone who seems the slightest bit anti-Semitic or who seems to be "difficult."

- Why exactly should they "choose" people whom are antisemitic or difficult? Those are actually excellent reasons not to hire someone. Are Fortune 500 companies not entitled to not hire racists, for example? In fact, it says right in most charters that such behaviors will not be tolerated in a corporate workplace, and that they are actually illegal. Being a bigot or difficult generally means that you aren't a team player, which is the number one reason corporations decline to hire applicants. Please inform us of any law which mandates that people with such characteristics be hired, regardless of the laws that forbid workplace discrimination against ethnicities. Antisemites and toxic personalities do not constitute protected minorities, because their actions create a hostile workplace for others, violating their rights. For example, Matt Hale being denied admission to the bar because of his position of leadership in White supremacist organizations wasn't held by the courts to violate his rights in the least. It demonstrated his lack of fit character.

Everyone has heard stories (actually black PR) about people who have been "difficult" to work with (such as Orson Wells and Sean Penn).

-Anyone whom ever worked with either Orson Wells or Sean Penn also considered them rather difficult (and alcoholic). That might have something to do with it too.

So the way the discrimination works is not that anyone is KEPT OUT (that's too crude), the way it works is they are simply SHUNNED. It's not even as active as shunning (as that could be actionable because it's too obvious). It's more like, as I said above, they simply are not CHOSEN -- their projects are simply not CHOSEN to be financed, or the writer is simply not CHOSEN to do the re-write, or the director is simply not CHOSEN direct the picture or the actor is simply not CHOSEN to star in the picture. Thus the crimes of discrimination in MPAA-infested Hollywood are not ones of COMMISSION, but ones of OMISSION.(2)

- Why exactly is a studio obligated to
purchase a project they don't wish to? No law demands they spend their money on anyone or anything in particular. That would be just as true if they refused to buy into the projects of Jewish directors. For some reason, you continue to believe that the Supreme Court ruling concerning "film as an important communications medium," implies that studios are subject to the same rules as governments. It doesn't.

You keep asking for the smoking gun of COMISSION because you know it is very difficult to get because you also know the people that run Hollywood, the CONTROL GROUP, have had decades, if not centuries, of practice pushing, and NOT pushing power in exact directions, i.e., engaging in acts of OMISSION.

- Wow! This Hollywood thing has been going on for centuries! Even though the camera is a 20th century invention! I guess it must be a conspiracy.

I was in Scientology for 15 years and learned much about the mechanisms of pushing power. Hubbard was fanatical about how power is obtained, used and perpetuated. There is even one entire level on the Bridge dedicated to power and the handling power (level V) and the Ethics Conditions deal with how to ASSUME it and how to do POWER CHANGES. And this, of course, is one of the reasons the Jews will never fuck with the Scientologists, because they KNOW they know their game and can play it as well or better.

- I hope you realize just HOW completely inane this sounds.

And indeed, my hat DOES go off to the Jews, as Hubbard probably leaned and codified much of their technology on the acquisition, consolidation and transfer of power they learned and passed down through thousands of years.

- Now it can be told: Jewish "technology" has codified power over thousands of years!!! Thanks for clarifying your "anti-conspiracy theory" position, Jim!

So, getting back to your quaint pleas for proof of acts of COMMISSION. I suppose someone COULD find such a proof. I'm sure there are conversations that go on behind closed doors where one member in the control group might ask another: "Does Brad spell his name Burger or Berger?" And I'm sure someday, someone (perhaps a group of next-generation activists) will plant microphones or micro-cameras all over the offices in the black tower at UNIVERSAL STUDIOS or under the tables at LA DOME and capture some incriminating dialog for the world to experience -- but, I'm also sure that, even if this were to happen, you and other Hollywood apologists would still cry insufficient evidence and demand another horizon of proof.

- In other words, you have none.

Then, of course, if one asks WHY his or her project was "NOT CHOSEN" the reasons are easy to make up: "It wasnít good enough; The story didnít move; The character development was poor; The ending sucks; We donít think westerns or Greek movies are marketable; No one wants subtitles or black and white; We did a movie in that genre last year" . . . . ad nausium. Meanwhile that same executive or that same studio is in process of green lighting some other project that has basically the same "faults" but was saved by the fact that it was written by a girlfriend or a wife or a crony who is affiliated with the control group and/or a (promising new) member of the tribe. Itís not only the perfect crime: HOLLYWOOD is the perfect crime.

- The only problem there is that it's not a crime. It's their money; if they want to give it up to their wives', girlfriends', or "cronies" projects,
that's perfectly legal. You see, Jim, such things are only a crime in the public arena of civil service, not for a for-profit corporation, nor will it ever be. Exactly what right do you think anyone has to tell them whom they can spend their money on, given that they are businesses, and not public institutions? Are you suggesting that intervention be equally applied to YOUR entertainment company, too? You still haven't mentioned any minority-based productions you're looking to float.



Re(4): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 05:22:08 PM by James Jaeger

>- Why exactly should they "choose" people whom are antisemitic or difficult? Those are actually excellent reasons not to hire someone. Are Fortune 500 companies not entitled to not hire racists, for example? In fact, it says right in most charters that such behaviors will not be tolerated in a corporate workplace, and that they are actually illegal. Being a bigot or difficult generally means that you aren't a team player, which is the number one reason corporations decline to hire applicants. Please inform us of any law which mandates that people with such characteristics be hired, regardless of the laws that forbid workplace discrimination against ethnicities. Antisemites and toxic personalities do not constitute protected minorities, because their actions create a hostile workplace for others, violating their rights. For example, Matt Hale being denied admission to the bar because of his position of leadership in White supremacist organizations wasn't held by the courts to violate his rights in the least. It demonstrated his lack of fit character.

I am not saying that Hollywood (or any corporation) should hire bigots as I agree these types may be less than good team players as they may not recognize that everyone has basically the same potential (all human DNA is virtually identical, thus computing power/ability of all humans is virtually identical).

>-Anyone whom ever worked with either Orson Wells or Sean Penn also considered them rather difficult (and alcoholic). That might have something to do with it too.

True. But Orson was definately black-listed after he crossed the media Establishment of his day. So was Cliff Robertson after he blew the whistle on MPAA studio/distributor top-executive, David Begleman. Robinsin was not an alcoholic or "difficult." For details on this scandle, read INDECENT EXPOSURE. Why hasn't Hollywood made a feature on this book? Why has Hollywood made so many features on other industries' scandles? Answer: because the CONTROL GROUP controls what movies will be made and distributed through Hollywood movie studios. :)

>- Why exactly is a studio obligated to
purchase a project they don't wish to?

It's not a matter of being "obligated." You are taking the argument to an extreme in an attempt to invalidate my points. I said the omission is SUBTLE.

>No law demands they spend their money on anyone or anything in particular.

Yes, the laws against discrimination DO demand that the studios' BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ensure their stockholders that their capital is spent indiscriminantly on people with equal ability to do the job properly, and that such people get equal shots at those variuos jobs irrespective of their race, religion, sex, age. The FACT that the record in Hollywood shows that the EMPLOYMENT of the top three posts of the MPAA studio/distributors is basically the SAME demographic leaves only one (1) of two choices to explain what has happened over 90-years:

1. The studios hold an elitist view that only politically liberal, not-very-religions, white, Jewish males of European heritage are able or qualified to run studios, or;

2. The hiring practices of the studios are discriminatory because the record shows that over the past 90-some years MOSTLY politically liberal, not-very-religions, white, Jewish males of European heritage have been hired to the three top positions. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>That would be just as true if they refused to buy into the projects of Jewish directors.

FIRM is NOT addressing the levels below studio executives at the senior level.

>For some reason, you continue to believe that the Supreme Court ruling concerning "film as an important communications medium," implies that studios are subject to the same rules as governments. It doesn't.

No, the recognition of the Supreme Court is indicator that those in charge of possibly the world's most powerful comunication channel (feature motion pictures) have a major responsibility to a democratic society where the free flow of ideas is one of the only things that keeps democracy viable.

>- Wow! This Hollywood thing has been going on for centuries! Even though the camera is a 20th century invention! I guess it must be a conspiracy.

One of the most cohesive elements of the Hollywood CONTROL GROUP demographic is undoubtedly the fact of Jewish identity -- thus such long-standing bonds. And there is nothing wrong with this as all groups have such bonds. Christians do, Scientologists do. It's one of the REASONS this control group HAS it's cohesivness, but the main problem is that there are ALSO all the other points of cohesiveness. If, let's say, everyone who ran a major studio was Jewish, but there was a great diversity of political slant, gender, religions devotion and general heritage, the situation would be much better than it is today in Hollywood. Thus it's really not the idea that there are so many Jews running studios, it's the idea that there are so many cumulative elements that are almost identical. That makes the control group too monolithic for a democratic society IMO.

>- I hope you realize just HOW completely inane this sounds.

No, it's true. Ask around. My personal experience in Hollywood is that Jews tend to either love or hate Scientology but neither will challenge it's knowldege-base or experience on certain matters. To this day I have a number of Jewish friends-turned-Scientologist and a number of them are working, quite successfully in the movie business. I think Scientology is gaining greater acceptance in LA and with the Jewish community, and this is to the Jewish community's credit as it shows a growing tolerance for people that some consider cultists.

>- Now it can be told: Jewish "technology" has codified power over thousands of years!!! Thanks for clarifying your "anti-conspiracy theory" position, Jim!

You trying to tell me that Jews AREN'T good at business, negotiating and networking? I would say they are excellent at this, on par with the Scientologists. Scientologists also network almost exclusively with each other, something I was even guilty of myself when I was active in the Church in LA. Some people call these networks "conspiracies." This is not exactly accurate. They are more like nodes in the general population that have become hubs in society due to entrenched relationships and performance standards. Read a book called LINKED by Laszlo Barabasi and this will shed some light on scale-free networks and how they operate. With such new knowledge there is little need to use the word "conspiracy" any longer as this word is too nebulous in its definition/application.

>- In other words, you have none.

I could probably bring forth people in a court of law that could testify that they were mistaken as being Jewish and while they WERE so mistaken, they were treated in an entirely different manner than they were treated AFTER it was realized that they were NOT Jewish. I have asked one such person to post his stories here at the FIRM site and will let you know if he does.

>- The only problem there is that it's not a crime. It's their money; if they want to give it up to their wives', girlfriends', or "cronies" projects,
that's perfectly legal.

No it's not legal. It's illegal because it's the VERY crime that the laws against discrimination were designed for. And it's NOT "their money." It's the stockholders' money. These studio executives are committing crimes with their stockholders money by using that money to purchase services of executives of a certain demographic to the majority exclusion of all other demographics.

>You see, Jim, such things are only a crime in the public arena of civil service, not for a for-profit corporation, nor will it ever be.

False.

>Exactly what right do you think anyone has to tell them whom they can spend their money on, given that they are businesses, and not public institutions?

The People of this country have instructed their represenatives to enact laws that will prevent and punish discriminating hiring practices. Were the major studios' top executives AND their boards of directors NOT condoning discriminating hiring practices, the executive ROSTER in the top eschelons of the MPAA studio/distributors would NOT look like it has for 90-some years. Please! Again, see http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist for substanbtiation of this allegation.

>Are you suggesting that intervention be equally applied to YOUR entertainment company, too?

Sure.

>You still haven't mentioned any minority-based productions you're looking to float.

As a producer, I have hired people of all backgrounds in the past. Today, when people submit screenplays to us, we have no idea whether they are male or female or what their race or religion is because transactions take place over the Internet and the forms and the contracts they fill out don't ask for information of this sort.

Re(4): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 11:36:53 PM by Gary Hirsh

I must say this site makes for some interesting reading. I am Jewish, yet I never knew I had such power. I guess it's just been laying dorment in me for 43 years. John, did you once have a bad experience with a Jewish person that has led you to your beliefs, or perhaps you were shunned by Hollywood and need someone to blame?

I know it seems easier to to single out a group of people and clasify them rather than see the world the way it is; hard, ruthless and unfair. As a Jew, I am offended by some of your comments, but I hesitate to call you "anti-semetic". I would say instead that you are ignorant.

If I follow your logic, I could say that since I worked for a company that was owned by an Italian man, that when I was laid off, it was because I am not Italian. Gee, maybe it was for economic reasons. But hey, I have all these powers that I never knew I had! Maybe I can start a movie studio, or buy a bank, or become a doctor. Then again, since Jews have all the money, maybe I don't have to ever work again (just tell me where I'm keeping all the money so I can start to enjoy it!)

My advice to you is to look inward rather than trying to find fault with any particular faith. Then you may be able to drop the anger and live a happier life.

Peace!

 

Re(5): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 06:30:05 PM by James Jaeger

>I must say this site makes for some interesting reading. I am Jewish, yet I never knew I had such power. I guess it's just been laying dorment in me for 43 years.

Gary, neither John Cones nor I are saying that Jews in general have such power or control Hollywood. Nor are we in any way implying that any of the unethical or discriminating business practices that occur in Hollywood are happening because the such people in power in Hollywood are or may be Jewish. In other words, being Jewish has NOTHING to do with how Jewish people in Hollywood may or may not be handling their power. While it could be said that Hollywood is controlled by Jews (as one element of the control demographic), it cannot be said that Jews control Hollywood (and you, of course, are an example of this as you say you have no power).

>John, did you once have a bad experience with a Jewish person that has led you to your beliefs, or perhaps you were shunned by Hollywood and need someone to blame?

Are you speaking to John Cones or me, James Jaeger? I can answer this for my part. When I was living and working in Hollywood (as is true today) I never once concerned myself with whether any one was Jewish or not. When I was living and working in Hollywood I was active as a member of Scientology. The Church of Scientology does not discriminate and any Scientologist will tell you that Scientologists, and Scientology in general, is not concerned with a "being's" current identity, but only addresses a person as a "spiritual being" with unlimited ability, once developed or released, and demonstrably immortal.

>I know it seems easier to to single out a group of people and clasify them rather than see the world the way it is; hard, ruthless and unfair. As a Jew, I am offended by some of your comments, but I hesitate to call you "anti-semetic". I would say instead that you are ignorant.

I don't understand what any of this has to do with the fact that there is little diversity in the CONTROL GROUP of the MPAA studio/distributors. You think FIRM and any one connected with it, is just criticizing Hollywood because we "don't like Jews." This is a very narrow view of a broad democratic issue. No one is saying that Jewish people cannot and should not participate in Hollywood just as much as any one else, all we're saying is that the 90-year record shows patterns of a hiring bias which tends to favor politically liberal, not-very-religions, Jewish males of European heritage. You are trying to twist this point into an entirely different discussion than that discussion which FIRM is addressing. Perhaps you are not aware of FIRM's MISSION which is stated at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/fmission.htm

>If I follow your logic, I could say that since I worked for a company that was owned by an Italian man, that when I was laid off, it was because I am not Italian. Gee, maybe it was for economic reasons. But hey, I have all these powers that I never knew I had! Maybe I can start a movie studio, or buy a bank, or become a doctor. Then again, since Jews have all the money, maybe I don't have to ever work again (just tell me where I'm keeping all the money so I can start to enjoy it!)

For the Nth time, what does this have to do with the fact that the list of executives at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist is so narrowly defined? Is this okay with you? Don't you appreciate diversity?

>My advice to you is to look inward rather than trying to find fault with any particular faith. Then you may be able to drop the anger and live a happier life.

Please stop trying to personalize (or trivialize) an issue that has broad implications on a sociological, political and moral scale. The issues are not what my personal views or beliefs or feelings towards Jews are. The issue is whether or not it's okay for a narrowly defined demographic -- any demographic -- to dominate what could be considered the most powerful communications machine (the Hollywood-based U.S. feature film industry) yet devised and whether such domination is healthy in a democratic society where the free interchange of ideas is vital to its success.

>Peace!

Same for you. Thanks for you views and contributions.

James Jaeger

 

Re(5): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 06:40:45 PM by mg

YOU SAY: I must say this site makes for some interesting reading. I am Jewish, yet I never knew I had such power.

RESPONSE: It's about time you become educated to the fact that more and more people are catching on to the Jewish/Israeli web.

YOU SAY: I guess it's just been laying dorment in me for 43 years. John, did you once have a bad experience with a Jewish person that has led you to your beliefs, or perhaps you were shunned by Hollywood and need someone to blame?

RESPONSE: Another typical Jewish response, so stereotypical. "What? Me, a Jew, has power? Gosh! Not so!"

YOU SAY: I know it seems easier to to single out a group of people and clasify them rather than see the world the way it is; hard, ruthless and unfair.

RESPONSE: And, collectively, Jewry is at the apex of this "hard, ruthless and unfair" world. How is that? Why is that?

YOU SAY: As a Jew, I am offended by some of your comments,

RESPONSE: As a non-Jew, your apologetic comments offend me. You insult my intelligence with your denials.

YOU SAY: but I hesitate to call you "anti-semetic". I would say instead that you are ignorant.

RESPONSE: If this is the game, fine. Let's function from your frame of argument: you are just plain stupid.

YOU SAY: If I follow your logic, I could say that since I worked for a company that was owned by an Italian man, that when I was laid off, it was because I am not Italian. Gee, maybe it was for economic reasons. But hey, I have all these powers that I never knew I had! Maybe I can start a movie studio, or buy a bank, or become a doctor. Then again, since Jews have all the money, maybe I don't have to ever work again (just tell me where I'm keeping all the money so I can start to enjoy it!)

RESPONSE: Join the Wisenthal club. Join AIPAC. Join the ADL. Call up Sumner Redstone. I hear he's hiring.

YOU SAY: My advice to you is to look inward rather than trying to find fault with any particular faith.

RESPONSE: "Look inward." Indeed. When have JEWS ever done that? Never. They seek to blame everyone for their own course which has always led to Jewish racism, exploitation, networking, and corruption.

YOU SAY: Then you may be able to drop the anger and live a happier life.

RESPONSE: Gosh. You must be a professional Jewish clown, smile painted from lip to belly-button.


Re(6): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 09:32:58 PM by Gary Hirsh

Wow, MG you certainly are an angry retard! What part of Arkansas are you from? Are your mother and father brother and sister by any chance?

I was born in this country, and served in the military. What really get's me is some redneck, toothless, hood wearing, goosestep marching motherfucker like you is allowed to walk this earth.

When your ancestors were buttfucking monkeys (your mother!), mine were developing communities and seeking knowlege.

Listen it's not my fault you're a moron, and I certaily don't have any power. If I did, you'd be the first to know.

So go ahead and spew your venum, but no matter who you decide to blame your worthless existance on, you will still be an ignorant lowlife.

Re(7): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:30:52 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Wow, MG you certainly are an angry retard!

RESPONSE: Very intelligent response. Only smear/slander.

YOU SAY: What part of Arkansas are you from?

RESPONSE: What have you got against people from Arkansas? It's pretty keen the way your naked Jewish bigotry against the South is so engrained in culture that you don't even recognize it when you spill your bigoted Jewish Beans.

YOU SAY: Are your mother and father brother and sister by any chance?

RESPONSE: You know, I had a retort about your mother, a two-headed baboon, and a bordello but why must I be dragged down to your sordid level? If you want to argue, why don't you try and SAY something?

YOU SAY: I was born in this country, and served in the military.

RESPONSE: Whose military? Israel's? Or a pirate ship?

YOU SAY: What really get's me is some redneck, toothless, hood wearing, goosestep marching motherfucker like you is allowed to walk this earth.

RESPONSE: Here it is, as always: the Jewish "Mission to the World."

YOU SAY: When your ancestors were buttfucking monkeys (your mother!), mine were developing communities and seeking knowlege.

RESPONSE: So, OK. You've proven that you work now in the porno industry (related to the Porn Baron Hirsch?) Congratulations. Looks like you've studied piles of dirtbags for centuries. The "knowledge" you've displayed so far I could find in a porno shop.

YOU SAY: Listen it's not my fault you're a moron, and I certaily don't have any power. If I did, you'd be the first to know.

YOU SAY: How long were at the dictionary to write this sentence?

YOU SAY: So go ahead and spew your venum, but no matter who you decide to blame your worthless existance on, you will still be an ignorant lowlife.

RESPONSE: You have displayed one thing only with your post: you are another Jewish "hater" whose forte is smear/insult/vulgarity/degradation.

Congratulations! You win a red balloon.

 

 

Re(8): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 7, 2003 at 03:32:04 PM by Gary Hirsh

YOU SAY: Wow, MG you certainly are an angry retard!

RESPONSE: Very intelligent response. Only smear/slander.

RETORT: Seems true to just about everyone reading this!

YOU SAY: What part of Arkansas are you from?

RESPONSE: What have you got against people from Arkansas? It's pretty keen the way your naked Jewish bigotry against the South is so engrained in culture that you don't even recognize it when you spill your bigoted Jewish Beans.

RETORT: So what you say isn't bigoted? Give me a break!

YOU SAY: Are your mother and father brother and sister by any chance?

RESPONSE: You know, I had a retort about your mother, a two-headed baboon, and a bordello but why must I be dragged down to your sordid level? If you want to argue, why don't you try and SAY something?

RETORT: You had a retort? Seems like you gave it. What I have to say, I will say to your face punk! Anytime any place.

YOU SAY: I was born in this country, and served in the military.

RESPONSE: Whose military? Israel's? Or a pirate ship?

RETORT: The United States Air Force. What have you ever done for your country?

YOU SAY: What really get's me is some redneck, toothless, hood wearing, goosestep marching motherfucker like you is allowed to walk this earth.

RESPONSE: Here it is, as always: the Jewish "Mission to the World."

RETORT: What mission? Can you be a little more clear? Do you just make this shit up as you go along?

YOU SAY: When your ancestors were buttfucking monkeys (your mother!), mine were developing communities and seeking knowlege.

RESPONSE: So, OK. You've proven that you work now in the porno industry (related to the Porn Baron Hirsch?) Congratulations. Looks like you've studied piles of dirtbags for centuries. The "knowledge" you've displayed so far I could find in a porno shop.

RETORT: You seem to know more about porno industry than me. I do not work in the porno industry. It's just another smear/insult/vulgarity/degradation, that you people spread about Jews.

YOU SAY: Listen it's not my fault you're a moron, and I certaily don't have any power. If I did, you'd be the first to know.

YOU SAY: How long were at the dictionary to write this sentence?

RETORT: Why, did you find some of the words difficult to understand?

YOU SAY: So go ahead and spew your venum, but no matter who you decide to blame your worthless existance on, you will still be an ignorant lowlife.

RESPONSE: You have displayed one thing only with your post: you are another Jewish "hater" whose forte is smear/insult/vulgarity/degradation.

RETORT: Just trying to keep up with you buba!

YOU SAY: Congratulations! You win a red balloon.

RETORT: And you win a black balloon.

Please feel free to contact me directly. It would be a pleasure to meet you. Unlike you, I post my name and e-mail address. I am always willing to backup what I say. Contact me anytime you want and we can discuss this in person. But I don't think you have the nerve. If you have something negative to say to me, say it to my face, bitch.

Re(9): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 7, 2003 at 09:20:08 PM by mg


YOU SAY: Please feel free to contact me directly. It would be a pleasure to meet you. Unlike you, I post my name and e-mail address. I am always willing to backup what I say. Contact me anytime you want and we can discuss this in person. But I don't think you have the nerve. If you have something negative to say to me, say it to my face, bitch.

RESPONSE: This is the modern Jewish paradigm: a HUGE chip on the shoulder, an inability to maintain civil discourse, and the constant call to violence in defense of Jewish Neurosis.

Eaten any Palestian babies lately?

Re(10): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 08:12:06 AM by Gary Hirsh

Exactly the twisted response I expect from you.

I know that in your limited mental
capacity you often confuse Jews with Israelies. As an American, the Palestinians aren't a factor in my daily life. The fact is, my family is from Russia and the UK. I have blond hair and blue eyes.

For the record, your comments are anything but civil, and I am not calling for violence in defense of Jewish Neurosis, I just wanted to see if you were man enough to back up your harsh words. As I expected, you are not. L:ike a typical coward, you hide behind rhetoric and propaganda, and allow others to fight your battles.

I don't have a HUGE chip on my shoulder. I just don't like YOU.

And if you are going to make any cracks like "Eaten any Palestian babies lately?", you should be prepared to back up it up. But you aren't are you? You prefer to hide like a child.

So, sit back and write your garbage, and cry about how unfair it is that the Jews have everything and run everything. Continue to contribute nothing to the world.

Or come out of hiding "MG" and be prepared to defend your position.

 

 

Re(11): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 09:21:47 PM by mg

Kind Sir.

I am not a coward. On the contrary. But to exchange insults with you in a telephone call (or in a person to person venue) is my idea of time wasted. Why invent artifical rage against a complete stranger? Why should I expend precious time on you solely? Should I live my life like you in a manner something akin to "road rage." That's absurd.

Your position in this is that of teenager who apparently has a serious problem with his own masculinity, where mindless machismo rules rhetoric. Big-Time Wrestling bravado and gorilla breast-beating is really silly.

And I really have no animosity towards you personally, except to the degree you maintain an activist ideology that is oppressive to others (and to the degree that you insult everyone who differs with your opinion at this forum, as you have).

The issues aren't rooted in differing individuals; the issues are social and political IDEAS.

You want to fight? Dip into your moral and intellectual realms and give this forum your best shot.

The best forum for exchange is here where the public can weigh the evidence and the arguments.

In this forum of ideas, I assure you that -- for my part -- nothing of social and political import will be "hidden."

Now you? That's another story. Of all the possibilities, will you continue to play barbarian?

Re(12): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 10:27:06 PM by Gary Hirsh

Spent a lot of time at the dictionary huh? Guys like you are very funny! You say nasty things and then run away. Be accountable for your insults, or just go away.

Wasn't it you who asked what military I served in "Israeli army or a Pirate Ship?". Was that an example of "issues that are social and political IDEAS." What exactly did you mean by that? A Pirate ship? Was that a dig at my being Jewish?

Actually I have no animosity toward anyone who's idea's differ from mine, except you. You lace every one of your "idea's" with stereotypical portrayals. Where are your ideas? I have read every one of your posts, and they are filled with sarcasim and insults.

True, you are a complete stranger, but I know you all too well. You throw accusations and insults at Jewish people without knowing a thing about us.

Will I continue to play the barbarian? Will you continue to play the fool? I have shared my background and heritage with everyone on this site, without shame and I defend it with honor. You, on the other hand hide behind insults. What is your heritage? Perhaps I can gain some insight to your personality based on your religion and nationality just as you have done with Jewish people.

It may interest you to know that Judaism is a religion, not a race. Some Jews are Dark skinned, some light skinned. Some are tall, some are short, some are smart, others not so smart. Some are rich and powerful, others are poor and powerless. We are many nationalities, as are most other religions, yet you would lump us all together into one group as if we all behave the same way. It's not like we all get together while the rest of the world sleeps to plot world domination!



I will exchange my ideas with other people on the site, but you are not worth my time. You contribute nothing, and you refuse to even see Jews as normal average Americans. The fact that you can't grasp these concepts only shows how provincial you are.

 

 

Re(13): Proving a Negative
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 11:35:02 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Spent a lot of time at the dictionary huh? Guys like you are very funny! You say nasty things and then run away. Be accountable for your insults, or just go away.

RESPONSE: "Run away?" I've been posting here for a long time. I don't "run away" from moral and intellectual exchanges. You pop in and start hysterically screaming: "Bring on the JDL!" "This site is the beginning of another Holocaust." Please. Be serious. Think before you post here.

YOU SAY: Wasn't it you who asked what military I served in "Israeli army or a Pirate Ship?". Was that an example of "issues that are social and political IDEAS."

RESPONSE: Very, very much so.

YOU SAY: What exactly did you mean by that? A Pirate ship? Was that a dig at my being Jewish?

RESPONSE: Per massive Jewish allegiance to the "pirate ship" of Israel, yes. Look, you've only posted here a couple days and you're already yelling that this site is the ember of a potential Holocaust. That's Jewish Neurosis talking. Think about it.

YOU SAY:Actually I have no animosity toward anyone who's idea's differ from mine, except you. You lace every one of your "idea's" with stereotypical portrayals. Where are your ideas?

RESPONSE: You're a very late visitor to this forum. My "ideas" are wide-ranging and have been posted here and elsewhere.

YOU SAY: I have read every one of your posts, and they are filled with sarcasim and insults.

RESPONSE: The structure of my more recent posts are in direct response to the continous slander and insult I face by people like you who REFUSE to accept ANY criticism of the Jewish community. When you jump in and start screaming for a fist fight, how can you be addressed in a reasoned manner? Sarcasm will set you on the shelf. I prefer civility and a robust exchange of ideas. I'm always open to that. If those who smear me aimed for that, we'd have some much more reasoned discourse.

YOU SAY: True, you are a complete stranger, but I know you all too well.

RESPONSE: You know absolutely nothing about me except that I have studied Jewish identity and history for many years now. I know the terrain.

YOU SAY: You throw accusations and insults at Jewish people without knowing a thing about us.

RESPONSE: You are new to this forum. I know far, far more about Jewish identity and history than you'd like. What would you like to know?

YOU SAY: Will I continue to play the barbarian? Will you continue to play the fool? I have shared my background and heritage with everyone on this site, without shame and I defend it with honor.

RESPONSE: I don't see any honor. Calls for fist fights and championing of the terrorist JDL organization is the posture of a "fool." You defeat, by these tactics, your declaration of "honor." The align yourself with the JDL, an organization whose head -- Irv Rubin -- just committed suicide in prison after being accused of planning to blow up a mosque. Is this how you defend your Jewish (or any other) "honor?

YOU SAY: You, on the other hand hide behind insults.

RESPONSE: Not so. When I am insulted, I can dish it back if need be. If I am debated with dignity, I respond in turn. If the game is one-upsmanship, I know the terrain. I can play it as well as anyone.

YOU SAY: What is your heritage?

RESPONSE: This is an irrelevant question. This issue is Jewish influence in Hollywood, not me.

YOU SAY: Perhaps I can gain some insight to your personality based on your religion and nationality just as you have done with Jewish people.

RESPONSE: Think about what you are saying here. It is a MAJOR concession.

YOU SAY: It may interest you to know that Judaism is a religion, not a race.

RESPONSE: You do not grasp who/what you are up against. I have studied Jewish identity for years. You are going over elemental terrain. Jewish identity involves race, religion, tribal nationality, communal allegiance to a victimhood martyrology model, etc. It is no single thing.

YOU SAY: Some Jews are Dark skinned, some light skinned. Some are tall, some are short, some are smart, others not so smart. Some are rich and powerful, others are poor and powerless. We are many nationalities, as are most other religions, yet you would lump us all together into one group as if we all behave the same way. It's not like we all get together while the rest of the world sleeps to plot world domination!

REPONSE: Some of this is true, some false. Jewish identity very much involves an international tribal solidarity, as you know. This area is the most sensitive to you.

YOU SAY: I will exchange my ideas with other people on the site, but you are not worth my time.

RESPONSE: Fine. Don't respond to my posts. Screams to sword fights are childish.

YOU SAY: You contribute nothing, and you refuse to even see Jews as normal average Americans. The fact that you can't grasp these concepts only shows how provincial you are.

RESPONSE: Jews do not see themselves as "normal average Americans," as you know. This is a big subject, and if you review earlier posts, and start reading some books about Jewish identity, you'll see the light.

 

 

 

 

 

Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 11:41:47 AM by John Cones

George:

There you go again, George making stuff up so you can complain. If you read my writing, you will find nothing about quotas. We have pointed out a problem based on a considerable amount of research and discussed a number of different ways to resolve the problem, without any discussion or suggestion of quotas. Your complaint is that we have offered an unacceptable solution that we have not offered, and that we have not gone as far as you would like for us to go.

John Cones

 

Re(1): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 03:34:10 PM by George Shelps


There you go again, George making stuff up so you can complain.

___That's a lie.

If you read my writing, you will find nothing about quotas.

___You're careful to avoid mentioning them, but the logical solution to MANDATED diversity is some form of quota.

We have pointed out a problem based on a considerable amount of research and discussed a number of different ways to resolve the problem, without any discussion or suggestion of quotas. Your complaint is that we have offered an unacceptable solution that we have not offered, and that we have not gone as far as you would like for us to go.

___State for the record what your
principal solution to the diversity is, then.

And don't say: "to stimulate further discussion and debate."

And don't say: "read my book and find out."

 

Re(2): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 06:49:40 PM by mg

Hey, Shelps.

As a Christian obsessive in good standing, do you believe that everyone should become a Christian? If not, why don't you become a Jew? If so, you surely must realize the intellectual trap that awaits you.

Re(3): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 09:09:57 PM by George SHelps



Hey, Shelps.

As a Christian obsessive in good standing, do you believe that everyone should become a Christian? If not, why don't you become a Jew? If so, you surely must realize the intellectual trap that awaits you.

___Hey, moron...Jesus himself gave the commission to baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit....but at the same time, faith comes only by God's Grace, and therefore individual conscience must
be respected.

Therefore, I respect all paths to God,
even though I believe Christianity is
the truest path.

Re(4): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:04:04 PM by mg

YOU SAY: even though I believe Christianity is the truest path

RESPONSE: And why isn't your position here "discrimination?" Why isn't it "bigotry?" Who are you to think that your religion is "the truest path."

It sounds like "hate" of everyone else's belief to me; that's the logic of guy's like YOU.

You are, by defintion, an elitist. Desite your PC apologetics, you adhere to a dogma, thereby decrying that other dogmas are false.

If you're so tolerant, and your faith isn't that terribly rooted in your very soul, why don't you become a Jew, since you're two-thirds of the way there already? Then you can walk around telling everyone that you're a chronic victim too.

Re(1): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 01:36:33 PM by Mitchell Levine

Oh really, John? Maybe you've forgotten about this:

"And, even if what is happening in Hollywood is not against any existing law, the law neeeds to be changed, because the lack of diversity at the top at the Hollywood studios is not good for the country. It weakens our democracy to have any significant communications medium dominated by less diverse voices."

If George is mistaken, then exactly what kind of laws in need of being changed were you referring to above?

Re(2): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 06:51:57 PM by Juan

We need laws that seek to remedy discrimination.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court says it's OK to give brownie points to minorities to law school.

Logically then, if getting more minorities pieces of the pie is the ideal, we need to get some of the Jews who are clogging the upper hierarchy out of there.

Re(3): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 07:15:28 PM by Mitchell Levine

Wrong. Giving minorities "a few extra brownie points" was STRUCK DOWN by the courts - I know, you probably didn't read that far into the article.

What the court allowed was simply a separate admissions process for minorities; it specifically said that providing extra admissions points was illegal.

Besides, giving minorites extra points disadvantages everyone else equally, as opposed to quotas which disadvantage one group selectively.

Re(4): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 08:40:37 PM by Anonymous

Read the ruling again. The University of Michigan quotas for minorities was supported. Logically, for every Black or Hispanic coming in, someone has to go out.

Jews already clog the law schools of this country in profound disproportion. If the game is ethnic balance (and it IS), a few Silversteins ought to go instead of O'Malleys, don't you think?

Re(5): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 09:59:01 PM by Mitchell Levine

Quotas for minorities were NOT officially supported; point additions made specifically on the basis of race were struck down. Only a separate admissions process was allowed.

Besides, you idiot, it only applies to RACIAL minorities. The Irish would never get any extra points just for being Irish! There's plenty of them in law schools.

Re(6): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:12:02 PM by mg

Levine, here's your form, and here's how intelligent (and your pride yourself on your intelligence, as you've told us profusely -- need to tell us again?) you sound:

Asshole, imbecile, moron, cretin, scumbag:


By the 1960s, numbering about two and a half percent of the American population, as two Jewish scholars note:
"One in five lawyers in the United States was of Jewish ancestry. Jews also constituted 12 percent of the faculty of law schools in the United States and, more importantly, 38 percent of the faculty at elite law<
schools ... In sum, Americans of Jewish background have become an elite group in American society, with a cultural
and intellectual influence far beyond their numbers."

Re(7): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:43:22 PM by Mitchell Levine

All this establishes is that Jews have been successful in the Law. Boy, I bet nobody's figured out that before! Very intelligent observation, Jenks.

Considering the fact that placement as legal faculty is done on an entirely meritocratic basis, it's not really something to be ashamed of.

Re(8): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:50:31 PM by mg

You equated numbers of Irish lawyers with the Jewish version. This is a false equation, per influence, numbers, percentage of the population, and everything else.

Levine, your arguments are starting to fall apart. Get a grip. More amphetamines!

Re(9): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 11:04:56 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, you idiot - THE MINORITY ENROLLMENT PROCEDURES WOULD NEVER APPLY TO THE IRISH. THEY ARE NOT A RACIAL MINORITY!

The Supreme Court ruling only applied to disadvantaged racial minorities, a demograph that the Irish do not belong to! There's lots of them in law school, and their per capita incomes are typically well above the poverty range index.

Re(10): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 7, 2003 at 10:18:16 PM by mg

Imbecile, idiot, dickhead, asshole, scumbag,

(following your usual form of introduction)

you only take information and twist it down roads that are irrelevant to the original issue.

Jews, so powerful, declare themselves to be "minorities" too, but also blend in as "white" when advantages are to be gained in that direction.


The issue, again, is that Jews are profoundly disproportionately represented in the law world (and so much else) and if the logic of the Supreme Court is to be taken to its logical conclusion, Jews should start volunteering their many, many nice jobs to the disadvantaged.

Re(11): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 10:48:42 PM by Anonymous

YOU SAY: Jews, so powerful, declare themselves to be "minorities" too, but also blend in as "white" when advantages are to be gained in that direction.

- All Jews do this?

Re(12): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 9, 2003 at 02:06:32 PM by Mitchell Levine

And Jews - at 2.5% of the population - AREN'T a minority?

Re(13): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 04:09:21 PM by mg

French Americans are also "minorities." As are German Americans, Guatemalan Americans, etc.

Re(14): Quotas? What Quotas?
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 05:01:53 PM by Mitchell Levine

They aren't an ethnic or religious minority - citizenship can be changed, while racial and ethnic identity cannot be. Thus they are not typically targets for discrimination, particularly when they are born American citizens.