Further Research
Posted on November 10, 2003 at 03:45:47 PM by James Jaeger

Mitchell Levene wrote:
>If you need help putting a grant proposal together, I'm your man.

Do you have any expertise in that area?

James Jaeger

 

 

Gibson 'Infected' With Anti-Semitism
Posted on November 11, 2003 at 02:59:30 PM by James Jaeger

ADL's Foxman: Mel Gibson 'Infected' With Anti-Semitism

Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Saturday, Nov. 8, 2003

Exclusive: Learn the Inside Scoop on Mel Gibson's 'Passion of Christ' Ė Only in NewsMax Magazine


NEW YORK Ė A prominent Jewish leader declared that movie actor and director Mel Gibson was "seriously infected" with anti-Semitic views, based on recent comments the Hollywood star has made regarding his movie "The Passion of Christ."

Abraham Foxman, the national director of Anti-Defamation League, said, "I think he's infected, seriously infected, with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views."

Foxman made the remarks at a panel discussion titled "Mel Gibson's The Passion: A Conversation on Its Implications for Jews and Christians." The discussion took place during the 90th annual national meeting of ADL Thursday.

For balance of article see http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/7/152355.shtml

James Jaeger

Re(1): Gibson 'Infected' With Anti-Semitism
Posted on November 30, 2003 at 06:15:15 PM by Steve M

Funny how Mr. Foxman from the ADL, wants to try to stop the releae of this film using the same laws that he trys to use to promote is left wing phil-semetic views.

Re(2): Gibson 'Infected' With Anti-Semitism
Posted on November 30, 2003 at 08:33:43 PM by Mitchell Levine

Mr. Foxman didn't use any kind of litigation whatsoever. He simply appealed to Mr. Gibson's sense of decency with his legitimate concerns. Note that you're too stupid to realize this - typical for a raving bigot.

 

 

 

Billy Graham Endorses PASSION
Posted on November 26, 2003 at 03:15:10 PM by James Jaeger

Well the politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage that control the studios really f___ed up this time. THE PASSION has been endorsed by the Number One evangelist in America, Billy Graham.(1) This ensures that at least 30% of all Christians will go see the picture no matter what -- EVEN if the picture doesn't have subtitles.

Mel Gibson represents a disenfranchised minority in Hollywood, the Christian Community, no different than other disenfranchised minorities -- like Arab Americans, African Americans, Asians, Whites from the American South, Constitutional Conservatives, Pro-Gun Activists, Anti-Abortion Activists and Women -- none, or very few of which, hold top executive positions in the 7 MPAA studio/distributors. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist.

What were the MPAA studios thinking? What was Mel's "home" studio, TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX, thinking when it said to him in essence: 'Mel, we like you, but we don't think your pet project, THE PASSION, will be commercial so we're going to forget about all the billions you have made us on your last movies and shut you out as far as financing and distribution. Come back when you want to make movies that promote OUR interests, perhaps another Holocaust picture . . . not these stupid Jesus films. Christ almighty Mel, get with the program or we're going to do the same thing to you we did to Mickey Rooney.'

James Jaeger


--------------------------------
(1)From NewsMax:

"CHARLOTTE, N.C.--Hollywood Producer/Director Mel Gibson made a special trip last month to show his new film, "The Passion of the Christ," to Rev. Billy Graham . . .

"I have often wondered what it must have been like to be a bystander during those last hours before Jesus' death," Mr. Graham said. "After watching 'The Passion of the Christ,' I feel as if I have actually been there. I was moved to tears. I doubt if there has ever been a more graphic and moving presentation of Jesus' death and resurrection - which Christians believe are the most important events in human history. . . .

"The film is faithful to the Bible's teaching that we are all responsible for Jesus' death, because we have all sinned," Mr. Graham continued. "It is our sins that caused His death, not any particular group. No one who views this film's compelling imagery will ever be the same." . . .


"The Passion of the Christ" is set to open in theaters on Ash Wednesday, February 25. . ."

Re(1): Billy Graham Endorses PASSION
Posted on November 26, 2003 at 03:49:01 PM by Mitchell Levine

Mel Gibson - an A-list mainstream Hollywood commercial movie star worth millions - is "disenfranchised"??? Everybody should be so "oppressed."

Billy Graham saying he enjoyed the picture and found it worthwhile HARDLY ensures that anything like 30% of Christians will see it: the movie won't be distributed to enough outlets that such a high percentage of them even could potentially see it. Gibson will be lucky to get his money back - although I'm sure he's probably not all that concerned about it.

Just because Mel's movies made a lot of money for the studio doesn't mean that they are therefore obligated to release his pet project, if they didn't think it was a good business decision or it offended them. That would've had to be negotiated as part of his contract, and evidently, it wasn't.

And when you say that they'll do with him "what they did with Mickey Rooney," did you mean "make over 40 films since 1980, and hundreds of TV guest appearances, while earning credits as a writer, director, producer, and art and music director?" You should have such a tragic fate.

Re(1): Billy Graham Endorses PASSION
Posted on November 30, 2003 at 06:11:08 PM by Steve M

Mel Gibson personally funded the development of this film. All 25 million came from his own pocket and his investors. Hebrewood had nothing to do with the development of making of this film. Which means it will be honest for once.

Re(2): Billy Graham Endorses PASSION
Posted on November 30, 2003 at 08:31:01 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, it will be an ideologically distorted propaganda fest which, on the basis of actual evidence, every historian on Earth will vehemently deny every happened. Regardless, douchebags like you will still use it as stimulus to promote your vision of a "racial pure" world.

 

 

 

Tribalism and Hollywood
Posted on November 28, 2003 at 06:49:10 PM by John Cones

In doing some reading over the holiday weekend, I stumbled across some writings by Canadian sociologist Pat Duffy Hutcheon that helps to explain the insider phenomenon in Hollywood. Hutcheon explains that "(t)ribalism is simply the deeply ingrained human habit of identifying oneself in terms of the group; of viewing oneís own in-group as somehow Ďspecialí and superior to others; and of discouraging social intercourse . . . with members of the Ďout-groupí. . . . Because of the way evolution works, this pattern of behaviour had the consequence of preserving the genes of those individuals who behaved in a tribalistic way, while eliminating the others. . . . Groups that did not respond to outsiders in this way failed o survive to reproduce their kind." Pat Duffy Hutcheon, "Can Humanism Stem the Rising Tide of Tribalism?" http://patduffyhutcheon.com/tribalism.htm

Elsewhere she pointed out that: "The key feature of tribalism is this instinctive tendency to recognize judge and reward people according to their group identity, rather than their characteristics as individuals." Pat Duffy Hutcheon, "Can Humanism Stem the Rising Tide of Tribalism?" http://patduffyhutcheon.com/tribalism.htm And further that "(One) . . . source of tribalism is a set of sacred beliefs identifying the groupís members as uniquely gifted or Ďchosení by history or the gods." Pat Duffy Hutcheon, "Can Humanism Stem the Rising Tide of Tribalism?" http://patduffyhutcheon.com/tribalism.htm

"(One of the oldest sources) . . . of tribalism . . . " Hutcheon reports, is " . . . religion, and especially ethnic-based religion. Not all religions are equally guilty here. We can define a tribal type of religion as one which attempts to infuse its followers with a sense of superiority and essential Ďdifferentnessí from the mass of humankind . . . It is not accident that belief in gods and spirits readily translates into claims for the superiority of a culture which celebrates a particular version of Supreme Being or of immutable Truth. This in turn invariably leads to the unquestioning acceptance of the authority of those opinion leaders and priests . . . who are expressly designated by . . . tribal tradition to define that culture and to reveal its religious rules and rituals . . . " Pat Duffy Hutcheon, "Can Humanism Stem the Rising Tide of Tribalism?" http://patduffyhutcheon.com/tribalism.htm

Without implying that all persons in any particular group are heavily influenced by this "deeply ingrained human habit", this kind of analysis of the nature of tribalism does help to understand why a small group of not very religious, politically liberal male studio executives have shared the same tribal background for the past 100 years.

John Cones

 

Harry Potter movies
Posted on December 4, 2003 at 00:26:33 AM by Ange Brinkley-Bryant

The Movies, as well as the books, are Hugely Acclaimed successes...
With the "time" it takes to "make" a movie, rumors are spreading that Radcliffe, Watson and Grint shall have to be replaced, as the Originals.
Pray tell..."how" could you possibly Do that?
Perhaps (with Hope), they're all like Elijah Woods, and don't seem to age one day, in 4 yrs...but that is stretching it. Perhaps they could be like Mark, in Star Wars...have a near-fatal accident, surgery, and look about 1 yr. older...but that is stretching it, as well.
Thing is, these books/movies are HUGE...Phenomenally Successful..."money-makers"...the "originals" cannot be replaced, and successfully "reproduced:...won't happen....esp. not the 3 main Characters.
Gambon portraying Dumbledore will work, as long as he can "gradually" fit "his self" into the works...but he'll still have to remembr the Original (that "close look" over his glasses-thing)...that's timely. The beard and hair "cover" the differances.
I don't see any way around "acceptance" of these Widely Accepted movies, other than to Keep the Original Cast...whether they've Matured beyond Belief, or not...and Draco certainly seems to be the Emergant Butterfly.
The Originals are Not "replaceable"...and if you try, very few will want to see...you will have ended "Mythdome", as it exists, for H.P.
Hopefully, someone at Warner will see this, and take notice.
Just a suggestion.
Take care.

Re(1): Harry Potter movies
Posted on December 4, 2003 at 02:18:27 PM by Mitchell Levine

What, if anything, does this have to do with our discussion?

 

 

 

 

Pope Watches MERE Entertainment
Posted on December 4, 2003 at 06:48:52 PM by James Jaeger

From time to time we get a few stragglers at the FIRM site who can't seem to grasp the simple message we're trying to relate. Allow me to re-phrase what was first proposed by John Cones.

The feature motion picture is possibly the most influential communication device yet devised by Homo sapiens. If this is true, is it healthy that, in a democratic society where the free exchange of ideas is its very life blood, such a powerful communications channel be dominated by a narrowly definable group?

With this in mind, is it safe to say that Christians do NOT dominate Hollywood? I would say so, and here's some evidence: Along comes a devout conservative Christian named Mel Gibson and he says to a Hollywood that is dominated by liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage: 'I want to make a movie that I'm passionate about. I feel this picture will speak to a significant part of a 2 billion person audience, the Christian community.' And what do the MPAA studio/distributors say? No.

So Mel reaches into his own pocket and comes out with the 20 million that's needed for production funding, makes the movie and goes back to FOX and the other MPAA studios and asks them if they want to distribute it. Again the answer: No.

So Mel gets an independent distributor.

Keep in mind, Mel's movie is MERELY entertainment, as head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti, has categorically said. So what's the problem? If movies ARE merely entertainment, how come a portion of the Jewish community is getting so riled up over from what Abraham Foxman at the ADL has been saying? And how come the very Pope himself now wants to see Mel's movie? Does the Pope just need some mere entertainment, or is he concerned how the most powerful communications channel yet devised by Mankind will be portraying his religion to the world and the Jewish community? I think you know the answers. And I think you know the REAL reason the MPAA studios wouldn't finance or distribute Mel's movie: because Mel's movie doesn't align with their vision of what the public should be allowed to experience. One could say the MPAA studios are in effect acting like a censor board under the "justification" that: 'Oh we're not under any obligation to finance or distribute any movie, we're just here to make money.' Well if that's true, why wouldn't they want to make Mel's movie? The fact is that it's a lie because the risk connected with THE PASSION OF CHRIST is less than most other movies because most other movies don't have a 2 HUGE potential audiences like the combined attraction of the global Christian community and the star power of Mel Gibson.

Given this the facts are: movies influence a lot of people and everyone from the Anti Defamation League to the Pope to the Supreme Court to Billy Graham know it -- whether they admit it publicly or not. We at FIRM are simply asking people to acknowledge this and act responsibly. And acting responsibly entails refusing to support a motion picture industry where the top 3 positions held by the dominating MPAA studio/distributors are held by people who basically all think a like or have all too similar values. Is this healthy in a democratic society where everyone should have an equal shot at making movies and relating THEIR passions?


--------------------
Breaking News from NewsMax.com

Pope to See Mel Gibson's Movie on Christ


Pope John Paul II has asked to see Mel Gibson's upcoming movie on the death of Jesus Christ.

"The Passion of Christ" is set to be released on Ash Wednesday next year, but the pope wants an advance showing....

According to press reports, Gibson's Icon Productions told the Vatican in an e-mail on Monday night that the actor director was still working on the final version and asked them to wait because "the film is only weeks away from being finished."

--------
Click Here for the Mel Gibson report:
http://www.newsmax.com/passion

Re(1): Pope Watches MERE Entertainment
Posted on December 5, 2003 at 09:17:25 AM by rich

I agree. It is obvious Mel is being Black Listed by the same people who argue against any type of discrimination. Especially when the studios released "Priests" to the insults of catholics and justified it as one point of view and freedom of speech. However, now, that doesn't apply to Mel Gibson. I wish they would open their eyes and see if a film is envoking such emotions it must be a pretty powerful piece which I commend Mel Gibson for trying. How many movie directors do that anymore. Must we endure whimpy films like "A.I." and "Gangs of New York" forever. I think it is important to support this film and get everybody you know to go see it just based on the fact that they are discriminating against it.

richard Mauro

Re(1): Pope Watches MERE Entertainment
Posted on December 5, 2003 at 02:17:41 PM by Mitchell Levine

From time to time we get a few stragglers at the FIRM site who can't seem to grasp the simple message we're trying to relate.

- The usual message you try to relate is that everything you don't like is somehow the fault of Jews.

The feature motion picture is possibly the most influential communication device yet devised by Homo sapiens.

If this is true, is it healthy that, in a democratic society where the free exchange of ideas is its very life blood, such a powerful communications channel be dominated by a narrowly definable group?

- Is it healthy in a democratic society that the Constitution be scrapped and the Bill of Rights perverted, just because people that don't share your religion are successful in an industry, and it makes you paranoid?

With this in mind, is it safe to say that Christians do NOT dominate Hollywood?

- Sure they do: they make up the overwhelming majority of the ticketbuying public; the real democracy of Hollywood is: one ticket = one vote.

I would say so, and here's some evidence: Along comes a devout conservative Christian named Mel Gibson and he says to a Hollywood that is dominated by liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage: 'I want to make a movie that I'm passionate about. I feel this picture will speak to a significant part of a 2 billion person audience, the Christian community.' And what do the MPAA studio/distributors say? No.

- As if that wasn't their right and they were commiting some kind of crime? What Gibson was actually saying to them was: "Carry my movie: I don't care that it controverts 100 years of proven film marketing experience by containing only dead languages no one in the audience will speak, without subtitles, and no biblical picture has been successful in 30 years - and, by the way, YOU'RE GUILTY OF KILLING GOD!!!" You're right! How dare those bastards refuse to do what Mel tells them?

So Mel reaches into his own pocket and comes out with the 20 million that's needed for production funding, makes the movie and goes back to FOX and the other MPAA studios and asks them if they want to distribute it. Again the answer: No.

So Mel gets an independent distributor.

Keep in mind, Mel's movie is MERELY entertainment, as head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti, has categorically said.

- Just because Valenti believes that, it hardly means every one of the studios does. If they did, they'd never run a prestige season.

So what's the problem? If movies ARE merely entertainment, how come a portion of the Jewish community is getting so riled up over from what Abraham Foxman at the ADL has been saying? And how come the very Pope himself now wants to see Mel's movie?

- Because he's worried about further attention being paid to the church's historical role in perpetrating the deicide teaching, and not enough to the church's more recent attempts to end the deicide myth. He's got his own PR concerns to deal with; it's not like the church doesn't have enough financial worries right now.

Does the Pope just need some mere entertainment, or is he concerned how the most powerful communications channel yet devised by Mankind will be portraying his religion to the world and the Jewish community? I think you know the answers. And I think you know the REAL reason the MPAA studios wouldn't finance or distribute Mel's movie: because Mel's movie doesn't align with their vision of what the public should be allowed to experience.

- It's really remarkable that you can't seem to get your mind around this concept: the people that you are saying, for some reason, have to carry Mel's movie WERE ACCUSED OF MURDERING GOD!!! Mel is specifically telling them that they should help further perpetrate the concept that they, their whole families, and the entire Jewish community ARE GUILTY OF MURDERING GOD!!! Why would you ever expect them to do that? Gibson based the screenplay on a tract written by antisemitic nuns that just about every biblical scholar around swears is inauthentic. Are you just completely insensitive?

One could say the MPAA studios are in effect acting like a censor board under the "justification" that: 'Oh we're not under any obligation to finance or distribute any movie, we're just here to make money.'

- If you said they were acting as a censor board, you would be in fact lying. In Communist countries, the state can dictate what a private business like a film distributor has to distribute. THIS IS NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. In the United States of America, film distributors can carry whatever movies they wish, for any reason they wish to. You know this. Your repeated attempts to frame this as a freedom of speech issue when you're perfectly aware that it's not one, is nothing less than conscious deceit.

I'll run through this for you one more time: your First Amendment freedom of speech DOES NOT include the right to have your movies distributed. Mel has not been "censored" because he has had no right denied. If distributors don't want to carry his movie, it's no different than it would be if they didn't carry Scary Movie 3.

Well if that's true, why wouldn't they want to make Mel's movie? The fact is that it's a lie because the risk connected with THE PASSION OF CHRIST is less than most other movies because most other movies don't have a 2 HUGE potential audiences like the combined attraction of the global Christian community and the star power of Mel Gibson.

- No, it's not: when Gibson pitched it to them it was narrated in dead languages only without subtitles. No biblical movie has been successful in thirty years, which is why the studios don't make them. An independent film won't get enough outlets to possibly activate that kind of market, and your assumption that all Christians everywhere are interested in seeing his picture is ridiculous. All you're doing is intentionally spinning this to make it as useful a tool for antisemitic propagandizing as possible.

Given this the facts are: movies influence a lot of people and everyone from the Anti Defamation League to the Pope to the Supreme Court to Billy Graham know it -- whether they admit it publicly or not. We at FIRM are simply asking people to acknowledge this and act responsibly. And acting responsibly entails refusing to support a motion picture industry where the top 3 positions held by the dominating MPAA studio/distributors are held by people who basically all think a like or have all too similar values.

- In case you haven't noticed, all Jews don't think alike or have similar values - which you have noticed, because you've already complained about both the Jewish Neocons in the State department AND the liberal Jews like Dershowitz.

Is this healthy in a democratic society where everyone should have an equal shot at making movies and relating THEIR passions?

- Everyone's not "entitled" to an equal shot at making moves: No one's "entitled" to make movies at all. If people can't get films made, like you, they can, like you, set up a web page and relate their passions. Democracy applies to the election of public officials and NOT the production and distribution of motion pictures. Please refer to one clause of the Constitution that guarantees every taxpayer and citizen the right to have their film financed, produced and released, and then your argument will make sense.

Re(2): Pope Watches MERE Entertainment
Posted on December 6, 2003 at 00:17:18 AM by Bruce Willis

Levine you're full of shit. Wait until Passion hits the theaters and is quite successful.You're obviously an apologist for Jewish Hollywood power and it's quite obvious that you are happy that the studios are run by members of your tribe.I have never seen anyone who can rationalize a losing viewpoint with so much twisted flair.

 

 

Control of Hollywood
Posted on December 7, 2003 at 12:06:07 PM by MG

Farrakhan Makes Anti-Semitic Speech, Anti-Defamation League, December 4,
2003

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/sp_f.asp


"Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, lashed out with
a vicious attack on Jews in his November 23, 2003 sermon to followers
at Mosque Maryam, the NOI headquarters in Chicago. In his two-hour speech,
Minister Farrakhan depicted Jews as "masters of Hollywood" who are
poisoning American society with "filth and indecency." Farrakhan also
accused Jews of tampering with the Bible and promoting moral decay around
the world.

"There are beautiful members of the Jewish community who are trying their
utmost to follow the law and the teachings of Moses and the prophets that
God sent to Israel," Mr. Farrakhan intoned. "But there's another Jew who is
not really a Jew; he is an imposter posing as a Jew. "In the Bible, in the
Book of Revelations, says -- listen, listen, listen, then go check it out
for yourself, you have a Bible -- those who say they are Jews and are not,
I will make them of the synagogue of Satan.

Who are the masters of Hollywood? How could you be a righteous Jew and
promote that which is forbidden by the God of Israel? Come on now, how
could you be a righteous Jew and publish the filth that is published daily,
feeding the minds of the American people and the people of the world filth
and indecency, and making it fair seeming in their eyes," Farrakhan said.
Farrakhan has long expressed anti-Semitic and anti-white rhetoric which has
marked him as a notable figure on the extremist scene.

In past remarks, he has expressed hostility toward Jews
and repeated the canard about Jews having too much
control of government, the entertainment industry and African-Americans.

More recently, Farrakhan has made efforts to dampen his charged rhetoric
while insisting that he is not an anti-Semite. In an interview with The
New York Sun, Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that mainstream Jewish groups had not been convinced by
Farrakhan's efforts to mend fences with the Jewish community, and that his
most recent remarks show that Farrakhan has returned to his anti-Semitism.

"For a while, Mr. Farrakhan contained his anti-Semitism and tried to
restrain himself," Mr. Foxman told the Sun. "When now anti-Semitism is so
upfront over the world -- from the Prime Minister of Malaysia, to the
composer of Zorba to the bin Ladens and those who speak in his name --
I guess Mr. Farrakhan no longer feels the need to be restrained."

Control of Hollywood
Posted on December 7, 2003 at 12:06:07 PM by MG

Farrakhan Makes Anti-Semitic Speech, Anti-Defamation League, December 4,
2003

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/sp_f.asp


"Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, lashed out with
a vicious attack on Jews in his November 23, 2003 sermon to followers
at Mosque Maryam, the NOI headquarters in Chicago. In his two-hour speech,
Minister Farrakhan depicted Jews as "masters of Hollywood" who are
poisoning American society with "filth and indecency." Farrakhan also
accused Jews of tampering with the Bible and promoting moral decay around
the world.

"There are beautiful members of the Jewish community who are trying their
utmost to follow the law and the teachings of Moses and the prophets that
God sent to Israel," Mr. Farrakhan intoned. "But there's another Jew who is
not really a Jew; he is an imposter posing as a Jew. "In the Bible, in the
Book of Revelations, says -- listen, listen, listen, then go check it out
for yourself, you have a Bible -- those who say they are Jews and are not,
I will make them of the synagogue of Satan.

Who are the masters of Hollywood? How could you be a righteous Jew and
promote that which is forbidden by the God of Israel? Come on now, how
could you be a righteous Jew and publish the filth that is published daily,
feeding the minds of the American people and the people of the world filth
and indecency, and making it fair seeming in their eyes," Farrakhan said.
Farrakhan has long expressed anti-Semitic and anti-white rhetoric which has
marked him as a notable figure on the extremist scene.

In past remarks, he has expressed hostility toward Jews
and repeated the canard about Jews having too much
control of government, the entertainment industry and African-Americans.

More recently, Farrakhan has made efforts to dampen his charged rhetoric
while insisting that he is not an anti-Semite. In an interview with The
New York Sun, Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that mainstream Jewish groups had not been convinced by
Farrakhan's efforts to mend fences with the Jewish community, and that his
most recent remarks show that Farrakhan has returned to his anti-Semitism.

"For a while, Mr. Farrakhan contained his anti-Semitism and tried to
restrain himself," Mr. Foxman told the Sun. "When now anti-Semitism is so
upfront over the world -- from the Prime Minister of Malaysia, to the
composer of Zorba to the bin Ladens and those who speak in his name --
I guess Mr. Farrakhan no longer feels the need to be restrained."

Re(1): Control of Hollywood
Posted on December 7, 2003 at 12:32:22 PM by Mitchell Levine

That's right, Evil Scumbag: anything Farrakhan says MUST be true - otherwise Elijah Muhammed would come down from orbit in the Mother Ship and say so!

 

 

Most Powerful Women in Hollywood
Posted on December 7, 2003 at 02:40:21 PM by b.edwards

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=4&u=/nm/20031203/en_nm/leisure_women_dc


Amy Pascal Named Most Powerful Woman in Hollywood, By Sue Zeidler, Yahoo!
News (from Reuters), December 2, 2003

"Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures, was named Hollywood's most powerful woman on Tuesday -- thanks in part to the popularity of a male superhero and other box office superhits. Pascal, who gave the go-ahead to produce the 2002 mega-hit "Spider-Man," and is now preparing for its sequel, led Hollywood Reporter's top 100 women in Hollywood
list ...

Pascal, who also heads Sony unit Columbia Pictures, this year oversaw
such films as "Anger Management," "Daddy Day Care" and "Bad Boys 2" as well as quirkier films like "Big Fish." Heads of various movie and television studios comprised the rest of the top 10 spots on the list. Pascal rose from No. 3 last year, when Sherry Lansing, chairman of the Motion
Picture Group at Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures, claimed the top spot. Lansing fell to No. 4 this year, while Vivendi Universal's Universal Pictures chairman Stacey Snider ranked No. 2.

Among others in the top 10 were Oprah Winfrey (6); Susan Lyne, president of
Walt Disney Co.'s ABC Entertainment (8); Nancy Tellem, president of Viacom's
CBS Entertainment (3); and Judy McGrath, president of Viacom's MTV Networks' Music Group (10)."

---------------------------------
FIRST FOUR "MOST POWERFUL HOLLYWOOD WOMEN" ARE JEWISH.

Amy Pascal, this year's MOST POWERFUL HOLLYWOOD WOMAN, is, of course, Jewish.

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El926&enVersion=0

So is last year's Number 1, Sherry Lansing (4). So is Stacey Snider (2).
So is Nancy Tellem (3).

In other words, the first 4 "most powerful women in Hollywood" are Jewish.

Re(1): Most Powerful Women in Hollywood
Posted on December 8, 2003 at 11:56:03 AM by Mtichell Levine

Congratulations to them for succeeding on their own terms in such a sexist industry and world!

 

 

 

Hollywood Re-writing History
Posted on December 7, 2003 at 11:18:35 PM by Jaded Joe

If there is such a grotesque distortion of history by "Hollywood" (and we
know who that refers to), what do you think the distortion level will be
when it comes to expressly JEWISH history, vis-a-vis Jews, Jewish belief,
Jewish action, and hostility by non-Jews to these ("anti-Semitism")?

That's what we've got in our hands today: Jewish totalitarianism, and
myth-making.

http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1341782003


MTV generation's 'black holes of history' blamed on Hollywood,
by CLAIRE GARDNER, The Scotsman (Scotland),
December 7, 2003


"History may be written by the victors but it is being adapted for
the MTV generation by Hollywood and the media. Widespread
misconceptions, prejudice and outright ignorance about major events of
the past six decades have been revealed in a major study of undergraduates
in the UK, USA and Germany. The Scottish academic who carried out
the work says factually inaccurate movies and biased news reporting is
skewing young people's grasp of recent history. Greg Philo, professor
of communications at Glasgow University, also blames a lack of teaching
of history and politics in British schools for what he has dubbed "black
holes of history".

Philo set questions to a selection of 750 randomly
picked students across Britain, Germany and the USA aged between 17 and
21. The questions ranged from details of the Second World War to the
September 11 terror attacks and will be published in full in his new book
Tell Me Lies. One of the questions put to undergraduates was which country
suffered the highest casualty rate in the Vietnam war? Around a third
of students in all three countries believed that US forces suffered the
highest losses. In fact, there were 60,000 American deaths compared with
the loss of two million Vietnamese, a ratio of 33 to one.

Philo claims
Hollywood action movies must take some of the blame for the students'
distorted views. He said: "They are generally all about the suffering
of American soldiers and the demonisation of the Vietnamese and what the
Americans did to the population was not discussed. "The problem is that
people do not have the historical facts which allow them to distinguish
between fact and Hollywood-spun fiction so they just believe what they
see at the movies." The British and American students were then asked
how many lives were lost in the September 11 terror attacks. The vast
majority - 93% - correctly answered that it was about 3,000. The same
students were asked how many people were estimated to have been killed
during bombing raids in Afghanistan in the subsequent war. Only 2% of
the students knew the correct answer: approximately 20,000. To Philo, this
gap in the students' knowledge should be partly
laid at the door of broadcasters. He said: "There was obviously
a huge amount of coverage on September 11 and it was so close to home
that no one could fail to know about the event. Afghanistan deaths did
not really feature in any big way."

Asked "In the Second World War, which
allied country defeated the most German divisions?" just 18% of US and
29% of British gave the correct answer as the Soviet Union in contrast
to the 73% of Germany students who answered correctly. Nearly half the
British students and 65% of US students thought the answer was Britain
or the US. In fact, the Soviets defeated more than three times as many
German divisions as their western allies. The research also found
widespread
ignorance when students were asked what were the Gulags in the Soviet
Union. Only 5% of British students and 8% of Americans knew that they
were slave camps established by Stalin. Again, German students appeared
better informed with 30% knowing the correct answer. Analysing
the data Philo said he blamed the education system, media outlets and
misleading films for the level of historical ignorance."

 

Re(1): Hollywood Re-writing History
Posted on December 14, 2003 at 08:54:10 AM by Anami

What happened to my post for this one? Is this a moderated forum? I only want to put in my two-cents to say that not only is Jewish Hollywood re-writing history in the movies but they are also rewriting the books that public high schools are using. They own and write all the books that are used in schools throughout this country.

I wish that could be reformed! We don't really learn anything from movies or television. We learn from books and teachers. The only thing that entertainment does is keep us from the real task at hand which is to better our understanding of the world.

Anami

Re(1): Hollywood Re-writing History
Posted on December 8, 2003 at 11:54:49 AM by Mitchell Levine

Hollywood was never designed nor intended to teach history; that's the function of schools. If you want to do something to improve the public's understanding of the latter, stop making antisemitic posts, and do something to support education, like donating your time to a school, or making donations to your local PTA.

Levine's Pro-Jewish Slant
Posted on December 13, 2003 at 12:51:11 PM by ashing2

And what's wrong with "antisemitic posts"? I have as much right to be anti-Semitic as you have to be pro-Jewish. There's no law that says I have to fall in line with anyone's agenda. Go jump in a lake Levine.

Re(1): Levine's Pro-Jewish Slant
Posted on December 15, 2003 at 10:24:16 AM by Mitchell Levine

No one's disputing your constitutional right to be a despicable bigot - but making antisemitic posts is not going to do anything to improve the state of education. You can say what you want, but I can say what I want.

So go jump in a lake your damn self!

 

 

Citing of Work
Posted on December 8, 2003 at 04:30:11 PM by John Cones

It is gratifying to see your work cited with agreement by others. Recently, I was sent a Preface to Kevin MacDonald's First Paperback Edition of The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Invelvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger Publishers). MacDonald, a member of the Department of Psychology at the California State University-Long Beach, cited a paragraph from my book "What's Really Going On In Hollywood" in support of the contention that Hollywood films have been biased against Christians, among others. The quoted paragraph reads: This analysis of Hollywood films with religious themes or characters reveals that in the last four decades Hollywood has portrayed Christians as sexually rigid, devil worshipping cultists, talking to God, disturbed, hypocritical, fanatical, psychotic, dishonest, murder suspects, Bible quoting Nazis, slick hucksters, fake spiritualists, Bible pushers, de-ranged preachers, obsessed, Catholic schoolboys running amok, Adam & Eve as pawns in a game between God and Satan, an unbalanced nun accused of killing her newborn infant, dumb, manipulative, phony, outlaws, neurotic, mentally unbalanced, unscrupulous, destructive, foul mouthed, fraudulent and as miracle fabricators. Few, if any, positive portrayals of Christians were found in Holywood films released in the last four decades."

What is not mentioned either by MacDonald or in my book, for that matter, is that the above cited language mostly comes directly out of the published reviews of the movies themselves. Hopefully, by calling attention to such bias in Hollywood films, more balance will be seen in the future.

John Cones

 

 

Merry Christmas v. Happy Holidays
Posted on December 13, 2003 at 08:21:06 PM by James Jaeger

Have you noticed how the movies and the media are systematically phasing out the term "Merry Christmas" and replacing it with the more generic term, "Happy Holidays"?
I can't help feeling the reason for this is because the Jewish community that dominates the Hollywood-based propaganda machinery has no respect for the fact that more than 80% of the American population is comprised of Christians.

Sure it's nice to acknowledge the holidays of others, but why should the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, which is celebrated by less than 2% of the population in December (just 5 days before Christmas) be given anywhere near the same status as the Christmas event? The Christmas event, again, is celebrated by vastly more people than the Hanukkah event yet the Hanukkah event is plastered all over calendars and has neutered December as the Christmas holiday.

For the vast majority, December is the "Merry Christmas" season: NOT the "Happy Holidays" or "Happy Hanukkah" season. The vast majority's interests should be served, not the interests of some privileged minority. Further, Christians have been celebrating Christmas here in this country in December for at least a 175 years before most Jews even arrived. And why should Jews be treated so special to the exclusion of even others who have holidays and who are a MUCH larger percentage of the population?

The answer, of course, is because Jewish interests dominate the movies and the media, the American propaganda instruments, in a similar way Hitler had control over his propaganda machinery in Nazi Germany. And they are using this domination to serve their political interests and every other interest, including the spin on the holidays. When most people prefer to say "Merry Christmas" the fear of not being politically correct, as dictated by the Jewish-dominated mass media, has them reluctantly saying, "Happy Holidays."

James Jaeger

 

Re(1): Merry Christmas v. Happy Holidays
Posted on December 30, 2003 at 09:07:54 AM by Anami

I think I can count on one hand the number of times someone has said "Merry Christmas" to me in the last couple of years. I mean at least two days before Christmas and on the day we would answer the phone "Merry Christmas" and say it as a greeting for at least a week!

This has not gone unnoticed. I see that Christmas has been replaced by a big fat Jewish Menorrah and Happy Hannukah -- and the latest film on the Holocaust. Even with all the Holocaust films I do not think any of them are truly interesting.

BTW there was a scandal in my part of the country in which someone wrote "TC hates Jews" and it got printed along with the ads about all the Hannukah stuff that was on sale. It went OUT before anyone could catch it! But then it was on the news and what a mistake it was....it was kinda funny.

The funny thing to me was that I thought that the ads themselves were being targeted as racist, but apparently Jews advertise Hannukah junk just like there is Christmas junk being sold all over the place. That was news to me, that Hannukah was such a big darn deal in America.....

Finally, I have read many of the millions of books on the Holocaust and they are far more interesting and down to earth than the films.

Jews try to do TOO much in those holocaust films and it ends up being about NOTHING. Nothing but about some bony body going into the oven and the person who shoved the body in was wearing a star of David too.

Anami

 

 

Re(1): Merry Christmas v. Happy Holidays
Posted on December 15, 2003 at 10:32:35 AM by Mitchell Levine

You're complaining about what you perceive as the inability of the majority to impose their will upon minorities on a site you claim is intended to promote "diversity"??? Way to strike a blow for multiculturalism, you phony!

Christmas as a secular, commercialized holiday
Posted on December 14, 2003 at 09:56:12 AM by Jay

Jewish contributions to entertainment and the media have often had the function of promoting positive images of Judaism and multi-culturalism and negative images of Christianity and European ethnic interests and identification. Derbyshire describes his love of songs like White Christmas that have come to define how Christmas is experienced. However, such songs are also part of the Kulturkampf in which Christmas has been converted into a secular and commercialized event; as such it represents a kind of cultural subversion. As Philip Roth noted, "God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then he gave Irving Berlin Easter Parade and White Christmas, the two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ . . . and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow." In recent decades, a major thrust of Jewish influence on culture has been the promotion of the Holocaust as the fundamental moral touchstone and intellectual paradigm of the contemporary Western world. (I recently came across a reference stating that there have been over 170 Holocaust films since 1989.)


Is anybody else sick of Barbara Walters?
Posted on December 17, 2003 at 06:47:05 PM by Anami

Besides me? They should be interviewing her about all the plastic surgery she has had after 70. She has probably run over Michael Jackson at the plastic surgeon's office!

Are the BW specials designed to show the world that there are minority and non-Jewish type people who are hired by Hollywood? It smacks of propaganda at its best for and from Hollywood.

Oprah buys into it as well. Speilburg and her association created one of the worst movies I've never seen "Amistad"

Why she had SS do this movie I'll never know. I think she has gotten out of the movie business for now.

Anami

Barbara, Oprah and the Kids
Posted on December 19, 2003 at 05:39:35 PM by James Jaeger

>Is anybody else sick of Barbara Walters?

I had my doubts about Barbara, but after watching her a lot, I have to say, I feel she's a level-headed good lady and I have no complaints with her.

>Besides me? They should be interviewing her about all the plastic surgery she has had after 70. She has probably run over Michael Jackson at the plastic surgeon's office!

True, but the difference is she actually looks good (even better than she did when she was younger, IMO), but Michael looks a little rough around the edges.

>Are the BW specials designed to show the world that there are minority and non-Jewish type people who are hired by Hollywood?

I don't know what you mean by this.

>It smacks of propaganda at its best for and from Hollywood.

Almost all of the magazine shows from ET to 20/20 in one way or another have heavy connections with the MPAA studio/distributors so it's only natural that they would support the basic propaganda schemes put out by those organizations. This trickle-down effect from the feature film -- being possibly the most powerful communications channel yet devised -- to general media outlets is one of the negative effects on society when a powerful comm medium is dominated by a narrowly defined group.

>Oprah buys into it as well. Speilburg and her association created one of the worst movies I've never seen "Amistad"

I don't know about Oprah's associations with Spielberg, but it seems to me Oprah does her own thinking. I am quite proud of Oprah for her ventures into Africa and how she is helping all those children. Oprah makes the vast majority of other celebrities look shameful. I have often wondered why more stars who earn obscene sums of money, in what amounts to a relatively frivolous industry, have not done more to give some happiness to children. If every so-called movie star, were to give 1/10th of their over-$10 million per year fees to efforts of helping children in places like Africa, conditions would change. As Oprah says, the African situation is BY FAR, BY FAR worse than ANYTHING in the US and is a VERY serious problem, because there are MILLIONS of kids running around that continent WITH NO PARENTS OR ADULTS TAKING CARE OF THEM. ZERO. It's "LORD OF THE FLIES" on an unprecedented scale. If us rich fat fucks here in the US don't help these poor AIDs-ridden kids, those kids who manage to survive will look upon the world with such hate and animosity we may find them coming to America and cutting every throat that can get their knives on. And who would blame them?

I have NO problems with Oprah. She is doing something significant in Life (and very few can say the same -- especially celebrities like the selfish and egocentric bitch, Madonna). In fact, Oprah should run for president of the US and I bet she would be immediately voted in. I also bet she would actually get something done despite the total morons that have hijacked our democracy for their coprporate slave masters. I want a change; maybe a BLACK WOMAN running the country is the ticket. I'm sick and tired of all these STUPID WHITE MEN (as Michael Moore characterizes them in his runaway-hit book).

>Why she had SS do this movie I'll never know. I think she has gotten out of the movie business for now.

Who knows. Oprah has her base of operation in Chicago for a reason. Other than getting her start there, I would speculate that she operates from there because she realizes that mostly mindless-muck comes out of the writers's soup in Hollywood. One has to get exterior to Hollywood, or not associate with it, in order to be a truly independent thinker, IMO. This is not to say that I don't love LA and Hollywood, and the people there, I do, but I don't believe one can be their own person when under the electromagnetic influence of so many struggling personalities all vying to be "original" in the "studio zone" centered around Melrose and La Brea (or whatever the cross street is).

James Jaeger

>Anami

Re(1): Barbara, Oprah and the Kids
Posted on December 20, 2003 at 11:25:37 AM by Anami

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. But we are not in totally disagreement.

One has to reap good actions as well as bad ones in this life. I think she is obviously reaping a great harvest. She brings to mind the likes of Sojourner Truth really. She is doing HER thing no doubt about it. And if one has millions to spend why not spend it?

I think she has done a lot towards getting people to thinking about spiritualizing their monetary incomes and resources, and that is probably the biggest thing anyone with her kind of clout can do.

I don't have a problem with her per se but once again the Hollywood control freaking machine has made sure that a person who looks very black and is the stereotypical looking black woman, with the outstretched arms to whites makes it BIG.

This is what black people dislike. Their leaders are chosen for them by the media and they buy into it. That is the problem not Oprah's millions, kids dying of AIDS and orphans of same. She is doing something which many blacks have not done, shown true concern for Africa.

I have my own personal views about it which I will not share, but that is the short of it.

The same argument for BW and her specials is the same thing--she is foisted on the public and you are going to watch her and only her. That is the problem. And you noticed that her very jewish-looking cohort John Miller has been sent to the hinterlands of hollywood and is no longer her co-anchor. Why? He was just too jewish looking and sounding IMO.

They chose for the masses, and I boycott American films to the miramax and stupid sit-coms and television in general. I don't even watch the commercials of things like "Friends."

I find it has no connection to my life or interests--pas de tout.

Anami

Re(1): Is anybody else sick of Barbara Walters?
Posted on December 17, 2003 at 07:48:28 PM by Ann

I would like to see some new faces and talent in Hollywood. It is boring to always see and hear the same people.

I don't mind Barbara and plastic surgery doesn't bother me too much because if a person wants to enhance their appearance, I find it acceptable.

I never saw "Amistad". I don't care for the title much anyway.

Re(2): Is anybody else sick of Barbara Walters?
Posted on December 18, 2003 at 09:54:29 AM by Mitchell Levine

It was simply named after the slave revolt that happened at Amistad. And why would you criticize a movie you've "never seen?"

 

 

 

Pope Loves/Levine Hates PASSION
Posted on December 19, 2003 at 04:46:55 PM by James Jaeger

Only kidding Mitch! :)

But it is interresting to note the following from NEWSMAX:

"Pope Loves Mel Gibson Film

"It is as it was."

This, Peggy Noonan reports in the Opinion Journal, was the Pope's comment to his good friend Msgr. Stanislaw Dziwisz after watching "The Passion of Christ," Mel Gibson's much-maligned film.

When he did, he approved wholeheartedly of Gibson's rendering.

Producer Steve McEveety laughingly told Noonan that the pontiff saw the film "At the pope's pad," i.e., the papal apartments.

Noonan writes that the Msgr. told McEveety that John Paul II "found ["The Passion"] very powerful, and approved
of it."

Noonan concludes: If the pontiff's feelings end the controversy over the film, it would be a "beautiful gift
to everyone this holiday season."

Editor's Note: Mel Gibson recently talked with NewsMax Magazine. Get Mel's story, click here now: http://www.newsmax.com/passion"

Re(1): Pope Loves/Levine Hates PASSION
Posted on December 19, 2003 at 06:27:55 PM by Mitchell Levine

Thanks, Jim! Just for the record, I'd never say I hate a movie I haven't seen, and I'll be the first one in the ticket line when it opens here in NYC.

Re(2): Pope Loves/Levine Hates PASSION
Posted on December 20, 2003 at 03:08:36 PM by James Jaeger

I guess I'm going to see it, but I am not looking forward to it quite frankly.

Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah to you Mitchell.

James

Re(3): Pope Loves/Levine Hates PASSION
Posted on December 23, 2003 at 02:12:34 PM by Mitchell Levine

Season's greetings to you too, Jim!

 

 

Jewish Networking Capabilities
Posted on December 20, 2003 at 08:22:55 PM by James Jaeger

One of the reasons, or THE reason, Hollywood is dominated by Jews may be because of networking skills developed early on to evade the not-so-long-arm of the law.

By networking skills I mean the quantity, speed and accuracy of communication between any two similar NODES, whether such nodes are Jews or Gentiles, Blacks or Whites, girls or boys, party guests or chat sites, web pages or DNA molecules, star systems or planets, law abiding citizens --- or CRIMINALS on the run. Each node becomes a relay point in a complex web of communication known as a scale-free network. And these networks can be very subtle yet very powerful -- especially criminal networks and sexual networks (in otherwords the human network of who is screwing who on the planet earth).

When a given node is connected to other nodes by a relatively large number of links, that node is known as a HUB. The major hubs in Hollywood would therefore be the people that talk to, or know the most other people in Hollywood, possibly the major agencies such as CAA, ICM and William Morris. But these hubs could also be comprised of certain major executives, production managers, producers, lawyers, publicists, journalists or casting directors. They are probably not comprises of major talents (stars and directors) because usually these people are too well known to circulate covertly.(1)

Thousands of years ago, tribes in the hills off the Mediterranean were being threatened by Phoenicians who were pushing inland. These tribes formed a life or death network that was successful in thwarting the enemy and eventually leading to the establishment of ancient Israel. The network later became known as Judea or the Jews. So we can see, from the very beginning Jews used networking skills to unify and get what they wanted. The us and them mentality was therefore embedded from the very beginning.

Itís no different in modern day Hollywood, Jews have been able to use their networking skills to get what they want, and this is, of course, to obtain and keep power over the movie industry, the only industry thatís able to mold public opinion, indeed even the course of a powerful nation.

None of this should be taken as a criticism of Jewry however, but an explanation of WHY Jews still dominate the movie industry after almost 100 years. The way one might establish to what degree the Jewish network operates in Hollywood might be this: Get, at random, at least 100 Jews and 100 Gentiles in Hollywood to participate in a study. Ask each participant to turn over their rolodex (or a random sampling of same) and identify who in it is Jewish and who is Gentile.

Then compare the percentage of Jews in the Gentile rolodexes with the percentage of Gentiles in the Jewish rolodexes. If someone were able to do this experiment, I am willing to bet it would be seen that there are many fewer Gentile (nodes) in the Jewish rolodexes than there are Jewish (nodes) in the Gentile rolodex. Now you say, well thatís because there are simply far more Jews in the Hollywood movie industry than Gentiles. Well okay. I would then do this same experiment in an industry where it is known that Gentiles dominate. I would compare the two networks and I bet you will find in each case, no matter what industry, Jews have a higher percentage of Jewish connections hence a denser networking capability. In other words, Jews have a greater tendency to be HUBS rather than NODES. I would also repeat this experiment with other groups, such as African Americans, Whites, Asians and Hispanics as well as people from every possible religious affiliation in order to get a fuller picture of the structure of various social networks.

If you didnít have the time or money to do this experiment, you could probably do an experiment where you simply asked each executive at the top of each MPAA studio WHO hired them. Then follow the chain down asking WHO hired them, etc. I will bet you will find that a significant portion of the nodes on the chains are Jewish. I would then repeat this same experiment starting with the few Gentile executives that are in the industry and follow the chain of nodes down as to who hired them. The key questions would be: What percentage of time does a Jewish executive (node) hire a Gentile executive (node) vs. the percentage of time a Gentile executive (node) hires a Jewish executive (node)? Obviously it would take money and time to do this experiment, but I feel it would yield some very interesting sociological results.(2) Of course, it would also be interesting to extend this same experiment to all other industries as well as all other combinations of people. And eventually, with the advent of AI database mining, all this WILL be done.(3)

In all fairness, one cannot hold anything against Jews for their networking abilities. The thing to do, if what I have said above is true, is for others to wake up and start competing. Start networking themselves. But having said that, it doesnít really sound like a great solution because then what you might get is every group just networking with its own kind leading to less diversity and probably more conflict. So I donít know what the answer is other than recognizing the source of disparity.

If those in power in the studios are seeking to only network with their own kind because itís easier or they feel their own kind are in some way better, we have two different issues. If they network with their own kind because itís easier, then I say to them: stop being lazy and discover all the other great people out there. If they network with their own kind because they feel their own kind are in some way better, then I say to them: stop being a bigoted elitist and discover all the other great people out there.

There is much evidence non-Jews are being excluded in Hollywood in that the act of overlooking non-Jews in the top positions is in essence the act of exclusion. One can be guilty of a crime of omission, yet pseudo constitutional theorists will try to tell you that ĎHollywood is under no constitutional mandate to hire anyoneí therefore itís doing nothing wrong. This same argument could be applied to the United States intervention in World War II. The United States was under no constitutional obligation to intervene in WWII just so it could save a bunch of Jews. Clearly the question is not one of legal obligation but moral obligation. Though the issue of Hollywoodís moral obligation to include Gentiles in the top movie posts and Americaís moral obligation to enter the war to save Jews are significant differences, they have enough similarities that one would be hard-pressed to use such an argument as a justification of Hollywoodís irresponsible hiring practices.

There is all the evidence in the world that non-Jews are being excluded in the top positions of the MAPP studios. Whatís the evidence? That theyíre NOT There. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist


Though it may be true the reason Jews become movie people are exactly the same as everyone else: fun, profit an exciting lifestyle filled with the potential to indoctrinate anyone at any time and push your political agenda down the throats of an unsuspecting population Ė itís also true that still dominate today because they out-network everyone else, with the possible exception of the Scientologists, who have it down to a fine science.

Thomas A. Edison started the business on the East Coast of the United States, right near the Bentwood bridge in Pennsylvania and people, such as Mitchell Levine, need to please stop trying to re-write history. The history is: Certain unethical Jews from the East a) stole the movie camera from Edison and b) settled down in Hollywood so they could c) be near the Mexican boarder d) for quick getaways. Sunlight is usually given as the obfuscating "reason" why Jews went out West, but this is only part of the story.

So naturally the people in the top positions of the movie industry are mostly Jewish as such a criminal network of original Jews would serve itís own agenda to keep others out, or at the very least exclude others from entry. Such a network would thus rely on its most trusted tribal members to maintain power and to push power to each other through the network. Now in saying this, I want to emphasize that neither I, nor FIRM is implicating Jews in general. After all, while certain commercial Jews were busy stealing Thomas Edisonís invention and running for cover out West, just like any other common criminals, the vast majority of Jews across the nation had little or no idea this was happening. Certainly they were not involved and in all likelihood, if asked whether they condoned members of their religion or tribe stealing, would say they did not. So what we are talking about is a relatively small of band of Jewish criminals that have networked to establish Hollywood and conspire to maintain power under their own criminal control to this very day. So shameless are these Jewish criminals, they actually hide behind their decent more orthodox fellow Jews in an attempt to thwart any criticism or investigation that comes their way on the laughable grounds that such is anti-Semitic. See John Conesí write up on the "Anti-Semitic Sword" for an explanation of this useful propaganda tool at http://www.homevideo/FIRM/shields.htm

Various apologists for the criminal Hollywood system in attempting to defend its hiring practices say things like: ĎThere's nothing discriminatory about all this: why exactly should a corporation hire someone with inferior experience to run their multimillion dollar company?í Of course this is bigoted elitism. The idea that Jews have more ability or experience to run the movie industry and therefore deserve to be the top studio executives is hogwash the more one thinks about it. After all it was the Gentiles that INVENTED the primary instrument that made it possible for the movie industry to even exist.

What one should be concerned about is that the right to freedom of speech is being abridged by those who dominate Hollywood because this group is screening out diverse thought and are in a position to pick and choose which movies get made and which do not.

There is no question that Hollywood is dominated by Jews and Jewish authors have admitted this freely. The only question is whether a democratic society should, and will, tolerate this as well as domination by ANY narrowly defined group. All the other rhetoric being tossed around by apologists (such as Mitchell Levine) is beside the point. Such people are like the squid spraying black ink all over the place with voluminous and never-ending provocateur words obfuscating the simplicity of the issues. Such people think that by making any criticism of studio power a "Jewish issue," or by insinuating that we at FIRM are prejudiced against "Jews," they can discredit us and thus make the legitimate issue of Hollywood domination, and the abridgement of the right to free speech, go away.

If I were to be envious of anything it would be of Jews uncanny ability to network. Being an ex-Scientologist I have a great appreciation of how this is done and I wouldnít be the least bit surprised to learn that L. Ron Hubbard took much of what he incorporated into Scientology from Judaism and that Jews in Hollywood take Scientology policies, such as the one entitled "How to Handle Black Propaganda," very seriously indeed.

In summary, what democracy is all about is that no single group should have MORE free speech (or rights) than any other group just because they are better at networking and/or pushing power to their buddies
whether they learned these techniques from L. Ron Hubbard in decades past or as a tribal member under attack off the Mediterranean Sea some 2000 years ago.

James Jaeger

--------------------
(1) Of course the Hollywood acting network has been studied for years and this where we get the famous Kevin Bacon joke that he is God because he could be connected to any actor whose name was mentioned. This was put forth by Craig Fass, Brian Turtle and Miles Ginely one night on the Jon Stewart Show around 1994. The fact is, Kevin Bacon is not more connected than any other actor (as described by what has become known as the "Bacon Number" similar to the famous "Erdos Number" used in the world of mathematics). The actors who are the actual HUBS with the lowest average Bacon Number to all other actors are John Carradine (who has acted with about 4,000 other actors) and Robert Mitchum (who has acted with about 3,000 other actors during his career). Thus Carradine and Mitchum are star hubs in Hollywood, however the actor that has the lowest Bacon Number to every other actor (meaning the lowest average number of links to every other actor and therefore the most connected in the Biz) is Rod Steiger with an average distance of 2.53 actors between him and every other actor in the Hollywood acting network. Right up there in the next top places are Donald Pleasence, Martin Sheen, Christopher Lee, and Charlton Heston. Bacon is actually at the end of the list at the 876th most connected actor. These same techniques can be used on the top executives in the MPAA studio/distributors to determine exactly WHO is the hub executive that holds the entire Hollywood domination machine together. This person is undoubtedly a liberal, not very religious Jewish male of European heritage, but it would also be interesting to see if this were not so. Maybe Oprah is the top HUB executive in the entertainment industry. Go to http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle to see how the acting network as described by Bacon Numbers works.


(2) To better comprehend the power of networks as well as the state-of-the-art research on same, read a book entitled, LINKED by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. This is the new science of networks, made possible for the first time by a study of the first network that CAN be accurately studied, the Internet. The book is about "How everything is connected to everything else and what it means for science, business and everyday life." Hollywood, and the Jewish network that dominates it, can for the first time in history be cracked wide open by a diligent application of the principles in this book. Any network can be crashed or reconfigured by simply identifying the HUBS and/or the Bose-Einstein Condensation, if any, and altering or discontinuing the number and quality of links connecting same with the rest of the network. This book is a must-read for anyone who desires more diversity in Hollywood, or in any other industry.

(3) For anyone who doubts this statement, I refer you to a book by James Martin entitled, ALIEN INTELLIGENCE. We have only just begun to apply artificial intelligence techniques to the overwhelmingly vast amounts of unanalyzed data sitting around the civilization. As this data mining happens, greater understanding of sociological patterns and political ties will become evident. It is highly likely that data that could prove once and for all whether Hollywood discriminates is already in existence simply waiting to be mined and compiled. As such information arises, society will be forced to adapt to modes of conduct that best suit its survival. Thus, at some point in the future, all of the claims made at FIRM about Jewish domination of Hollywood will be explicated as well as the effects on society.

Re(1): Jewish Networking Continued...
Posted on December 21, 2003 at 05:28:02 PM by Ann

I suppose one solution to the "Jewish movie domination" is to get capital to build more studios and begin expanding with a diverse network of multi-religious/culture executives and staff.

Re(2): Jewish Networking Continued...
Posted on December 21, 2003 at 11:19:32 PM by James Jaeger

Now that both the Pope and Billy Graham have endorsed Mel Gibson's movie, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, it's only a short stop to a billion in gross ticket sales. Then onward to another billion with homevideo/DVD and yet another billion in foreign sales. Ho, Ho, Ho, Merry CHRISTMAS everyone.

So obviously Mel will now have the coin to start his own studio with which he can then put DreamWorks out of business. All he needs is two other Christian partners, you know like the triumvirate of Jewish partners that started DreamWorks SKG: Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffinberg (only kidding Georgie Horse, I mean Geffinstein).

James Jaeger

Re(3): Jewish Networking Continued...
Posted on December 22, 2003 at 06:58:35 PM by Mitchell Levine

You're one short stop from Bellevue if you think that's going to gross a billion dollars.

Even Gibson's not that delusional - he just hopes he'll get his money back. Friends tell me he thinks it's a moot point whether he does or not though.

The whole "controversy" over the original cut - as well as the decision to subtitle it - is the only reason why he might. Foreign sales don't really count for a whole lot, because, as you know, they're rarely, if ever, fully collected.

Re(4): Jewish Networking Continued...
Posted on December 23, 2003 at 02:30:04 PM by James Jaeger

Well it will be interesting to see what happens at the very least.

James

Re(1): Jewish Networking Continued...
Posted on December 21, 2003 at 00:14:55 AM by George Shelps

Thomas A. Edison started the business on the East Coast of the United States, right near the Bentwood bridge in Pennsylvania and people, such as Mitchell Levine, need to please stop trying to re-write history.

__I think you need to reread history.
Tge studio you're referring to (near the "Betzwood Bridge" not the "Bentwood Bridge") was founded by Siegmund Lubin,a Jew. He was the only Jewish member of
Thomas Edison's Patents Trust.

The history is: Certain unethical Jews from the East a) stole the movie camera from Edison and b) settled down in Hollywood so they could c) be near the Mexican boarder d) for quick getaways. Sunlight is usually given as the obfuscating "reason" why Jews went out West, but this is only part of the story.

__Nope, wrong again. The Edison Trust
was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court
and none of these Western film-makers
were doing anything "unethical"

 

Re(2): Jewish Networking Continued...
Posted on December 23, 2003 at 06:25:55 PM by James Jaeger

You are misinterpreting the Supreme Court's decision. There is no
doubt that the Hollywood independents were illegally using the Edison
Trust's cameras. The only problem was that the Edison Trust resort to
thugery in trying to enforce their rights. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled
against the trust, because the tactics it used to enforce its rights were
wrong. That is not the same as saying that the Hollywood independents did
nothing wrong.

 

 

 

Re(3): Hollywood Re-writing History
Posted on December 16, 2003 at 11:52:40 AM by Mitchell Levine

The Nazis were "concerned about important issues" too; simply being "concerned" about issues really does nothing to establish yourself as commendable. If the issues weren't the type of thing people were already thinking about, because it affects their private interests, they wouldn't qualify as "important."

Just like Chris Rock says, you shouldn't expect any special commendation for, say, taking care of your kids or never having been to jail, because you're supposed to take care of your kids and you aren't supposed to go to jail. Likewise, you're supposed to care about important issues - that's why they're important.

While it's true that the "domination" of an industry is wrong and may be harmful, and that diversity is a valuable and worthwhile goal, what's being disputed is the belief that the status of Jews in the industry constitutes "domination." The idea that a high percentage of Jews in an industry indicates "domination" is what should be critically examined.

No one ever says, for example, that Blacks "dominate" the NBA" or jazz. I've never heard anyone suggest that Greeks "dominate" shipping or that the Irish "dominate" the police force. In fact, even if WASPs made up one hundred percent of media outliers, no one would ever say that they "dominated" the media.

Why is this? For one, because "domination" implies two things; first, that this status is somehow unfair and exclusionary, if not illegal, and, second, that it's harmful. The reason no one - at least that I know of - complains about all the Blacks in the NBA is because people genuinely believe that they are the best players, and that no one's been unfairly excluded. Because people don't seem to think there's anything harmful about the Greeks and the Irish - they share the majoritarian religion, of course - they simply say that the Irish make up our police force to a large degree.

Try as they might, the guys that run FIRM have never been able to demonstrate that anyone is being excluded from a career in Hollywood on the basis of their ethnicity or religion: They've never been able to come up with a single name of anyone who's ever been unable to have a career because they weren't Jewish. Jaeger even freely admits that the reason Gentiles historically haven't been big players in the industry is because they specifically snubbed it. Most of their arguments are transparent attempts to gloss over this embarassing fact.

The truth is what people are so afraid of is not that there is any illegal exclusion going on, but just that Jews, whom they contemptously mistrust and dislike for being part of a minority religion, have status. It doesn't matter whether that status is legitimate or illegitimate. All that matters is that successful movie executives are Jewish, and whether they are within their rights to be such is irrelevant. They just don't want to see successful Jewish movie and television and print execs, and they'll use any means whatsoever to attempt to discredit them, regardless of democracy or the Constitution or Truth.

Open any copy of a trade paper and you'll see the names of many non-Jews that are producers and executives. Cones himself is a non-Jew and he's a top Hollywood lawyer. There's not much evidence people are being excluded. There's historical reasons why Jews went into the movie business, and theorizing about mysterious "tribal loyalties" is unnecessary: the reason Jews become movie people are exactly the same as everyone else, it's fun, profitable and exciting.

In any other business, you'd expect that the people who run would be the people that have been in it the longest. Jews started the business, so naturally the people in the top positions are Jewish. There's nothing discriminatory about that at all: why exactly should a corporation hire someone with inferior experience to run their multimillion dollar company? Simply because you're paranoid about their religion? In the cases of people who've genuinely been discriminated against as a class, it's easy to find people that have been denied. In the days prior to civil rights, everybody knew of lots of Blacks that were excluded from professions, or even just paying labor, simply because of the color of their skin. Why then can't anyone seem to come up with the name of one single person that's been excluded from Hollywood because they weren't Jewish? It certainly can't be said that there aren't many successful non-Jews in the business: that can be disproven immediately.

In the United States of America, we don't divide things up by ethnicity or religion and we don't have quotas. We have Constitutional equal protection under the law. The fact that you might not like someone's religion or be paranoid about their ethnicity does not mean you're entitled to make laws specifying how many of them can be successful. You get to compete with other people, and if you win, you win. If they do, they do.

When you can demonstrate that any illegal discrimination is going on - which would certainly require that someone unfairly discriminated against be produced - then you can come back and complain about "domination." Until then, what you're doing is promoting discrimination. Doing it behind a bogus front of "diversity" changes nothing.

Just about every rational, unbiased person that reads through these discussion comes to the conclusion that almost everyone who posts here does so out of simple anti-Jewish prejudice. They can't stand the fact that Jews -whom they consider themselves better than - are so successful and it makes them jealous. That's not what democracy is all about.

 

 

Domination Abridges Free Speech
Posted on December 20, 2003 at 05:30:03 PM by James Jaeger

>While it's true that the "domination" of an industry is wrong and may be harmful, and that diversity is a valuable and worthwhile goal, what's being disputed is the belief that the status of Jews in the industry constitutes "domination." The idea that a high percentage of Jews in an industry indicates "domination" is what should be critically examined.

Okay, letís examine this.

>No one ever says, for example, that Blacks "dominate" the NBA" or jazz.

I do. But they dominate the NBA for different reasons. They are there because of physical characteristics, not mental ones. Many studies have found the African Americans are often superior to Whites in terms of physical strength. This is why so many Blacks are in the NFL as well. Plus, the managers of these teams put them there. Itís not like African Americans network exclusively with each other in order to commandeer the choicest jobs.

>I've never heard anyone suggest that Greeks "dominate" shipping or that the Irish "dominate" the police force. In fact, even if WASPs made up one hundred percent of media outliers, no one would ever say that they "dominated" the media.

I will take diversity over domination in any field, but this is not our focus. Our focus of discussion here is the Hollywood-based US motion picture industry and this industry is dominated by politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage.

>Why is this? For one, because "domination" implies two things; first, that this status is somehow unfair and exclusionary, if not illegal,

Not at all. Domination is a neutral word. It makes no assumption as to how or why something became dominated, even though it does have connotations of not being good. The universe is dominated by smaller stars over large ones yet we do not concern ourselves with whether this is fair or not, nor whether it is good or bad. Thus use of the word domination does not necessarily provide an evaluation as to whether something became dominated by unfair and exclusionary methods.

>and, second, that it's harmful. The reason no one - at least that I know of - complains about all the Blacks in the NBA is because people genuinely believe that they are the best players, and that no one's been unfairly excluded. Because people don't seem to think there's anything harmful about the Greeks and the Irish - they share the majoritarian religion, of course - they simply say that the Irish make up our police force to a large degree.

When you try to ascertain whether domination is good or bad, you have to look at each individual case. In the case of the motion picture industry, I and John Cones, maintain that there is a significant difference between this industry and industries such as basket ball, boat building and police forces in given cities. The movie industry effects EVERYONE, no matter what city they live in or what their background. The US penetration of TV is over 90% of all households. Some places in the world, people will spend money on a TV over food or other "necessities." A given police force only effects the particular city itís in. Hardly everyone watches basketball or football. Few have the money to takes cruises compared with the number that watch movies and TV a significant portion of each day. Thus, compared to the all-pervasive, dominating entertainment/media business, other businesses have relatively little effect on people in general. This is important to understand. We are NOT singling out the movie industry because of WHO dominates it, but because of the fact that it IS dominated by a narrow demographic that is unrepresentative of the average Americanís interests. This domination delivers a blow to the most fundamental element of democracy: the right to unabridged free speech. It has been said many times that if a democracy does not have its freedom of speech, then all of the other rights are meaningless. Unless EVERYONEíS voice can be heard, democracy is meaningless. And when you have a narrow demographic of people in the TOP echelons of the movie/media business you have a control factor which filters out all voices that are disagreeable to the control class of that movie/media business. This is the problem, and what makes the argument of domination different from all others in all other industries.

>Try as they might, the guys that run FIRM have never been able to demonstrate that anyone is being excluded from a career in Hollywood on the basis of their ethnicity or religion: They've never been able to come up with a single name of anyone who's ever been unable to have a career because they weren't Jewish.

As I have said to George Shelps many times, itís not that Gentiles are actively EXCLUDED, itís that theyíre not actively INCLUDED. If they were, one would think that after half of the 95 years the movie industry has been around you would see more Gentiles in the top three positions at the MPAA studio/distributors. But instead you see whatís at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist This is hard evidence that somethingís going on.

In thinking this over, I have come to the conclusion that there is a reason why this has happened, and why it can be shown that Jews dominate, not only the movie industry/media, but other industries as well. In short: Jews know how to NETWORK better than most anyone else. In otherwords, the speed and accuracy of communication Jew to Jew must be faster and more accurate than other systems of nodes. This is not a criticism of Jewry, but an explanation of WHY Jews still dominate the movie industry after almost 100 years. And the way you would prove this might be this: Get, at random, at least 100 Jews and 100 Gentiles in Hollywood to participate in a study. Ask each participant to turn over their rolodex and identify who in it is Jewish and who is Gentile.
Then compare the percentage of Jews in the Gentile rolodexes with the percentage of Gentiles in the Jewish rolodexes. If someone were able to do this experiment, I am willing to bet there are many fewer Gentile nodes in the Jewish rolodexes than there are Jewish nodes in the Gentile rolodex. Now you say, well thatís because there are simply far more Jews in the Hollywood movie industry than Gentiles. Well okay. I would then do this same experiment in an industry where it is known that Gentiles dominate. I would then compare the two networks and I bet you will find in each case, no matter what industry, Jews have a higher percentage of Jewish connections hence a denser networking capability. I would also repeat this experiment with African Americans and Whites and Hispanics as well as people from every possible religious affiliation in order to get a fuller picture of the various networks. If you didnít have the time or money to do this experiment, you could probably do an experiment where you simply asked each executive at the top of each MPAA studio WHO hired them. Then follow the chain down asking WHO hired them, etc. I will bet you will find that a significant portion of the chains are Jewish. I would then repeat this same experiment starting with the few Gentile executives that are in the industry and follow the chain down as to who hired them. The key questions would be: What percentage of time does a Jewish executive hire a Gentile executive vs. the percentage of time a Gentile executive hires a Jewish executive. This would take money and time to do this experiment, but I feel it would yield some very interesting results. Of course, it would also be interesting to extend this same experiment to all other industries as well as all other combinations of people. And eventually, with the advent of AI database mining, all this WILL be done. For anyone who doubts this last statement, I refer you to a book by James Martin entitled, ALIEN INTELLIGENCE.

In all fairness, one cannot hold anything against Jews for their networking abilities. The thing to do, if what I have said above is true, is for others to wake up and start competing. Start networking themselves. But having said that, it doesnít really sound like a great solution because then what you might get is every group just networking with its own kind leading to less diversity and probably more conflict. So I donít know what the answer is other than recognizing the source of disparity.

>Jaeger even freely admits that the reason Gentiles historically haven't been big players in the industry is because they specifically snubbed it. Most of their arguments are transparent attempts to gloss over this embarrassing fact.

No, I do acknowledge that Gentiles historically haven't been big players in the industry because they specifically snubbed it, and this is true. Thomas Edison and his crowd were as selfish and overly proprietary with the movie camera as the Wright Brothers were with the airplane. Anyone who invents something great is often extremely proprietary with it and this is what happened and it was wrong. It was also short-sighted of Gentiles to not see the potential of motion picture entertainment and wrong of them to snub Jews for entering the business and developing it to what it is today. This is the classic idea of everyone wanting to ride the wagon down the hill but no one wanting to push it up. But it was also wrong for early Jewish movie producers to steal Edisonís camera and hightail it to southern California so they could make illegal movies and benefit from their patent larceny. This is a fact that the movie industry, BECAUSE it is dominated by Jews, fails to own up to. And in failing to own up to this fact, the control group proves, ipso facto, that the truth is suppressed when a communications industry is dominated by a given group and its self-interests. In short, truth in democracy does not rise to the top of public awareness when that democracyís major communication channels are blocked, or inhibited, by special interests.

>The truth is what people are so afraid of is not that there is any illegal exclusion going on, but just that Jews, whom they contemptously mistrust and dislike for being part of a minority religion, have status.

This is simply not true Mitchell. I have nothing against Jews per se. I do not mistrust them or dislike them and certainly donít feel any given Jew is necessarily representative of the entire Jewish community. You are still trying to frame this argument in terms of "like" or "dislike" of Jews in order to thwart any inquiry into Jewish domination of Hollywood. This is a form of Anti-Semitic Sword. In my 6 years with FIRM, and arguing with hundreds of Jews, I have to say I have come to realize that Jews to a great extent are pulling in their own problems. If they would stop viewing the world in terms of whether they are liked or disliked, I bet things would change. One of the points in the "Scientology Code of Ethics" is this: "Never desire to be liked or admired." Jews could learn much from L. Ron Hubbard.

>It doesn't matter whether that status is legitimate or illegitimate. All that matters is that successful movie executives are Jewish, and whether they are within their rights to be such is irrelevant. They just don't want to see successful Jewish movie and television and print execs, and they'll use any means whatsoever to attempt to discredit them, regardless of democracy or the Constitution or Truth.

If those in power in the studios are seeking to only network with their own kind because itís easier or they feel their own kind are in some way better, we have two different issues. If they network with their own kind because itís easier, then I say to them: stop being lazy and discover all the other great people out there. If they network with their own kind because they feel their own kind are in some way better, then I say to them: stop being a bigoted elitist and discover all the other great people out there.

>Open any copy of a trade paper and you'll see the names of many non-Jews that are producers and executives.

Great, but this is NOT the argument here. We are only talking about the top three positions at the seven MPAA studio/distributors. These are the places where the power lays and these are the sweet spots that Jews dominate. So please stop insulting me or trying to impress me with all the other window dressing in the industry.

>Cones himself is a non-Jew and he's a top Hollywood lawyer.

Irrelevant.

>There's not much evidence people are being excluded.

There is all the evidence in the world that they are being excluded in the top positions. Whatís the evidence? That theyíre NOT There. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>There's historical reasons why Jews went into the movie business, and theorizing about mysterious "tribal loyalties" is unnecessary:

Oh, are you denying that Jews have tribal loyalties when it was various mountain tribes that got together and BECAME Jews about 2,000 years BC?

>the reason Jews become movie people are exactly the same as everyone else, it's fun, profitable and exciting.

Fine. But they still dominate because they out-network everyone else, with the possible exception of the Scientologists, who have it down to a fine science.

>In any other business, you'd expect that the people who run would be the people that have been in it the longest. Jews started the business,

False. Thomas Edison started the business right here on the East Coast. Please stop acting like Hollywood and trying to re-write history. The Jews a) stole the movie camera from Edison and b) settled down in LA so they could c) be near the Mexican boarder d) for quick getaways. Sunlight is usually given as the obfuscating "reason" why Jews went out West, but this is only part of the story.

>so naturally the people in the top positions are Jewish.

No, not naturally, criminally.

>There's nothing discriminatory about that at all: why exactly should a corporation hire someone with inferior experience to run their multimillion dollar company?

Hereís your bigoted elitism showing again. Since Gentiles started the movie industry, Gentiles have more experience than Jews who came later and didnít even have the brains to invent the movie camera. You gonna tell me that Jews are more able then Gentiles when they didnít even invent the primary instrument that made it all possible. The more I think about it, the less I am agreeing with this idea that Jewish studio executives are justified in hiring other Jewish studio executives because they have more "experience" than Gentile studio executives. This is a crock of horse.

>Simply because you're paranoid about their religion?

Religion. What religion? I canít remember the last time I spoke to or even knew of a religious Jew. So itís definitely not religion Jews network over, itís money and power.

>In the cases of people who've genuinely been discriminated against as a class, it's easy to find people that have been denied. In the days prior to civil rights, everybody knew of lots of Blacks that were excluded from professions, or even just paying labor, simply because of the color of their skin. Why then can't anyone seem to come up with the name of one single person that's been excluded from Hollywood because they weren't Jewish? It certainly can't be said that there aren't many successful non-Jews in the business: that can be disproven immediately.

You are tempting me to start running ads in the Hollywood Reporter asking people to step forward if they believe they have been discriminated against. To anyone reading this, I will match a certain amount of funding you provide to run such ads. Contact me by email at jjaeger@mecfilms.com to discuss.

>In the United States of America, we don't divide things up by ethnicity or religion and we don't have quotas. We have Constitutional equal protection under the law. The fact that you might not like someone's religion or be paranoid about their ethnicity does not mean you're entitled to make laws specifying how many of them can be successful. You get to compete with other people, and if you win, you win. If they do, they do.

What I am paranoid about, to use your word, is that the right to freedom of speech is being abridged by those who dominate Hollywood because this group is screening out diverse thought and in a position to pick and choose which movies get made and which do not.

>When you can demonstrate that any illegal discrimination is going on - which would certainly require that someone unfairly discriminated against be produced - then you can come back and complain about "domination." Until then, what you're doing is promoting discrimination. Doing it behind a bogus front of "diversity" changes nothing.

There is no question that Hollywood is dominated by Jews. The only question is whether a democratic society should and will tolerate this as well as domination by ANY narrowly defined group, not just Jews. All the other rhetoric you are tossing around is beside the point. You are like the squid spraying black ink all over the place, your voluminous and never ending provocateur words obfuscating the simplicity of the issues. Pretty pathetic.

>Just about every rational, unbiased person that reads through these discussion comes to the conclusion that almost everyone who posts here does so out of simple anti-Jewish prejudice.

Thatís ridiculous. And this is the core of your obfuscation. You think that by making this a Jewish issue, or by insinuating that we at FIRM are prejudiced against Jews, you can discredit us and thus make the legitimate issue of Hollywood domination and the abridgement of the right to free speech go away. Dream on.

>They can't stand the fact that Jews -whom they consider themselves better than Ė

I think you are dramatizing your own subconscious on this one Mitch.

>are so successful and it makes them jealous.

Hey, if I were to be jealous of anything it would be of Jews ability to network. Being an ex-Scientologist I have a great appreciation of how this is done and I wouldnít be the least bit surprised to learn that L. Ron Hubbard took much of what he incorporated into Scientology from Judaism.

>That's not what democracy is all about.

What democracy is all about is that no single group should have MORE free speech than any other group just because they are better at networking and pushing power to all their Jewish friends.

James Jaeger


Re(1): Domination Abridges Continued...
Posted on December 23, 2003 at 12:05:17 PM by Mitchell Levine

This is simply not true Mitchell. I have nothing against Jews per se. I do not mistrust them or dislike them and certainly donít feel any given Jew is necessarily representative of the entire Jewish community.

- That's ridiculous, Jim. You accuse Jews of plotting against Christianity, concoct schemes to set up discriminatory ethnic quota systems, advocate suspending various constitutional rights in their specific case, promote the insanely hateful and deceit-saturated writings of rabid lunatics like Jenks, use bigoted code-phrases like the "Jewish domination of Hollywood" - which itself comes directly from the Nazis - and blame virtually everything you dislike on Jews. You are obsessed with Jews. Your fixation is so intense that simply having this site, which is devoted almost entirely to it, to vent isn't enough, and it spills onto other sites where it's off-topic.

Whether you consciously dislike Jews or not is a different issue, but it's disingenuous of you to maintain that you're unbiased.

You are still trying to frame this argument in terms of "like" or "dislike" of Jews in order to thwart any inquiry into Jewish domination of Hollywood. This is a form of Anti-Semitic Sword. In my 6 years with FIRM, and arguing with hundreds of Jews, I have to say I have come to realize that Jews to a great extent are pulling in their own problems.

- Blaming the victim: another bad sign.


>It doesn't matter whether that status is legitimate or illegitimate. All that matters is that successful movie executives are Jewish, and whether they are within their rights to be such is irrelevant. They just don't want to see successful Jewish movie and television and print execs, and they'll use any means whatsoever to attempt to discredit them, regardless of democracy or the Constitution or Truth.

If those in power in the studios are seeking to only network with their own kind because itís easier or they feel their own kind are in some way better, we have two different issues.

- Of course, you have no evidence that this is true, but go on:

If they network with their own kind because itís easier, then I say to them: stop being lazy and discover all the other great people out there.

- That, of course, is true. I don't think it's the case though. Basically, the people who have been in the business the longest are Jewish, and the people who get promoted to the top positions in any industry are the ones who've been in that business the longest.

That this is true is borne out by the fact that at the lower, middle. and lower-upper levels there are many non-Jews. As time goes on, and the people in power today have to be replaced because of retirement and death, the people in the lower rungs will be promoted, leading to more diversity. No anti-constitutional suspension of basic liberties is required to deal with the situation.

If I honestly believed that there was discrimination going on in anything but isolated instances, I'd be the first person to complain about it.


>Open any copy of a trade paper and you'll see the names of many non-Jews that are producers and executives.

Great, but this is NOT the argument here. We are only talking about the top three positions at the seven MPAA studio/distributors. These are the places where the power lays and these are the sweet spots that Jews dominate. So please stop insulting me or trying to impress me with all the other window dressing in the industry.

- None of it's window dressing: the people in lower executive positions today are the ones who get promoted to president, CEO, and chairman tomorrow. If there had been these people in those positions years ago, they'd have the top spots today - you do have to pay your dues. Quite simply, positions like CEO and Chairman are not considered entry-level in any industry.

>Cones himself is a non-Jew and he's a top Hollywood lawyer.

Irrelevant.

- Hardly: nothing is more inane than a rich Hollywood lawyer complaining about other people's "power" and "influence."

>There's not much evidence people are being excluded.

There is all the evidence in the world that they are being excluded in the top positions. Whatís the evidence? That theyíre NOT There. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

- That hardly proves they've been EXCLUDED. To demonstrate exclusion, you need to show that there's been someone who's been DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!. You've never been able to do that. You've never been able to come up with the name of one non-Jew that was denied a position in Hollywood due to their ethnicity..

The primary qualification for a top position in any business is seniority, and the people who have been in the business the longest are Jewish, simply because the business was founded by Jews. The only "superiority" that Jews are claiming in Hollywood is chronological.

>There's historical reasons why Jews went into the movie business, and theorizing about mysterious "tribal loyalties" is unnecessary:

Oh, are you denying that Jews have tribal loyalties when it was various mountain tribes that got together and BECAME Jews about 2,000 years BC?

- In case you haven't noticed, THIS IS NOW THE YEAR 2003 A.D.!!! At one time Gentiles also lived in the primeval communism: that does not mean they have some bullshit "tribal loyalty" today.

>the reason Jews become movie people are exactly the same as everyone else, it's fun, profitable and exciting.

Fine. But they still dominate because they out-network everyone else, with the possible exception of the Scientologists, who have it down to a fine science.

- No, they "dominate" because THEY STARTED THE BUSINESS. You can't spend 50 years snubbing an industry and then whine incessantly that you don't "control" it.

>In any other business, you'd expect that the people who run would be the people that have been in it the longest. Jews started the business,

>so naturally the people in the top positions are Jewish.

No, not naturally, criminally.

- That's a pile of bullshit: there's no evidence of any kind that the people in Hollywood are doing anything illegal in their hiring (I'm intentionally excluding the various financial abuses Cones details, as I'm not qualified to discuss them). You've never been able to identify one person that's ever been discriminated against.

In the case of people who've genuinely been discriminated against, say, pre-civil rights era Blacks, everyone could name someone they knew was discriminated against purely on the basis of the color of their skin.

>There's nothing discriminatory about that at all: why exactly should a corporation hire someone with inferior experience to run their multimillion dollar company?

Hereís your bigoted elitism showing again. Since Gentiles started the movie industry, Gentiles have more experience than Jews who came later and didnít even have the brains to invent the movie camera.

- Moron, the list of things Jews have invented is endless; they've won something like a third of all Nobel Prizes Apparently Gentiles didn't "have the brains" to invent General Relativity. quantum field theory, statistical mechanics, cybernetics, the first computer (Von Neuman died Catholic, but was Jewish), etc.

What a culture values it produces. Jews valued education, so they produced respected academics, and movie people. While Edison may have invented the camera, he didn't invent the industry: inventing the motion picture camera has little to do with inventing the motion picture industry - being qualified to do one hardly qualifies you to do the other, which is why you don't see many mechanical engineers running studios, or directors doing auto CAD drafting for optical grinders.

The reason Jews are in the top spots in Hollywood has nothing to do with Jews being innately superior to Gentiles - it has to do with history. No ones is claiming that Jews are innately superior in any way, or at least I certainly am not, and your attempts to imply that I am are just character assassination. One thing I'm not is "bigoted."

You gonna tell me that Jews are more able then Gentiles when they didnít even invent the primary instrument that made it all possible. The more I think about it, the less I am agreeing with this idea that Jewish studio executives are justified in hiring other Jewish studio executives because they have more "experience" than Gentile studio executives. This is a crock of horse.

- That will make sense, as soon as you can name one other industry where the people who run it aren't the people who have been in the business the longest, and people that get hired off the street get promoted to Chief Executive Officer the next year. It's no different in Hollywood than it is anywhere else. You're just jealous because you haven't had the success you think is due you - but that doesn't mean anyone else has done anything wrong. Start taking responsibility for your own life.

>Simply because you're paranoid about their religion?

Religion. What religion? I canít remember the last time I spoke to or even knew of a religious Jew. So itís definitely not religion Jews network over, itís money and power.

- As if that wasn't true for everyone else? As if Carnegie and Rockefeller and all those Gentile robber barons of the industries networked over religion? Oh, I forget - it's only bad when Jews do it!

>In the United States of America, we don't divide things up by ethnicity or religion and we don't have quotas. We have Constitutional equal protection under the law. The fact that you might not like someone's religion or be paranoid about their ethnicity does not mean you're entitled to make laws specifying how many of them can be successful. You get to compete with other people, and if you win, you win. If they do, they do.

What I am paranoid about, to use your word, is that the right to freedom of speech is being abridged by those who dominate Hollywood because this group is screening out diverse thought and in a position to pick and choose which movies get made and which do not.

- THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH RIGHT TO HAVE MOVIES PRODUCED!!! Your freedom of speech is "abridged" if you're arrested for what you've said - that's it! Under your completely extra-constitutional definition of free speech, anyone in the country who can't get a film made - which is almost everybody, and always will be - could claim to have had freedom of speech rights violated. Everyone cannot have films made. There is no such right. You have a right to speak, not a "right" to be heard. The day some district attorney has you locked up because of what you say on this site, you can claim to have had your freedom of speech violated. Until that time, you haven't.

>When you can demonstrate that any illegal discrimination is going on - which would certainly require that someone unfairly discriminated against be produced - then you can come back and complain about "domination." Until then, what you're doing is promoting discrimination. Doing it behind a bogus front of "diversity" changes nothing.

There is no question that Hollywood is dominated by Jews.

- There's plenty of question: "domination" implies criminal activity, and you've never been able to demonstrate that there are any (hiring) laws being broken. Hollywood simply does what every other industry in the world does and promotes the people who have been in the business the longest. The greater diversity that exists in the industry today as compared to, say, the '50's, will lead to even greater diversity tomorrow.

The only question is whether a democratic society should and will tolerate this as well as domination by ANY narrowly defined group, not just Jews.

- No, the question is: is the nation going to abandon the principles of personal liberty set forth by the founding fathers in the Bill of Rights and, because your jealousy motivates you to wish to use your majoritarian religious status to push around minorities,institute ethnic quota systems, which is the only solution you've ever come up with. The day that happens this will stop being a democracy.

And, by the way, a guy who complains about people saying "happy holidays," instead of "merry Christmas," because he's part of the religious majority and is irritated about having to be sensitive to the feelings of minorities, SHOULD NOT be self-righteous about multiculturalism!

Thatís ridiculous. And this is the core of your obfuscation. You think that by making this a Jewish issue, or by insinuating that we at FIRM are prejudiced against Jews, you can discredit us and thus make the legitimate issue of Hollywood domination and the abridgement of the right to free speech go away. Dream on.

- At least half of the posters on the site use blatantly antisemitic slurs - for example, Anami's reference to Jew's "big noses" and "ugly faces" - and they're never taken down. You, however, regularly take down any post which refutes your arguments. And your continuing to frame this as a freedom of speech issue when you're perfectly aware it's not one - as freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to run a movie studio, or get films prouced - is just plain deceitful.

>They can't stand the fact that Jews -whom they consider themselves better than Ė

I think you are dramatizing your own subconscious on this one Mitch.

- Wrong - I'm dramatizing YOUR consciousness!

Hey, if I were to be jealous of anything it would be of Jews ability to network.

- Specifically, what you're jealous of is anyone else's ability to get movies made that aren't released direct-to-video.

>That's not what democracy is all about.

What democracy is all about is that no single group should have MORE free speech than any other group just because they are better at networking and pushing power to all their Jewish friends.

- No one in the nation has any more or less freedom to speak without being prosecuted for a crime, including you - therefore, no one has any more or less "freedom of speech."

Re(2): Domination Abridges Continued...
Posted on December 23, 2003 at 04:54:35 PM by James Jaeger

So you're claiming that Jews don't have a better networking ability than others?

James Jaeger

Re(3): Domination Abridges Continued...
Posted on December 23, 2003 at 05:26:41 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, they use the networking ability they have better (in some cases). Of course, as the cases of Ted Turner, Ross Perot, and Donald Trump demonstrate, there's an awful lot of talented Gentile networkers out there.

In fact, it's my understanding that most celebrities and industry people join the Church of Scientology primarily to network.

Re(2): Domination Abridges Continued...
Posted on December 23, 2003 at 02:53:34 PM by George Shelps

At least half of the posters on the site use blatantly antisemitic slurs - for example, Anami's reference to Jew's "big noses" and "ugly faces" - and they're never taken down. You, however, regularly take down any post which refutes your arguments.

))__And he just did it again...took down my post citing the Supreme Court language ruling agains the "evil" (the
Court's word) of Edison's Trust.

Re(3): Domination Abridges Continued...
Posted on December 23, 2003 at 04:56:39 PM by James Jaeger

Post it again so I can read it George.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Domination Abridges Free Speech
Posted on December 21, 2003 at 03:56:37 PM by George Shelps

But it was also wrong for early Jewish movie producers to steal Edison's camera and hightail it to southern California so they could make illegal movies and benefit from their patent larceny. This is a fact that the movie industry, BECAUSE it is dominated by Jews, fails to own up to.

___Because it is UNTRUE. And Edison's
attempt to control the movie business by
setting up the Motion Picture Patents Trust was ruled an illegal monopoly.

Re(2): Domination Abridges Free Speech
Posted on December 22, 2003 at 00:07:00 AM by James Jaeger

Jaeger Wrote:
>>But it was also wrong for early Jewish movie producers to steal Edison's camera and hightail it to southern California so they could make illegal movies and benefit from their patent larceny. This is a fact that the movie industry, BECAUSE it is dominated by Jews, fails to own up to.

Shelps Wrote:
>___Because it is UNTRUE. And Edison's
attempt to control the movie business by setting up the Motion Picture Patents Trust was ruled an illegal monopoly.

Jaeger wrote:
Horse. You're misinterpreting the Supreme Court's decision. There is no doubt that the Hollywood independents were illegally using the Edison Trust's cameras. The only problem was that the Edison Trust resorted to thuggery in trying to enforce their rights, thus the Supreme Court ruled against the Trust because the tactics it used to enforce its rights were wrong. That is not the same as saying that the Hollywood independents did nothing wrong.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Domination Abridges Free Speech
Posted on December 22, 2003 at 10:17:26 AM by George Shelps

Horse. You're misinterpreting the Supreme Court's decision. There is no doubt that the Hollywood independents were illegally using the Edison Trust's cameras. The only problem was that the Edison Trust resorted to thuggery in trying to enforce their rights, thus the Supreme Court ruled against the Trust because the tactics it used to enforce its rights were wrong. That is not the same as saying that the Hollywood independents did nothing wrong.

_____Do your homework! The Edison Trust
was ruled an illegal restraint of trade
under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

 

 

Re(4): Hollywood Re-writing History
Posted on December 17, 2003 at 06:23:19 PM by Anami

Mitchell writes: "Jews started the business, so naturally the people in the top positions are Jewish. There's nothing discriminatory about that at all: why exactly should a corporation hire someone with inferior experience to run their multimillion dollar company?"

Yes, and on whose back did they start that business? On the backs of bent-over black maids and mammys and black men painted as rapists.

The early movies about race relations in America was a big break for Jews. And it was a marriage made in heaven that helped keep blacks in their place in this country for a long time. Then when blacks (negroees) were needed to get Jew lawyers jobs and money the Jews joined in and created the civil rights movement.

Be careful how you throw Hitler's name around and use it to prop up your argument. Why? Because I think that history will confirm that either Hitler learned the business of propaganda from the Americans and the German Jews, and Jews exported that propaganda to the U.S. in the form of "movies."

And if he learned it from the Jews == the Jews reclaimed it to make money and take over not only media but education in this country. Controls were put in place in Harvard because there were too many Jews, and they were taking over,...too late....

Yes, the Jews did begin the industry of propaganda here. It is the same business that Hitler used to successfully exterminate the Jews. One hand washes another.

If one is in the business of control-- control of the wheel is NEVER shared with another group outside of that brotherhood--this is what the Jews don't want the world to figure out.

You need to check your history books before you start trying to defend your Jewish mogul brothers in Hollywood using Hitler as an example--it will backfire on you.

True, the upper class white in America was not interested in movies at first. Later it was in the Jew's interest to have WASPs on the silver screen because it was too obvious (and distasteful) for them to have the CEO seats and be the faces on the screens.

However, when you get a face that don't look so jewish like Gweneth et al, then the Jews are quick to put them in movies ad nauseum.

Anami

Re(4): Hollywood Re-writing History
Posted on December 16, 2003 at 10:23:54 PM by M. Friedkin

Jews dominate the NBA, asshole, from David Stern on down. They own it. Jews also dominate jazz, run the whole damn businss and have exploited Blacks like puppets.

Re(5): Hollywood Re-writing History
Posted on December 17, 2003 at 10:19:35 AM by Mitchell Levine

Sorry, dickhead, but the last time Jews picked up a basketball and played a pro game was the 40's, and jazz was begun by guys named Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker and Dizzie Gillespie. You obviously take your cues from Henry Ford's "Jewish Jazz - Moron Music."

Re(6): Hollywood Re-writing History
Posted on December 18, 2003 at 05:52:31 PM by Anami

DO Jews do anything more strenous than picking up a pen to write checks out to themselves? I know they ain't in the armies -- but fill out the corps of journalists who report on the wars. Then when ONE of them gets killed or dies then we have to hear about it damn near every day.....

We know who started Jazz, and we also know who profits from its recordings and imitation.

I "watched" Amistad for as much of it as I could stand. But did not see it from first to last frame as in enjoyed it. One does not have to watch something in entirety to know it sucks.

Anami

Re(7): Hollywood Re-writing History
Posted on December 18, 2003 at 06:35:25 PM by Mitchell Levine

DO Jews do anything more strenous than picking up a pen to write checks out to themselves?

- Sure, doing things like curing polio, discovering quantum electrodynamics, and founding the Peace Corps.

I know they ain't in the armies -- but fill out the corps of journalists who report on the wars.

- "Ain't" that so? It'd certainly come as a surprise to my grandfather, Max Zuckerman, whom was awarded the Purple Heart in 1945 for his gallant service in WWII. You never met an ignorant stereotype you didn't like, you bigoted mongoloid, did you?


We know who started Jazz, and we also know who profits from its recordings and imitation.

- That's right: Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington, Dizzie Gillespie, Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, Wes Montgomery, Count Basie, and Louis Armstrong were so "oppressed" by their management, they died rich, famous, internationally revered cultural icons in an era where virulent racism, like yours, was the norm - something that never would have happened without the sales and marketing talent of the executives that promo'd and distro'd them. Looks like it turned out pretty OK for them too.

Re(8): Hollywood Re-writing History for bigoted mongoloids
Posted on December 20, 2003 at 11:32:41 AM by Anami

That's a catchy phrase you got there. Why not sell it to hollywood so they can make a movie about all the Jews who used the wars, just as Mexicans and Blacks do now, as a form of social and economic succession to better their lives...and moving on to such important things as taking over Harvard?

Jews are indoctrinated by mom to get that education. WHy? Because no one has to see the ugly faces of Jews behind microscopes or in the ivory towers of the ivy leagues. And what's more they can meet beautiful blonds, marry them and have kids who look like something--read the life of the Rothchilds.

It's a safe haven and damn good advice, cause you people have taken over just about everything to do with everything.

Anami

Re(9): Hollywood Re-writing History for bigoted mongoloids
Posted on December 23, 2003 at 10:19:04 AM by Mitchell Levine

RAHOWA!!!

Levine's Pro-Jewish Slant
Posted on December 13, 2003 at 12:51:11 PM by ashing2

And what's wrong with "antisemitic posts"? I have as much right to be anti-Semitic as you have to be pro-Jewish. There's no law that says I have to fall in line with anyone's agenda. Go jump in a lake Levine.


Re(1): Levine's Pro-Jewish Slant
Posted on December 15, 2003 at 10:24:16 AM by Mitchell Levine

No one's disputing your constitutional right to be a despicable bigot - but making antisemitic posts is not going to do anything to improve the state of education. You can say what you want, but I can say what I want.

So go jump in a lake your damn self!

 

 

 

 

Hollywood's ALIEN Women
Posted on December 28, 2003 at 09:38:45 PM by James Jaeger

Have you noticed how women are portrayed in movies these past several decades? In an attempt to "provide strong roles for women," Hollywood consistently portrays women who bite men's heads off or act like aliens.

I think Sigourney Weaver kicked it off in ALIEN, when she became more vicious THAN the alien and it's been true right on up to Carrie-Anne Moss in THE MATRIX where she jumps down Neo's throat saying, in an overly-mean tone of voice, "Now I'm going to tell you what I believe..."

Since movies influence behavior, it's no wonder girls are doing an excessive amount of crime these days, up 7% between 1993 and 2003, and girls are taking up guns and violence in record numbers. Everyone wants to be Laura Croft in TOUB RAIDER not Meryl Streep in THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Hollywood's ALIEN Women
Posted on December 29, 2003 at 06:17:58 PM by Mitchell Levine

- Hard to believe, considering that the Tomb Raider movies flopped, and The Bridges of Madison County did solid business.

Besides, Lara Croft was portrayed as youthful, as opposed to Meryl Streep's late middle age, making it much easier for the 18-24 year olds that buy most of the tickets to identify.


Re(2): Hollywood's ALIEN Women
Posted on December 30, 2003 at 03:39:13 PM by James Jaeger

So you don't feel that movies are portraying women as much more agressive these past several decades?

Your post has nothing to do with my post except to somehow attempt to invalidate it, without either agreeing or disagreeing.

Mitch, you are as reactive as they get. If John or I say A, you automatically say B. It's as if your entire mission here is to totally invalidate anything and everything that is posted.

What's your purpose? What's your mission? It certainly doesn't seem like you are in the least interested in film reform.

James Jaeger

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's this reform really about?
Posted on December 30, 2003 at 08:52:03 AM by Anami

I was watching "Gable and Lombard" and a Jew moghul walks in on their life one of the Meyers and insults them about their adultery. It reminded me of when I was in Catholic schools and we were taught about proper books and movies to watch.

No Catholic jokes please (I am not a practicing Catholic now, and I know all their flaws--I study them--but they have no peers in education in my opinion.) But you are entitled to your opinion naturally.

The nihil obstat was drilled into us and we practically had to take an oath that we would look for it and not read or go to movies which contained anything objectionable in it. That came from the Pope, or the clergy I am sure.

But perhaps they knew something which the average person did not know: that morality was being created by Jews in Hollywood. If there was nothing objectionable back in the 60s in these things I don't think it would have been such a big deal, to have ratings which we were to look for.

But my point is this: Is it now fashionable to portray immorality and gay life to everyone who will listen? I know that African Americans (new rap entertainers) (some) have too sold themselves. However, much of their material comes from what they truly live, do and find as least resistance "physicality" that's not a judgment just an old observation.

I want to know how much does this level of extreme immorality play for those who object to Jewish Hollywood besides myself? I mean I cannot even look at the trailers for "Bad Santa" I find it so offensive. And if I hear another Jew singing about Santa or Christmas I think I will vomit!

Can Americans and the world take back or rather create a "nonbiased" more moral view of the world? Do we want to? I think it is important for future generations.

I know some Jews on this forum will resort to their ad hominen attacks but then their attacks all sound strangely hollow and similar. But just as they have a "right" to make movies about trash and to trash every ethnic group on earth, I have the right to ask can nonJews do better than that?

Anami

 

 

 

FIRM's Mission Statement
Posted on January 9, 2004 at 10:55:04 AM by John Cones

The Film Industry Reform Movement is an international association of concerned citizens, moviegoers and film industry professionals dedicated to the proposition that the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas, and therefore, has great potential for influencing human thinking and behavior.

F.I.R.M. is further based on the belief that movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, and that all interest groups within any diverse society, especially in democratic societies, should have a fair and equal opportunity to tell their unique cultural (and other stories) through this important communications medium. Without these opportunities, the concept of a free marketplace of ideas -- a concept that underlies the highly-valued right of free speech -- will significantly be flawed and inevitably, one, or only a few special interest groups, will be able to express their views, through this powerful medium, to the exclusion, and ultimate detriment, of all others.

More specifically, the Association seeks to:



CONDUCT RESEARCH

Work toward encouraging more thoughtful, critical and analytical research regarding aspects of the above general propositions as well as research relating to:

a. The true nature of feature films;

b. The impact of movies on individuals and society;

c. What people (and entities) have the power to determine which movies are produced and released;

d. Who gets to work on those movies in the key positions;

e. Who determines the themes and contents of screenplays for those movies; and

f. How did such persons (and entities) gain that power.

Such research may help point the way toward the desirable goal of creating a more level playing field for the artists, technicians, executives and investors in the world's film industries.



SEEK EQUITY

Work toward creating a more equitable economic and creative environment within which film industry professionals may pursue their craft and livelihood, so that moviegoers and society in general may benefit from less homogenous, more diversified motion pictures.



STRIVE FOR DIVERSITY

Work toward providing for more diversity in the ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exhibition in the feature film industry so as to increase opportunities for film industry professionals from all backgrounds to ultimately increase diversity in the kinds of concepts, ideas and images portrayed and seen by the movie-going public, through this important entertainment/communications medium.



EDUCATE

Collect and make available (through educational seminars, newsletters, books, the Internet, annual conventions and other means), statistics, economic data and other important information about the feature film industry that is useful and of interest to the Association's members, the press, film professionals, investors and citizens of the world.



PROMOTE FAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Advance lawful and fair trade practices, customs and usage within the film industry.



SHARE INFORMATION

Teach, instruct, develop, disseminate and share information and techniques among its members pertaining to the development, production, distribution and exploitation of feature films in all territories and media.



ADVANCE THE STATE-OF-THE-ART

Do any other act or thing, incidental to or connected with, advancing the motion picture art-form, recognizing that such advancements need not be motivated solely by pecuniary considerations or financial gain but by a genuine desire to bring about improved conditions in the film industry and a more harmonious world culture.


Re(1): FIRM's Mission Statement
Posted on January 9, 2004 at 07:31:07 PM by Aaron Ross

This is an excellent mission. Good luck with it John.

 

 

 

Mormon Cinema, a Growing Indie Scene
Posted on January 15, 2004 at 11:40:19 PM by LAX

NPR today has a feature on Mormon films.
Mormon Cinema, a Growing Indie Scene
New Breed of Films Promote Values of Church of Latter-day Saints
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1599895.html

They note that there is a population of 5,000,000 Mormons in the U.S. and with that population they are able to support a film industry promoting their values. They actually claim that they can survive if only 200,000-300,000 support such films. The audio version says that one motivation is that Hollywood portrays Mormons as insane, fanatic, fundamentalists. (Surprise!)

Re(1): Mormon Cinema, a Growing Indie Scene
Posted on January 19, 2004 at 10:34:55 AM by Anami

That's a start for that group, such as it is. But I have a simpler solution: the average joe needs to put down the beers and the guns and pick up video cams, which some are doing, and just make movies. Even bad movies can go to video and make money or make people think.

This is happening more and more everyday. Those who get some sort of recognition are always shocked by it. It buoys the efforts of others. Spike Lee started out with a b&w sleeper, which had the audiences hysterical.

He began apolitical but has made a few movies that were not worthy of his audience. But the bottom line is that he made money which allowed him to make better movies. The moral: don't be afraid of comparing or being compared to hollywood.

If that were the case then no one would write books for being afraid of having to write a "War and Peace" each time. Start small, there is no shame in it.

Anami

Re(1): Mormon Cinema, a Growing Indie Scene
Posted on January 16, 2004 at 10:41:53 AM by John Cones

Yes, back in 1996, in my study of Hollywood Biopics, I pointed out the problem for all of the Hollywood outsider groups:

" The trend also conclusively demonstrates that persons of Jewish heritage have continued to participate in the Hollywood biopics at a level that is highly disproportionate to their numbers in the general population of the U.S. Since movies tend to a large extent to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, it is clear that if Hollywood had been dominated by African-Americans, Latinos, Italians, Baptists, Mormons or other groups, we would clearly have seen a different slate of films in each of these decades."

John Cones

Re(2): Mormon Cinema, a Growing Indie Scene
Posted on January 16, 2004 at 12:53:56 PM by Mitchell Levine

It's not clear in the slightest: you'd still have the same audience buying tickets, and making the same demands for entertainment.

For example, the heads of Disney and Miramax are both Jewish, and the films those two studios turn out couldn't possibly be more different.

Re(3): Mormon Cinema, a Growing Indie Scene
Posted on January 16, 2004 at 09:50:32 PM by Savior Seven

No. The difference is not to be gauged between Disney's Eisen and Miramax's Weinstein. The difference is between Disney under Walt Disney and Disney under Michael Eisen and subcontractor Weinstein which is the difference between fairy tales for children and Jewish porno-hedonism-anything-for-a-buck.

Re(4): Mormon Cinema, a Growing Indie Scene
Posted on January 19, 2004 at 09:59:35 AM by Mitchell Levine

Finding Nemo, The Lion King, Alladin, and The Black Stallion are "Porn-Hedonism-anything for a buck?" You're delusional.

If anything, Disney's children's films are at their strongest peak both commercially and critically since Walt's death. I defy you to prove otherwise.

 

 

 

ADL wants a postscript on Gibson's 'Passion'
Posted on January 24, 2004 at 02:42:08 PM by LAX

REGARDING MEDIA / TIM RUTTEN
ADL wants a postscript on Gibson's 'Passion'
Tim Rutten

January 24 2004

The leader of one of two Jewish organizations that this week condemned Mel Gibson's forthcoming film, "The Passion of the Christ," as an incitement to anti-Semitism said Friday that his organization is preparing an 11th-hour appeal for a cinematic postscript to the movie.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in an interview that he has all but given up hope Gibson's final cut of the film will omit problematic material from the synoptic Gospels. Most mainstream Catholic and other scholars now believe some material, particularly quotations and chronologies drawn from the Gospel attributed to Matthew, is not only inaccurate but also a provocation to hatred of Jews. Gibson was baptized a Catholic, but now belongs to a schismatic congregation that rejects most of the practices and teachings adopted by the church over the past 40 years.

Foxman said he is preparing a letter asking the filmmaker, who self-financed the $25-million "Passion," to append a personal statement to the version scheduled for release Ash Wednesday (Feb. 25) in which Gibson would condemn any bigoted interpretation of his Passion narrative.

"Mel Gibson, like all of us, has a right to freely express himself," Foxman said. "As an artist, let him have the film he wants to have. But, given the film he has made, I would like to see him do a postscript. Let him say, 'I did this film because I believe I was inspired by the Holy Ghost. I believe that Jesus suffered for all mankind. Some people want to put the blame for his death on the Jews. Don't do that. I've said I wanted to make a "Passion" of love. Blaming Jews for Christ's death would make this a "Passion" of hate.' "

Conversations between the ADL and Gibson broke off some time ago over the organization's early expressions of anxiety over the movie's content. "But I haven't given up," Foxman said. "I'm sending this letter today (Friday)."

A call to Gibson spokesman Alan Nierob seeking comment on the ADL proposal was not returned.

As Lorenza Muñoz and Larry B. Stammer reported Friday in The Times, Foxman ó who like other ADL officials has been barred by Gibson from screenings of "The Passion" ó finally managed to see a version by surreptitiously entering a gathering of Protestant ministers in Orlando, Fla., where it was being shown by the filmmaker. What Foxman saw, he said, "was a film that portrayed Jews as blood-thirsty and unambiguously responsible for the death of Christ. I now understand why Mr. Gibson didn't want us to see it."

Foxman was joined in his condemnation by David Elcott, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee. He, too, noted the film's revival of anti-Semitic stereotypes and drew particular attention to Gibson's decision to include Matthew 27:25, in which the group of Jews present when the Roman governor Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus to death is supposed to have said, "His blood be upon us and upon our children."

According to sources involved in Catholic-Jewish dialogue in the United States, Gibson's inclusion of such material in what is essentially a contemporary Passion play has become a growing concern among some American prelates. They have begun informal conversations about the advisability of taking some sort of action in advance of this film's theatrical release, the sources say.

One possible step would be to draw Catholics' attention to the fact that their church has a formal set of "Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion." Those guidelines were adopted by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1988 and specifically warn against inclusion of several points Gibson has incorporated into versions of his movie now being screened.

For example, in the matter of that verse from Matthew ó which appears in none of the other Gospels ó the bishops' guidelines warn that it can be used in a manner "clearly implying a 'blood guilt' on all Jews in all times in violation of [the Second Vatican Council's] dictum that "what happened in his Passion cannot be blamed on all the Jews then living without distinction nor upon Jews today.' Hence, if the Matthean phrase is to be used (not here recommended), great care could have to be taken throughout the presentation to ensure such an interpretation does not prevail."

Similarly, the bishops' guidelines caution that traditional accounts of Jesus' trial before the Jewish authorities are historically suspect. The Catholic Study Bible officially approved by the U.S. church has a similar cautionary note and footnotes the passage from Matthew: "Guilt for Jesus' death is not attributable to all the Jews of his time or to any Jews of later times."

Gibson's "Passion" has received the support of the conservative Catholic League (which is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church) whose president, William Donohue, issued a statement Friday condemning the "unseemly campaign to discredit" the film. "The guilty include journalists, Catholic and Jewish theologians and Jewish activists," the statement read. "Their goal all along has been to portray Mel Gibson as [an] ... anti-Semite, and to upend his film with charges of violence in the streets. But their relentless campaign is ultimately futile: At the end of the day, the people will judge the movie."

Since his youth, Foxman has enjoyed an unusually close relationship with the Catholic Church. As a Jewish child in wartime Poland, he was separated from his parents and saved by his nanny, who had him baptized and raised him as a Catholic. After the war, he was reunited with his parents and returned to Judaism.

"I have," he said, "a tremendous love and respect for the church that gave me life again. Forty years ago, we in the ADL helped the bishops to write those guidelines that permit artists to be honest about their faith without being hateful in their work. What Mel Gibson is doing is as much an attack on the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council as it is anything else."

Why should that matter?

"Because it's now likely that more people will see his Passion in two months," Foxman said, "than saw all the Passion plays ever staged in the previous 2,000 years."


Re(1): ADL wants a postscript on Gibson's 'Passion'
Posted on January 24, 2004 at 03:54:47 PM by Anami

oh boy, I was watching the local news and there was a screening nearby of "The Passion" and they did show Christians doing exit interviews in which they were truly moved by the film. Then at the end they showed a person who ID himself as Jewish and remarked on the one line "Let his blood be upon us...." and he got real mad and said that is the very thing that caused the murder of Jews and led to the holocaust. I am paraphrasing. He also called for Gibson to take that out of the film.

I can tell it is a powerful film. I would have liked to have told the Jewish moguls to take out all the sterotyping they have done over the years when blacks in their films was new. But would they have done it? It led to the Jim Crow law enforcement and toleration in this country. Alors, which led also to lynching and murders of blacks based on their having lusted after white women.

But I have concluded that the Jewish race is older, more intelligent, and master storytellers (read also historical revisionists) than the rest of us. In that I do respect them, and take nothing away from what they have accomplished.

However, I stick to my plea that the indies do their thing. Pick up the video cams and put as many faces and stories in front of it as possible. If a big star like Robert Redford can do it, then maybe we can imitate his good work.

My only criticism of Jews in their criticism of other gentiles is that they all sound alike! That never ceases to amaze. Also, they seem to be deliberating trying to make themselves loathsome to others by these comments of absolute victimization.

I would like to hear from an honest Jew about this. Am I as biased and sterotyping as other Catholics?

Anami

Re(2): ADL wants a postscript on Gibson's 'Passion'
Posted on January 24, 2004 at 04:31:17 PM by Mitchell Levine

The reason why they all sound alike to you is that they are ALL being scapegoated for the supposed murder of God, and anyone would react to that type of persecution the same way.

You wouldn't act any differently if it were you.

The racial stereotypes you mention were endemic to all of white society, hardly just Jews, and they entirely preexisted the emergence of the motion picture industry. For example, they were very common in Elizabethan and Rennaisance drama.

That does not excuse the film business, but your attempts to blame Jews specifically for racism (and just about everything else) are bullshit. Non-Jews bear just as much responsibility, or more.

All the movies did is reflect what permeated all social strata, unfortunately. Black people today don't stand for such demeaning characterizations, and denounce them with impunity. So should Jews and any other group of people.

And for "historical revisionism," you should really look to non-Jews like David Irving and Robert Faurrison. The Old Testament predated the invention of the modern concept of chronological history, which is the ideal those phonies claim they're serving.

 

Why Jews Aren't Respected
Posted on January 27, 2004 at 05:48:15 PM by Stan Schneider

:My only criticism of Jews in their criticism of other gentiles is that they all sound alike! That never ceases to amaze.

Why would this be amazing? Anyone who has encountered many Jews will quickly acknowledge that they always claim to act independently, but the basic observation that can be made is that the vast majority of them act monolithically. They speak and think in very similar ways. Much of their rhetoric is very similar, for instance the constant use of the word "troubled" and the word "invective." And almost all Jews blindly support Israel, even though they are supposed to be loyal U.S. citizens.

Is it any wonder that cries of conspiracy and cabal have echoed down through the times?

In the entertainment industry I for one rarely see Jews hiring Gentiles. Almost always the money in the movie biz flows from Jew to Jew or from Gentile to Jew, but rarely from Jew to Gentile. Only from Jew to Gentile when the Gentile is being exploited in some way, such as in the case of a name talent. Oh sure exceptions can always be found, but these, none the less, do not invalidate the rule.

Oh, another thing the Jewish block always does is it brings up individual cases or statistics in an attempt to refute generally valid observations. It's as if all generalities or stereotypes in the Jewish mind are invalid. A person who occasions this site named Levine, is a master at this. Note how he works (all too familiar to me). The idea is not so much as to logically refute a statement, but to cast it into enough doubt that the casual reader will discredit it. He is a master at this and at propaganda, as are many Jews, who of course had such tactics used against them by Hitler's propaganda machine.

But not it's time to forget about the Third Reich and live in the present. Maybe when Jewish people start truly acting as individuals, care less about their common unspoken agenda than the fact that they are human like the rest of us and stop the paranoid use of cries of anti-Semitism, they will be respected more highly as individuals.

Why do I say and know all this? Because many years ago I was Jewish.

 

Continuing Abuse of Board
Posted on January 28, 2004 at 10:53:11 AM by John Cones

Surely those of you who continue to post messages about Jews in general, about world affairs, about conflicts of great religions, that resort to sophmoric name-calling, etc. are regularly being deleted from this discussion. After all, this discussion if about film industry reform. It's not a difficult concept. Save your tired little fingers the effort, because it only takes one click to delete such inappropriate comments.

John Cones

Discrimination A and B
Posted on January 29, 2004 at 06:28:24 PM by James Jaeger

Letís take a detailed look at how and why discrimination has persisted in the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry by examining the typical bogus argument of an apologist, such as Mr. Mitchell Levine.


Mitchell Levin writes (in response to John Conesí post on another thread):

>Nonsense, John. There is no "continuing dominance" of the industry by a "narrowly-defined group" that needs to be justified.

James Jaeger writes:

This is the standard line of the apologist. But his logic is faulty. After 90-some years, there should naturally be more diversity at all levels, including the top-most echelons of the Hollywood studios. You can look at any industry as a dynamic system subject to many of the laws of physics. Unless you are an elitist, you will maintain that Jews and non-Jews POTENTIALLY have equal abilities and equal rights. They could be likened to two equal glasses of water with but a mild "cultural" difference: one is dyed blue and the other dyed yellow. If these two glasses of water (analogous to potential movie executives) were mixed together in a large beaker (the movie industry) and allowed to stand for 90 years they would mix naturally (by Brownian motion and/or convection) and the resulting solution would be green-colored water (a completely diversified industry from bottom to top). But this is not what we observe in the movie industry, we observe continuing stratification. Thus, in order for continuing stratification to exist either a) energy must constantly be applied to maintain the condition (discrimination) or b) one of the compounds under study (Jewish executives and Non-Jewish executives) must not be, or be considered equal (elitism). In the chemistry analogy, an elitist might say that Jewish executives were cream and Non-Jewish executives were milk, thus the Jewish executives would always rise to the top. But Levine and other apologists, whether they believe what they say or not, do the politically correct thing and always maintain that Jews and non-Jews potentially have the same abilities, i.e., they are both water, not one cream and the other milk.

Levine writes:
>What's visible in the motion picture industry is the same thing that's visible in ALL major corporate industries: The people whom have been in the business the longest - who have the most seniority and the longest track records - are in the top positions. That's exactly the way it is in the gentile-dominated auto and commercial banking industries, for example. Why don't you "justify" that?

Jaeger writes:
This practice is not acceptable in ANY industry. But itís the usual counter-argument trotted out by Hollywood apologists to "justify" its "normality" and/or "acceptability" for Hollywood.

Levin writes:
>Jews started the movie business and Gentiles avoided it because they believed it was disreputable. Those facts aren't in dispute; even Jaeger agrees with them.

Jaeger writes:
Yes, I do agree with this, but as I have tried to point out above, a dynamic system like the movie industry would no longer be stratified unless there were some energy being applied to maintain the stratification. This energy is either Discrimination A or Discrimination B. Discrimination A is when two or more classes of people of equal ability come up for a position, and one is hired over the other because of race or religion. Discrimination B is when only one (1) class of person is able or allowed to come up for a position and is hired. In the later "no discrimination" has taken place because there was no exclusion by reason of race or religion, because such factor was excluded prior to the act of selection.

The Hollywood-based U.S. studio system thus practices Discrimination B because it is technically not illegal, but highly unethical and leads to, or maintains minority domination. But how does it "justify" this? Hereís how:

Key to Mr. Levineís argument is the use of the idea: "Jews were there first" as justification of Discrimination B. To wit: since Jews were in the HOLLYWOOD industry FIRST in chronological history, they will ALWAYS be there first, by definition (because itís impossible to go BACK in time and re-do some event). THEN, by defining the word "experience" as a FUNCTION OF "time," or "first-ness," Mr. Levin, and other Hollywood apologists, set up a condition whereby it is impossible for any other person, i.e., any other non-Jew, to have the "experience" to lead BECAUST they were not there "first" in chronological history. Since they (non-Jews), by definition, are not experienced, they are thus by definition "not qualified." And since they are "not qualified" for CEO positions, they need not be interviewed, or included in the class of people that are under consideration. This sets the requisite groundwork for Discrimination B to proceed indefinitely. Thus we eventually get domination of a narrowly defined group that has been present since the beginning of Hollywood.

As Levin puts it: "That's the reason there's a lot of Jewish leaders in the business. Why would anyone ever expect corporations to hire people with less experience over people with superior seniority and better track records that paid their dues? In what industries are positions with titles like CEO, President, and Chairman considered entry-level?"

And here we see Levin attempting to escape the illegality of discrimination by invoking Discrimination B: Levin says, "The fact that there is a large number of Jews in senior positions DOES NOT in itself indicate the existence of illegal practices like discrimination, nepotism, or cronyism - any more than similar circumstances in other industries prove that the Irish illegally "dominate" law enforcement or Greeks "dominate" shipping."

Notice how Levine defines "discrimination": "Discrimination happens when people that are EQUALLY QUALIFIED for positions are denied the positions they're qualified for ON THE BASIS OF THEIR ETHNICITY or whatever. How do you "justify" the rules being different for Jews exclusively?"

Again, since the definition of "QUALIFIED" is based on "EXPERIENCE," in Levineís own words, "Why would anyone ever expect corporations to hire people with less experience," and since EXPERIENCE is based on being FIRST-THERE (or seniority), we can see the argument Levine uses is airtight, but absurd and ultimately unethical.

Again Levin says:
"At the top management level, the number one qualification is experience! When you have the slightest evidence that there are equally qualified mid-level non-Jewish executives with seniority and track records similar to David Geffen and Barry Diller's being turned down simply for not being Jewish, then you'll have a credible argument."

Again Jaeger says:
But since Jews, such as David Geffen and Barry Diller, started the business, there can, by definition, BE no one with more experience THUS all others EXCEPT those there early (i.e., Jews) CAN qualify. Thus, no others NEED apply is the rule in Hollywood. Discrimination B therefore proceeds without legal challenge.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Discrimination A and B
Posted on January 29, 2004 at 10:44:29 PM by Mitchell Levine


This is the standard line of the apologist. But his logic is faulty. After 90-some years, there should naturally be more diversity at all levels, including the top-most echelons of the Hollywood studios.

- That makes no sense at all: As you yourself admit, Gentiles snubbed the industry for the majority of that time, and discriminated against Jews denying them entry to most other industries. Why would you assume that would lead to a "dynamically balanced" eco-system? Even after formal barriers were dropped during the civil rights era, the "initial conditions" of the system were not random: Jews were motivated to enter the business, and Gentiles were motivated not to. That hardly implies that a concentration of Jews in the business must therefore be due to discrimination on their part.

You can look at any industry as a dynamic system subject to many of the laws of physics.

- Jim, please don't use metaphors from physics: you clearly do not understand them.

Unless you are an elitist, you will maintain that Jews and non-Jews POTENTIALLY have equal abilities and equal rights.

- Of course they do: what they don't have is equal history in the film industry, for the reasons already noted. CEOs are hired on the basis of their seniority and experience, for good reason, and Jews have the longest history in the business. That doesn't necessarily mean anyone's rights have been violated. If I'm Jewish and have worked at a company for 20 years, while you've only been there 5, you, as a Christian, are hardly justified in complaining you've been "discriminated" against for not having been given a senior management position I was promoted to - not at least without some other evidence suggesting that besides our differing religious statuses.

If you had some evidence that there was a large population of non-Jewish execs with tenures as long as Eisner and Geffen and track records of profitable revenue years that weren't being promoted to similar positions, you would have a valid argument. There isn't, for exactly the same historical reasons - Jews were motivated to enter the business, and Gentiles typically weren't - so you don't.

They could be likened to two equal glasses of water with but a mild "cultural" difference: one is dyed blue and the other dyed yellow. If these two glasses of water (analogous to potential movie executives) were mixed together in a large beaker (the movie industry) and allowed to stand for 90 years they would mix naturally (by Brownian motion and/or convection) and the resulting solution would be green-colored water (a completely diversified industry from bottom to top). But this is not what we observe in the movie industry, we observe continuing stratification.

- This is NOT a physical system dependent only on Newton's Laws and entropy: it's a social one that obeys the laws of human nature, which are quite different. If Gentiles hadn't spent years refusing to get involved with the studios, there would have been a significant population of Gentile executives like there is today, and they would have found their way to the top leadership positions. They didn't. Your analogy is bogus.

Thus, in order for continuing stratification to exist either a) energy must constantly be applied to maintain the condition (discrimination) or b) one of the compounds under study (Jewish executives and Non-Jewish executives) must not be, or be considered equal (elitism). In the chemistry analogy, an elitist might say that Jewish executives were cream and Non-Jewish executives were milk, thus the Jewish executives would always rise to the top. But Levine and other apologists, whether they believe what they say or not, do the politically correct thing and always maintain that Jews and non-Jews potentially have the same abilities, i.e., they are both water, not one cream and the other milk.

- This is just inane.

Levine writes:
>What's visible in the motion picture industry is the same thing that's visible in ALL major corporate industries: The people whom have been in the business the longest - who have the most seniority and the longest track records - are in the top positions. That's exactly the way it is in the gentile-dominated auto and commercial banking industries, for example. Why don't you "justify" that?

Jaeger writes:
This practice is not acceptable in ANY industry.

- It's not acceptable in any industry to discriminate by religion or ethnicity: it's completely acceptable to hire corporate leaders that have the longest records of successful years in that industry, and it's suicide not to. What's mistaken is your assumption that the population of eligible candidates is randomly distributed. It's not. Many Jews entered the business years ago, and many Gentiles considered it beneath them, and rejected it. Those Jews became the industry veterans whom are in power now.

But itís the usual counter-argument trotted out by Hollywood apologists to "justify" its "normality" and/or "acceptability" for Hollywood.

- No, the argument is that you can't hold Hollywood to a different standard than any other industry JUST because many in it are Jewish. You really believe the studios are supposed to hire somebody off the streets to run a multi-national conglomerate just because they're non-Jewish??? That is simply not responsible business, nor is it legally or ethically justified.

Levin writes:
>Jews started the movie business and Gentiles avoided it because they believed it was disreputable. Those facts aren't in dispute; even Jaeger agrees with them.

Jaeger writes:
Yes, I do agree with this, but as I have tried to point out above, a dynamic system like the movie industry would no longer be stratified unless there were some energy being applied to maintain the stratification.

- That's simply not true. It's artifactual. Just because there's a correlation does not imply there's a cause.

This energy is either Discrimination A or Discrimination B.

- Then there's "Discrimination C" where guys start websites claiming that free enterprise and the constitutional right to equal protection - which, for example, forbids you to implement ethnic quotas - only applies if you're non-Jewish.

Discrimination A is when two or more classes of people of equal ability come up for a position, and one is hired over the other because of race or religion. Discrimination B is when only one (1) class of person is able or allowed to come up for a position and is hired. In the later "no discrimination" has taken place because there was no exclusion by reason of race or religion, because such factor was excluded prior to the act of selection.

- That would only be true if the studios refused to hire non-Jews in the first place: non-Jews just didn't apply in the first place. They certainly don't refuse to hire them today.

That this practice is not codified by ethnicity can be seen in the fact that Jack Welch, a non-Jew running a traditonally non-Jewish corporation, hired a Jewish president to run NBC. Is that because he was infected with "tribal consciousness"? No, it's because the guy who had the most experience was Jewish.

The Hollywood-based U.S. studio system thus practices Discrimination B because it is technically not illegal, but highly unethical and leads to, or maintains minority domination.

- No it doesn't. It simply adopts the highly ethical practice of choosing leaders that have the most experience in the business, instead of the incredibly stupid alternative of hiring unqualified people to lead it simply because of their ethnicity. You really can't spend fifty years snubbing an industry then complain that you don't "dominate" it.


But how does it "justify" this? Hereís how:

Key to Mr. Levineís argument is the use of the idea: "Jews were there first" as justification of Discrimination B. To wit: since Jews were in the HOLLYWOOD industry FIRST in chronological history, they will ALWAYS be there first, by definition (because itís impossible to go BACK in time and re-do some event).

- No one's claiming that the individuals running the studios are most qualified because they're Jews: they are the most qualified because they've had the longest and most successful individual careers. That's what's referred to in the business world as "merit." That's how it should be run, at least at the very highest levels. If the studios refused to higher non-Jewish Jr. execs and producers, that would be discrimination. They don't, and those execs are the future leaders.

THEN, by defining the word "experience" as a FUNCTION OF "time," or "first-ness," Mr. Levin

- If you're going to mis-spell my name, at least do it consistently.

, and other Hollywood apologists, set up a condition whereby it is impossible for any other person, i.e., any other non-Jew, to have the "experience" to lead BECAUST they were not there "first" in chronological history.

- That's bullshit: believe it or don't, Hollywood CEOs aren't immortal, and they will retire and die, and thus need to be replaced. There are now many non-Jews in the lower executive levels, and they'll become part of the next generation of leadership. Your model of "monolithic domination" predicts no change, but there's been enormous change. That indicates your model's wrong.

Notice how Levine defines "discrimination": "Discrimination happens when people that are EQUALLY QUALIFIED for positions are denied the positions they're qualified for ON THE BASIS OF THEIR ETHNICITY or whatever. How do you "justify" the rules being different for Jews exclusively?"

Again, since the definition of "QUALIFIED" is based on "EXPERIENCE," in Levineís own words

"Why would anyone ever expect corporations to hire people with less experience," and since EXPERIENCE is based on being FIRST-THERE (or seniority), we can see the argument Levine uses is airtight, but absurd and ultimately unethical.

- That would only be true if this condition existed in perpetuity. It doesn't, as noted above. It would be highly UNethical for a publically traded company to hire someone with inferior experience to run it, just because they're non-Jewish. If you haven't proven yourself, you are NOT qualified to run a major corporation. Look at the history of people who've tried. Lots of real people, most of them non-Jewish, would get hurt - they're called stockholders.

What's in error is your presumption that the studios won't hire a Gentile CEO when that person has equal experience. Since there's now a large pool of potential candidates, as this current generation of leadership is replaced, you'll see that's wrong.

Re(2): Discrimination A and B
Posted on January 30, 2004 at 07:30:22 PM by James Jaeger

>>This is the standard line of the apologist. But his logic is faulty. After 90-some years, there should naturally be more diversity at all levels, including the top-most echelons of the Hollywood studios.

>- That makes no sense at all: As you yourself admit, Gentiles snubbed the industry for the majority of that time, and discriminated against Jews denying them entry to most other industries. Why would you assume that would lead to a "dynamically balanced" eco-system? Even after formal barriers were dropped during the civil rights era, the "initial conditions" of the system were not random: Jews were motivated to enter the business, and Gentiles were motivated not to. That hardly implies that a concentration of Jews in the business must therefore be due to discrimination on their part.

The movie industry would have a more representative cross-section of the American public after 90 years if discrimination were not going on. 90 years is over twice the working career of an executive.

>>You can look at any industry as a dynamic system subject to many of the laws of physics.

>- Jim, please don't use metaphors from physics: you clearly do not understand them.

Mitch, you don't know what I understand in physics so stop being so condescending.

>>Unless you are an elitist, you will maintain that Jews and non-Jews POTENTIALLY have equal abilities and equal rights.

>- Of course they do: what they don't have is equal history in the film industry, for the reasons already noted. CEOs are hired on the basis of their seniority and experience, for good reason, and Jews have the longest history in the business.

Here we go. . .

>- That doesn't necessarily mean anyone's rights have been violated. If I'm Jewish and have worked at a company for 20 years, while you've only been there 5, you, as a Christian, are hardly justified in complaining you've been "discriminated" against for not having been given a senior management position I was promoted to - not at least without some other evidence suggesting that besides our differing religious statuses.

If there were no discrimination going on in the movie industry, after 90 years there would be MANY more gentiles working as CEO's, etc.

>If you had some evidence that there was a large population of non-Jewish execs with tenures as long as Eisner and Geffen and track records of profitable revenue years that weren't being promoted to similar positions, you would have a valid argument. There isn't, for exactly the same historical reasons - Jews were motivated to enter the business, and Gentiles typically weren't - so you don't.

Gentiles have been just as motivated to be in the movie business since at least the 1950's. After 50 years, were the playing field level, there would be many more Gentiles, but as I have pointed out, the Jewish executives mostly network within their own circles to keep those of "like mind" in power.

>>They could be likened to two equal glasses of water with but a mild "cultural" difference: one is dyed blue and the other dyed yellow. If these two glasses of water (analogous to potential movie executives) were mixed together in a large beaker (the movie industry) and allowed to stand for 90 years they would mix naturally (by Brownian motion and/or convection) and the resulting solution would be green-colored water (a completely diversified industry from bottom to top). But this is not what we observe in the movie industry, we observe continuing stratification.

>- This is NOT a physical system dependent only on Newton's Laws and entropy:

No. it's not "only" dependent on Newton's laws and thermodynamics; it's dependent on the laws of scale-free networks as well.

>it's a social one that obeys the laws of human nature, which are quite different.

Not true. Read a new book out called LINKED and you will see that human networks have been found to follow much the same laws as physical systems, physical networks.

>If Gentiles hadn't spent years refusing to get involved with the studios, there would have been a significant population of Gentile executives like there is today, and they would have found their way to the top leadership positions. They didn't. Your analogy is bogus.

Not at all. Gentiles have not "spent years refusing." They maybe spent the first 40 years in this mode. There has been at least 50 years where Gentiles have been very interested in the movie industry. Walt Disney was a Gentile and Disney was basically a Gentile organization, but now it is predominantly Jewish. Show me a studio that was started by Jews and is now predominantly Gentile.

>>Thus, in order for continuing stratification to exist either a) energy must constantly be applied to maintain the condition (discrimination) or b) one of the compounds under study (Jewish executives and Non-Jewish executives) must not be, or be considered equal (elitism). In the chemistry analogy, an elitist might say that Jewish executives were cream and Non-Jewish executives were milk, thus the Jewish executives would always rise to the top. But Levine and other apologists, whether they believe what they say or not, do the politically correct thing and always maintain that Jews and non-Jews potentially have the same abilities, i.e., they are both water, not one cream and the other milk.

>- This is just inane.

Not at all. If there was random mixing in the movie industry, there would be the same ratio of Jews to Gentiles in the studio ranks as there are in the general population. But what has happened is the early Jews that established Hollywood have formed hubs and they network amongst themselves to maintain a network of Jewish executives that are the only ones that get considered for the top posts (i.e., Discrimination B). The new scientific data that is arising from the detailed studies of the Internet is, for the first time, making it possible to analyze social networks to in great detail. A lot of attention is being placed on the Hollywood network at this time. I will keep you posted.

>>>Levine writes:
>>>What's visible in the motion picture industry is the same thing that's visible in ALL major corporate industries: The people whom have been in the business the longest - who have the most seniority and the longest track records - are in the top positions. That's exactly the way it is in the gentile-dominated auto and commercial banking industries, for example. Why don't you "justify" that?

>>Jaeger writes:
This practice is not acceptable in ANY industry.

>- It's not acceptable in any industry to discriminate by religion or ethnicity: it's completely acceptable to hire corporate leaders that have the longest records of successful years in that industry, and it's suicide not to. What's mistaken is your assumption that the population of eligible candidates is randomly distributed. It's not. Many Jews entered the business years ago, and many Gentiles considered it beneath them, and rejected it. Those Jews became the industry veterans whom are in power now.

I do not assume that the population of eligible candidates is randomly distributed. I think there may have been a phase when it was close to randomly distributed, before hubs formed. When Hollywood started more Jews wanted to make films than Gentiles, true, but as the years went on, the earliest hubs that were formed (by Jews developing the industry beyond what Edison had done) became the most dominating and thus the Hollywood network went from anything that could represent a random network to a scale-free network. But recent studies have shown that even a scale-free network that was developed BECAUSE links were developed into hubs EARLY, can be surpassed. If this were the case, Microsoft would never have become more powerful than IBM, which was in computing and OS technology much earlier than Microsoft and once dominated its industry. Thus Jewish hubs in the movie biz are HELD TOGETHER because of ACTIVE networking to this day. This is the ONLY way they could possible be held together in light of all the unbelievable innovations that have come down over the past 50 years. Were all this random, the mathematical chances are great that other Gentile hubs would have developed by now, and we ARE talking about at least 50 - 90 years. SO NOT ONLY DOES THE HOLLYWOOD CONTROL GROUP DISCRININATE, THEY MUST DISCRIMINATE, and FURTHER the MUST DISCRIMINATE FURIOUSLY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A DOMINATING NETWORK OF CONTROL OVER THE ADVENT OF SUCH TECHNOLOGIES AS SOUND, COLOR, TV, CABLE, HOME VIDEO and now the INTERNET.

>>But itís the usual counter-argument trotted out by Hollywood apologists to "justify" its "normality" and/or "acceptability" for Hollywood.

>>- No, the argument is that you can't hold Hollywood to a different standard than any other industry JUST because many in it are Jewish. You really believe the studios are supposed to hire somebody off the streets to run a multi-national conglomerate just because they're non-Jewish??? That is simply not responsible business, nor is it legally or ethically justified.

Yap yap yap...

>>>Levin writes:
>Jews started the movie business and Gentiles avoided it because they believed it was disreputable. Those facts aren't in dispute; even Jaeger agrees with them.

>>Jaeger writes:
Yes, I do agree with this, but as I have tried to point out above, a dynamic system like the movie industry would no longer be stratified unless there were some energy being applied to maintain the stratification.

>- That's simply not true. It's artifactual. Just because there's a correlation does not imply there's a cause.

We're not talking about corrolations here. We're talking about: HOW SOCIAL NETWORS FORM AND WHAT MATHEMATICAL LAWS HOLD THEM IN PLACE.

>>This energy is either Discrimination A or Discrimination B.

>- Then there's "Discrimination C" where guys start websites claiming that free enterprise and the constitutional right to equal protection - which, for example, forbids you to implement ethnic quotas - only applies if you're non-Jewish.

Yap yap yap...

>>Discrimination A is when two or more classes of people of equal ability come up for a position, and one is hired over the other because of race or religion. Discrimination B is when only one (1) class of person is able or allowed to come up for a position and is hired. In the later "no discrimination" has taken place because there was no exclusion by reason of race or religion, because such factor was excluded prior to the act of selection.

- That would only be true if the studios refused to hire non-Jews in the first place: non-Jews just didn't apply in the first place. They certainly don't refuse to hire them today.
Given the structure of the Hollywood network and the energy it would require to hold it together such that the hubs are as they are, I would say there is a very good chance that many Jewish studio executives (not only over look as in Discrimination B's case, but) refuse to hire Gentile executives to the top three position of the studio.

>That this practice is not codified by ethnicity can be seen in the fact that Jack Welch, a non-Jew running a traditionally non-Jewish corporation, hired a Jewish president to run NBC. Is that because he was infected with "tribal consciousness"? No, it's because the guy who had the most experience was Jewish.

NBC is not one of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors. FIRM only addresses the MPAA studio/distributors. Thus your example is irrelevant.

>>The Hollywood-based U.S. studio system thus practices Discrimination B because it is technically not illegal, but highly unethical and leads to, or maintains minority domination.

>- No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

>It simply adopts the highly ethical practice of choosing leaders that have the most experience in the business, instead of the incredibly stupid alternative of hiring unqualified people to lead it simply because of their ethnicity. You really can't spend fifty years snubbing an industry then complain that you don't "dominate" it.

Even if it was 50 years snubbing it (I say it was more like 40 years), we now know from the study of social networks (such applied to the network of nodes, such nodes being eligible executives for the top 3 positions), that there should naturally have been an increase of Gentile studio executives of at least 10% per decade over the past 5 decades. Thus, in the absence of active and intense discriminatory networking on the part of Jewish executives and other Jewish participants in the movie industry, we should now have the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors occupied by at least 50% Gentile executives. But that is not the case today. It is estimated that Gentiles occupy less than 25% of these top positions and it may be as little as 15% because it is now realized that significant numbers of Jews after the Holocaust and prior to the Immigration Act of 1965, were highly motivated to change their names and hide their ethnic identity.

>>But how does it "justify" this? Hereís how:
>>Key to Mr. Levineís argument is the use of the idea: "Jews were there first" as justification of Discrimination B. To wit: since Jews were in the HOLLYWOOD industry FIRST in chronological history, they will ALWAYS be there first, by definition (because itís impossible to go BACK in time and re-do some event).

- No one's claiming that the individuals running the studios are most qualified because they're Jews: they are the most qualified because they've had the longest and most successful individual careers.

Well if this argument were valid, again, IBM would be the largest corporation in the world and not the relative newcomer, MICROSOFT. I'm sorry Mitch, but length of time dominating an industry is NOT the sole factor. Actively networking to ensure the ascendancy of the dominating group (in otherwords Discrimination B, and in some cases blatant Discrimination A) is the major reason the playing field in Hollywood is not level and the reasons why the MPAA studio/distributors are dominated by politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage to this day.

>That's what's referred to in the business world as "merit." That's how it should be run, at least at the very highest levels. If the studios refused to higher non-Jewish Jr. execs and producers, that would be discrimination. They don't,

Prove they don't Mitch.

>and those execs are the future leaders.

Yeah yeah...

>>THEN, by defining the word "experience" as a FUNCTION OF "time," or "first-ness," Mr. Levin

- If you're going to mis-spell my name, at least do it consistently.

Irrelevant.

>>, and other Hollywood apologists, set up a condition whereby it is impossible for any other person, i.e., any other non-Jew, to have the "experience" to lead BECAUST they were not there "first" in chronological history.

>- That's bullshit: believe it or don't, Hollywood CEOs aren't immortal, and they will retire and die, and thus need to be replaced. There are now many non-Jews in the lower executive levels,

We'll see.

>and they'll become part of the next generation of leadership.

The top three posts? We'll see.

>>Your model of "monolithic domination" predicts no change, but there's been enormous change. That indicates your model's wrong.

I would like to think my model is wrong, but we'll see.

>>Notice how Levine defines "discrimination": "Discrimination happens when people that are EQUALLY QUALIFIED for positions are denied the positions they're qualified for ON THE BASIS OF THEIR ETHNICITY or whatever. How do you "justify" the rules being different for Jews exclusively?" Again, since the definition of "QUALIFIED" is based on "EXPERIENCE," in Levineís own words

"Why would anyone ever expect corporations to hire people with less experience," and since EXPERIENCE is based on being FIRST-THERE (or seniority), we can see the argument Levine uses is airtight, but absurd and ultimately unethical.

>- That would only be true if this condition existed in perpetuity. It doesn't, as noted above. It would be highly UNethical for a publically traded company to hire someone with inferior experience to run it,

Your assumption that all experience is based upon tenure is not always correct. If discrimination B was not actively going on in Hollywood, there would be MANY Gentile executives that would be just as able and willing to occupy the top three posts of the MPAA studios.

>-just because they're non-Jewish. If you haven't proven yourself, you are NOT qualified to run a major corporation.

It doesn't take 9 decades for Gentile executives to prove themselves. Bill Gates proved himself able to run a major corporation in less than one (1) decade. If the Gentile computer industry were discriminating and networking like the Jewish movie industry does, Gates would never have happened.

>>Look at the history of people who've tried. Lots of real people, most of them non-Jewish, would get hurt - they're called stockholders.
What's in error is your presumption that the studios won't hire a Gentile CEO when that person has equal experience. Since there's now a large pool of potential candidates, as this current generation of leadership is replaced, you'll see that's wrong.

Well each time a new Gentile studio executive replaces a Jewish studio executive in one of the top 3 positions of the MPAA studio/distributors drop me an email at jjaeger@mecfilms.com and let me know. FIRM has been here on the Net for at least 5 years now and I have been making this request since then . . . so far I haven't received very many emails, in fact none.

James Jaeger

 

 

Re(3): Discrimination A and B
Posted on January 31, 2004 at 02:16:30 AM by Mitchell Levine

The movie industry would have a more representative cross-section of the American public after 90 years if discrimination were not going on. 90 years is over twice the working career of an executive.

- Untrue: neither the end of institutionalized discrimination barring Jews entry into most other industries, nor the beginning of large-scale participation of Gentiles in the film business began until the post-civil rights era in the 70's. That's well within the careers of many executives.

>>You can look at any industry as a dynamic system subject to many of the laws of physics.

>- Jim, please don't use metaphors from physics: you clearly do not understand them.

Mitch, you don't know what I understand in physics so stop being so condescending.

- What you DON'T understand about physics is obvious from your "examples."

>- That doesn't necessarily mean anyone's rights have been violated. If I'm Jewish and have worked at a company for 20 years, while you've only been there 5, you, as a Christian, are hardly justified in complaining you've been "discriminated" against for not having been given a senior management position I was promoted to - not at least without some other evidence suggesting that besides our differing religious statuses.

If there were no discrimination going on in the movie industry, after 90 years there would be MANY more gentiles working as CEO's, etc.

- Once again, this is an unwarranted assumption: Gentiles didn't want to enter the business, and Jews had few options besides emergent industries, because they were relentlessly discriminated against in the established ones.

>If you had some evidence that there was a large population of non-Jewish execs with tenures as long as Eisner and Geffen and track records of profitable revenue years that weren't being promoted to similar positions, you would have a valid argument. There isn't, for exactly the same historical reasons - Jews were motivated to enter the business, and Gentiles typically weren't - so you don't.

Gentiles have been just as motivated to be in the movie business since at least the 1950's.

- That's just not true: in the 1950's, antisemitic discrimination was the norm in most industries, and there were no laws forbidding it in the workplace. Plus rabid anticommunist paranoia led to the stigmatization of all of the communications fields.

After 50 years, were the playing field level, there would be many more Gentiles, but as I have pointed out, the Jewish executives mostly network within their own circles to keep those of "like mind" in power.

- That's ridiculous - large numbers of Gentiles only began to move into the film business in the 70's and 80's, and, like every other social arena, people "network" with people they know. If there was a substantial population of Gentiles around that was willing to consider Jews in the business a peer group, they would have networked with them too. There wasn't.

>- This is NOT a physical system dependent only on Newton's Laws and entropy:

No. it's not "only" dependent on Newton's laws and thermodynamics; it's dependent on the laws of scale-free networks as well.

- Human beings and social groups DO NOT OBEY EXACT LAWS OF NATURE - this is the most ridiculously reductionist thing I've ever heard, and there is no proof of any kind it's true.

>it's a social one that obeys the laws of human nature, which are quite different.

Not true. Read a new book out called LINKED and you will see that human networks have been found to follow much the same laws as physical systems, physical networks.

- This is a theory: it is HARDLY a proven fact!!! Even Freud didn't believe human behavior was THAT psychologically deterministic!

>If Gentiles hadn't spent years refusing to get involved with the studios, there would have been a significant population of Gentile executives like there is today, and they would have found their way to the top leadership positions. They didn't. Your analogy is bogus.

Not at all. Gentiles have not "spent years refusing." They maybe spent the first 40 years in this mode. There has been at least 50 years where Gentiles have been very interested in the movie industry. Walt Disney was a Gentile and Disney was basically a Gentile organization, but now it is predominantly Jewish. Show me a studio that was started by Jews and is now predominantly Gentile.

- Disney was the exception to the rule, and it's probably not a coincidence that he was a raving antisemitic bigot that helped funnel money to the Nazis through I.G. Farben. And if there were really that many qualified Gentiles dying to run studios, why did Roy Disney hire Eisner in the first place??? Walt's last words on his death bed were "don't let the Jews get the place."

>>Thus, in order for continuing stratification to exist either a) energy must constantly be applied to maintain the condition (discrimination) or b) one of the compounds under study (Jewish executives and Non-Jewish executives) must not be, or be considered equal (elitism). In the chemistry analogy, an elitist might say that Jewish executives were cream and Non-Jewish executives were milk, thus the Jewish executives would always rise to the top. But Levine and other apologists, whether they believe what they say or not, do the politically correct thing and always maintain that Jews and non-Jews potentially have the same abilities, i.e., they are both water, not one cream and the other milk.

>- This is just inane.

Not at all. If there was random mixing in the movie industry, there would be the same ratio of Jews to Gentiles in the studio ranks as there are in the general population.

- No, what's inane is that you'd try to explain a complex sociological phenomenon in terms of Brownian motion, as if human beings obeyed the same simple, deterministic laws particles do. It's probably indicative of why you take such a simplistic, black-and-white perspective on everything else.


>- It's not acceptable in any industry to discriminate by religion or ethnicity: it's completely acceptable to hire corporate leaders that have the longest records of successful years in that industry, and it's suicide not to. What's mistaken is your assumption that the population of eligible candidates is randomly distributed. It's not. Many Jews entered the business years ago, and many Gentiles considered it beneath them, and rejected it. Those Jews became the industry veterans whom are in power now.

I do not assume that the population of eligible candidates is randomly distributed. I think there may have been a phase when it was close to randomly distributed, before hubs formed. When Hollywood started more Jews wanted to make films than Gentiles, true, but as the years went on, the earliest hubs that were formed (by Jews developing the industry beyond what Edison had done) became the most dominating and thus the Hollywood network went from anything that could represent a random network to a scale-free network. But recent studies have shown that even a scale-free network that was developed BECAUSE links were developed into hubs EARLY, can be surpassed. If this were the case, Microsoft would never have become more powerful than IBM, which was in computing and OS technology much earlier than Microsoft and once dominated its industry.

- No, that had to do with IBM's tragically-limited marketing vision, not any pseudo-scientific psycho-babble.

Thus Jewish hubs in the movie biz are HELD TOGETHER because of ACTIVE networking to this day.

- You are either simply incapable of comprehending the difference between a wild speculation and a fact, or just plain willing to embrace anything whatsoever that you perceive as being helpful in rationalizing your obsessions.

This is the ONLY way they could possible be held together in light of all the unbelievable innovations that have come down over the past 50 years.

- No, it isn't: there's an infinite number of ways that could have happened. It's just what you want to be true, so you can scapegoat an outgroup for your insecurities.

Were all this random, the mathematical chances are great that other Gentile hubs would have developed by now, and we ARE talking about at least 50 - 90 years. SO NOT ONLY DOES THE HOLLYWOOD CONTROL GROUP DISCRININATE, THEY MUST DISCRIMINATE, and FURTHER the MUST DISCRIMINATE FURIOUSLY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A DOMINATING NETWORK OF CONTROL OVER THE ADVENT OF SUCH TECHNOLOGIES AS SOUND, COLOR, TV, CABLE, HOME VIDEO and now the INTERNET.

Once again; A) STATEMENTS ABOUT HUMAN MOTIVATIONS CANNOT "PROVEN" MATHEMATICALLY, and B) YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANYONE BY NAME THAT'S EVER BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN HOLLYWOOD.

>>But itís the usual counter-argument trotted out by Hollywood apologists to "justify" its "normality" and/or "acceptability" for Hollywood.

>>- No, the argument is that you can't hold Hollywood to a different standard than any other industry JUST because many in it are Jewish. You really believe the studios are supposed to hire somebody off the streets to run a multi-national conglomerate just because they're non-Jewish??? That is simply not responsible business, nor is it legally or ethically justified.

Yap yap yap...

- Notice how you have to resort to sarcasm to try and gloss over the fact you have no logical refutation of the argument, a habit you seem to share with your buddy Jenks.

We're not talking about corrolations here. We're talking about: HOW SOCIAL NETWORS FORM AND WHAT MATHEMATICAL LAWS HOLD THEM IN PLACE.

- You wonder why people don't take you seriously when you keep spouting pseudointellectual bullshit like this???


Given the structure of the Hollywood network and the energy it would require to hold it together such that the hubs are as they are, I would say there is a very good chance that many Jewish studio executives (not only over look as in Discrimination B's case, but) refuse to hire Gentile executives to the top three position of the studio.

- Where are these Gentile executives??? All you have to do is present a little evidence that are Gentile executives with qualifications equal to the current studio heads that are being passed over, and you'll have a very convincing argument. Of course, you'll never do that, because you can't.

>That this practice is not codified by ethnicity can be seen in the fact that Jack Welch, a non-Jew running a traditionally non-Jewish corporation, hired a Jewish president to run NBC. Is that because he was infected with "tribal consciousness"? No, it's because the guy who had the most experience was Jewish.

NBC is not one of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors. FIRM only addresses the MPAA studio/distributors. Thus your example is irrelevant.

- No, we were discussing your ridiculous concept of "Discrimination A" vs. the supposed "Discrimination B" and how it relates to your favorite obsession - the "Jewish domination" of the media. The same principle is also at work at the major television studios as well.

>>The Hollywood-based U.S. studio system thus practices Discrimination B because it is technically not illegal, but highly unethical and leads to, or maintains minority domination.

>- No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.


Even if it was 50 years snubbing it (I say it was more like 40 years), we now know from the study of social networks (such applied to the network of nodes, such nodes being eligible executives for the top 3 positions), that there should naturally have been an increase of Gentile studio executives of at least 10% per decade over the past 5 decades. Thus, in the absence of active and intense discriminatory networking on the part of Jewish executives and other Jewish participants in the movie industry, we should now have the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors occupied by at least 50% Gentile executives. But that is not the case today. It is estimated that Gentiles occupy less than 25% of these top positions and it may be as little as 15% because it is now realized that significant numbers of Jews after the Holocaust and prior to the Immigration Act of 1965, were highly motivated to change their names and hide their ethnic identity.

- Your apparent need to spout inane drivel like this as if anyone was impressed probably explains why your last production went direct-to-video twenty years ago.

>>But how does it "justify" this? Hereís how:
>>Key to Mr. Levineís argument is the use of the idea: "Jews were there first" as justification of Discrimination B. To wit: since Jews were in the HOLLYWOOD industry FIRST in chronological history, they will ALWAYS be there first, by definition (because itís impossible to go BACK in time and re-do some event).

- No one's claiming that the individuals running the studios are most qualified because they're Jews: they are the most qualified because they've had the longest and most successful individual careers.

Well if this argument were valid, again, IBM would be the largest corporation in the world and not the relative newcomer, MICROSOFT.

- Jim, Microsoft is a CORPORATION, which is not the same thing as an ethnic group, and no one is making the argument that Jews as a class are more deserving of CEO positions because they "were there first."

The point is that companies are entitled to hire the individuals whom are most qualified and experienced to run them as their leaders. No one is saying that Jews are most qualified to run the studios because Jews have run the studios the longest - it's that the specific individuals whom have had the longest and most successful careers as executives are the ones whom are most qualified to run the studios.

Those people have been Jewish because historically Jews started the business, and Gentiles avoided it.

The most important qualification for a top management position is seniority. A company is perfectly justified in hiring an individual on the basis of the fact that they have had the longest and most successful career in their industry of the available field of candidates.

Because the business was started by Jews and Gentiles intentionally avoided it, it's completely logical that the individuals with the most experience in top management are Jewish, and the fact that this is the case indicates that, without further evidence to the contrary, the prevalence of Jews in top studio management DOES NOT prove that anyone is being discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity.

It has nothing to do with Jews "deserving" to have such positions because of their history in the business as a class, nor does it mean that Jews are inherently superior as a group either.

Microsoft superceded IBM because the latter failed to foresee the value of developing an operating system with a desktop format, and Apple failed to understand the value of licensing its technology. This has nothing to do with your ideas of "ethnic politics."


I'm sorry Mitch, but length of time dominating an industry is NOT the sole factor.

- For some reason, you just can't get it through your head that NO ONE is claiming that it's A factor.

Actively networking to ensure the ascendancy of the dominating group (in otherwords Discrimination B, and in some cases blatant Discrimination A) is the major reason the playing field in Hollywood is not level and the reasons why the MPAA studio/distributors are dominated by politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage to this day.

- There is no "Discrimination B": No one prevented Gentiles from entering the movie business in the first place, nor is anyone preventing them from entering the business today.

You cannot demand that a business hand over its leadership to someone that has inferior qualifications just because of their ethnicity - that's why Affirmative Action offers minorities entry-level positions, and not CEO status.

>That's what's referred to in the business world as "merit." That's how it should be run, at least at the very highest levels. If the studios refused to higher non-Jewish Jr. execs and producers, that would be discrimination. They don't,

Prove they don't Mitch.

- Sure: open up a copy of Variety (which you should be doing anyhow if you really are running a media company), and you'll see the names of numerous non-Jewish Jr. Execs and producers. That should be a pretty clear indication.


>>THEN, by defining the word "experience" as a FUNCTION OF "time," or "first-ness," Mr. Levin

- If you're going to mis-spell my name, at least do it consistently.

Irrelevant.

- And that's coming from a guy who seriously claims that it's his Germanic surname that keeps him from getting hired as a film exec, and not his loony beliefs.

 

 

Re(4): Discrimination A and B
Posted on February 1, 2004 at 07:19:14 PM by James Jaeger

>No. it's not "only" dependent on Newton's laws and thermodynamics; it's dependent on the laws of scale-free networks as well.

>- Human beings and social groups DO NOT OBEY EXACT LAWS OF NATURE - this is the most ridiculously reductionist thing I've ever heard, and there is no proof of any kind it's true.

Well welcome to the real world. It has been recently discovered that almost all networks, including social networks, obey the same laws. Surprise. Go book up on this and then get back to me.


>it's a social one that obeys the laws of human nature, which are quite different.

Not true. Read a new book out called LINKED and you will see that human networks have been found to follow much the same laws as physical systems, physical networks.

>- This is a theory: it is HARDLY a proven fact!!! Even Freud didn't believe human behavior was THAT psychologically deterministic!

As I tried to say before, it was a theory because prior to the Internet, it was very difficult to study the operation of real networks. But with the Internet, mathematicians have finally been able to close in on the theories of the past and determine what is real and what is not. Again, you are ignorant in this area. And as further proof of your ignorance, I'm not at all talking about determinism. Determinism is passe. Haven't you read Stephen Wolfram's book entitled, A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE, yet?

>>>If Gentiles hadn't spent years refusing to get involved with the studios, there would have been a significant population of Gentile executives like there is today, and they would have found their way to the top leadership positions. They didn't. Your analogy is bogus.

>>Not at all. Gentiles have not "spent years refusing." They maybe spent the first 40 years in this mode. There has been at least 50 years where Gentiles have been very interested in the movie industry. Walt Disney was a Gentile and Disney was basically a Gentile organization, but now it is predominantly Jewish. Show me a studio that was started by Jews and is now predominantly Gentile.

- Disney was the exception to the rule, and it's probably not a coincidence that he was a raving antisemitic bigot that helped funnel money to the Nazis through I.G. Farben. And if there were really that many qualified Gentiles dying to run studios, why did Roy Disney hire Eisner in the first place??? Walt's last words on his death bed were "don't let the Jews get the place."

I remember well when Roy did the MAJOR overhaul of DISNEY as I was working in the Hollywood industry at the time. DISNEY was in trouble because they were catering to mainly children's films at a time when the Babyboomers were no longer children. Thus the company decided it had to set up other divisions to make adult movies, and they set up BUENA VISTA and TOUCHSTONE. The reason Roy brought in Eisner and the Jewish leadership is because he basically HAD to. The Jewish network was so strong, and DISNEY was so desperate, he had to play ball or perish. Had he not brought in Jewish management, DISNEY would have experienced the same MASS EDODUS techniques other studios had experienced and this would have lead to a dried up talent well. See John Cones books, HOW THE MOVIE WARS WER WONE and WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD for details on how the inner circle treated outsiders. The latter book is on the Net for free at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm



>>>Thus, in order for continuing stratification to exist either a) energy must constantly be applied to maintain the condition (discrimination) or b) one of the compounds under study (Jewish executives and Non-Jewish executives) must not be, or be considered equal (elitism). In the chemistry analogy, an elitist might say that Jewish executives were cream and Non-Jewish executives were milk, thus the Jewish executives would always rise to the top. But Levine and other apologists, whether they believe what they say or not, do the politically correct thing and always maintain that Jews and non-Jews potentially have the same abilities, i.e., they are both water, not one cream and the other milk.

>>- This is just inane.

>Not at all. If there was random mixing in the movie industry, there would be the same ratio of Jews to Gentiles in the studio ranks as there are in the general population.

>- No, what's inane is that you'd try to explain a complex sociological phenomenon in terms of Brownian motion, as if human beings obeyed the same simple, deterministic laws particles do. It's probably indicative of why you take such a simplistic, black-and-white perspective on everything else.

The idea that networks form due to random forces is not inane at all. You take any 100 people and place them in a party, their initial interaction will be basically random. I am NOT saying that complex social networks, such as the Hollywood Control Group is a product of just random connections. What I am saying is that by now, there should be a greater percentage of Gentile executives in the control group by sheer dumb luck if discrimination weren't prevalent.


>>I do not assume that the population of eligible candidates is randomly distributed. I think there may have been a phase when it was close to randomly distributed, before hubs formed. When Hollywood started more Jews wanted to make films than Gentiles, true, but as the years went on, the earliest hubs that were formed (by Jews developing the industry beyond what Edison had done) became the most dominating and thus the Hollywood network went from anything that could represent a random network to a scale-free network. But recent studies have shown that even a scale-free network that was developed BECAUSE links were developed into hubs EARLY, can be surpassed. If this were the case, Microsoft would never have become more powerful than IBM, which was in computing and OS technology much earlier than Microsoft and once dominated its industry.

>- No, that had to do with IBM's tragically-limited marketing vision, not any pseudo-scientific psycho-babble.

No, I am referring to the fact THAT it happened, not the details of WHY it happens. You are trying to sidetrack the argument.

>>Thus Jewish hubs in the movie biz are HELD TOGETHER because of ACTIVE networking to this day.

>- You are either simply incapable of comprehending the difference between a wild speculation and a fact, or just plain willing to embrace anything whatsoever that you perceive as being helpful in rationalizing your obsessions.

Network analysis as applied to the Hollywood control group is no wild speculation, but a new mathematical tool that allows us to understand how and why networks form, how nodes and links operate and how hubs form to dominate social networks. We also now understand for the first time how networks can he held together and how they can be crashed. We for the first time understand what causes a Bose-Einstein Condensation -- which is what Microsoft might be, and for the matter, what the MPAA studios/distributors might also be when taken collectively as one company.

>>>This is the ONLY way they could possible be held together in light of all the unbelievable innovations that have come down over the past 50 years.

>>- No, it isn't: there's an infinite number of ways that could have happened. It's just what you want to be true, so you can scapegoat an outgroup for your insecurities.

Yes, there ARE an infinite number of ways crafty, extremist members of a 3000 year old network can and do discriminate -- and discriminate in order to KEEP power within their network.

>>Were all this random, the mathematical chances are great that other Gentile hubs would have developed by now, and we ARE talking about at least 50 - 90 years. SO NOT ONLY DOES THE HOLLYWOOD CONTROL GROUP DISCRININATE, THEY MUST DISCRIMINATE, and FURTHER the MUST DISCRIMINATE FURIOUSLY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A DOMINATING NETWORK OF CONTROL OVER THE ADVENT OF SUCH TECHNOLOGIES AS SOUND, COLOR, TV, CABLE, HOME VIDEO and now the INTERNET.

>Once again; A) STATEMENTS ABOUT HUMAN MOTIVATIONS CANNOT "PROVEN" MATHEMATICALLY,

Straw argument. I said that social networks can now be understood as to a) how they form and b) how they grow and c) how they maintain power.

>and B) YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANYONE BY NAME THAT'S EVER BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN HOLLYWOOD.

Each one of the studio distributors, which are public companies, have a record of all the people who have applied and who have not received a post of CEO or President of Production or COO. Each one of the studio distributors ALSO have a record of all the people who have applied and who HAVE received a post of CEO or President of Production or COO. Given that they have not, or do not after reading this, shred this information, you should be able to call them up and just ask for it. So have at it Mitch. See how cooperative they are. I bet they will be just as cooperative as they were in Art Buchwald's case against Paramount. But then I guess you haven't read FATAL SUBTRACTION yet.


>>>But itís the usual counter-argument trotted out by Hollywood apologists to "justify" its "normality" and/or "acceptability" for Hollywood.

>>>- No, the argument is that you can't hold Hollywood to a different standard than any other industry JUST because many in it are Jewish. You really believe the studios are supposed to hire somebody off the streets to run a multi-national conglomerate just because they're non-Jewish??? That is simply not responsible business, nor is it legally or ethically justified.

>Yap yap yap...

- Notice how you have to resort to sarcasm to try and gloss over the fact you have no logical refutation of the argument, a habit you seem to share with your buddy Jenks.
Yap yap yap. The reason I said yap yap yap is because you are like a broken record. You only see what you want to see. How many times have you said to the effect "... You really believe the studios are supposed to hire somebody off the streets to run a multi-national conglomerate just because they're non-Jewish??? That is simply not responsible business, nor is it legally or ethically justified."

To me this is just your boilerplate yapping showing again. I have addressed this point at length and in detail in this and many other posts. And please stop trying to cross-collaterallize me with Jenks. I have never met the man and have no association or relationship with him. I simply maintain that he has as much right to speak and write his piece as you do. Unfortunately, he has not been provided that opportunity and you know why.

>>We're not talking about corrolations here. We're talking about: HOW SOCIAL NETWORS FORM AND WHAT MATHEMATICAL LAWS HOLD THEM IN PLACE.

>- You wonder why people don't take you seriously when you keep spouting pseudointellectual bullshit like this???

Mitchell, this is not pseudointellectual but mainstream mathematics. You are behind the times. Again, you need to check out a book called "LINKED: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means" by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. The Internet has made it possible to study and understand social networks in high detail for the first time. Get used to it. Your little Hollywood control group is busted.

>>Given the structure of the Hollywood network and the energy it would require to hold it together such that the hubs are as they are, I would say there is a very good chance that many Jewish studio executives (not only over look as in Discrimination B's case, but) refuse to hire Gentile executives to the top three position of the studio.

- Where are these Gentile executives??? All you have to do is present a little evidence that are Gentile executives with qualifications equal to the current studio heads that are being passed over, and you'll have a very convincing argument. Of course, you'll never do that, because you can't.

I am working on getting that evidence together now. Most executives that have been discriminated against are afraid to talk for fear that the will be blackballed. Thus the scarcity of evidence.


>>NBC is not one of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors. FIRM only addresses the MPAA studio/distributors. Thus your example is irrelevant.

>- No, we were discussing your ridiculous concept of "Discrimination A" vs. the supposed "Discrimination B" and how it relates to your favorite obsession - the "Jewish domination" of the media. The same principle is also at work at the major television studios as well.

Discrimination A and Discrimination B are perfectly reasonable labels to place on the phenomenon. In the one case, discrimination occurs openly and illegally, in the latter case, discrimination occurs covertly, and while possibly not illegal, is unethical.

>>>The Hollywood-based U.S. studio system thus practices Discrimination B because it is technically not illegal, but highly unethical and leads to, or maintains minority domination.

>>>- No it doesn't.

>>Yes it does.

>No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.


>>Even if it was 50 years snubbing it (I say it was more like 40 years), we now know from the study of social networks (such applied to the network of nodes, such nodes being eligible executives for the top 3 positions), that there should naturally have been an increase of Gentile studio executives of at least 10% per decade over the past 5 decades. Thus, in the absence of active and intense discriminatory networking on the part of Jewish executives and other Jewish participants in the movie industry, we should now have the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors occupied by at least 50% Gentile executives. But that is not the case today. It is estimated that Gentiles occupy less than 25% of these top positions and it may be as little as 15% because it is now realized that significant numbers of Jews after the Holocaust and prior to the Immigration Act of 1965, were highly motivated to change their names and hide their ethnic identity.

>- Your apparent need to spout inane drivel like this as if anyone was impressed probably explains why your last production went direct-to-video twenty years ago.

Typical tactic, attack me when you have no valid argument.

>>But how does it "justify" this? Hereís how: Key to Mr. Levineís argument is the use of the idea: "Jews were there first" as justification of Discrimination B. To wit: since Jews were in the HOLLYWOOD industry FIRST in chronological history, they will ALWAYS be there first, by definition (because itís impossible to go BACK in time and re-do some event).

>>- No one's claiming that the individuals running the studios are most qualified because they're Jews: they are the most qualified because they've had the longest and most successful individual careers.

Like David Begleman I suppose?

>>Well if this argument were valid, again, IBM would be the largest corporation in the world and not the relative newcomer, MICROSOFT.

>- Jim, Microsoft is a CORPORATION, which is not the same thing as an ethnic group, and no one is making the argument that Jews as a class are more deserving of CEO positions because they "were there first."

Mitch, my analogy is between two industries: the compute software industry and the motion picture industry, both in fact SOFTWARE industries, so they are significantly comparable. Both industries have a network of social/business connections and in these two networks hubs have formed, Jewish hubs in the MPAA and Gentile hubs in IBM. Both hubs exist because of seniority, however there is one important difference between the two: the computer software industry led by IBM wasn't as successful in maintaining its domination because it did not hold its network together as furiously as the Jewish motion picture industry did. Thus, the relative newcomer, Microsoft, was able to come along and dominate the computer software industry in just one decade. Thus I maintain that seniority alone does not provide for domination. Other factors can over ride domination, one of those factors being selective networking and discrimination A and B. In other words, the Hollywood based US motion picture industry has maintained its domination NOT necessarily through seniority, but through aggressive discrimination and effective networking.


>>The point is that companies are entitled to hire the individuals whom are most qualified and experienced to run them as their leaders. No one is saying that Jews are most qualified to run the studios because Jews have run the studios the longest - it's that the specific individuals whom have had the longest and most successful careers as executives are the ones whom are most qualified to run the studios.

This is certainly not true as the David Beglemen case suggests. Begleman was dismissed from Columbia for having his hand in the till yet he afterwards emerged back in the top executive echelons. This suggests that his Jewish network preferred his services even though he was a criminal, than the services of a Gentile who had no such history.


>>Those people have been Jewish because historically Jews started the business, and Gentiles avoided it.


>>Microsoft superceded IBM because the latter failed to foresee the value of developing an operating system with a desktop format, and Apple failed to understand the value of licensing its technology. This has nothing to do with your ideas of "ethnic politics."

For whatever reasons Microsoft prevailed is NOT the argument. The argument is THAT they prevailed, a newcomer. IBM had all the so called "experience and seniority" you rant about, yet they were displaced by a newcomer. They were displaced because they don't network and discriminate like Hollywood Jews do. This is why I said in an earlier post, the Jews network more intensely than Gentiles. A part of this intensive networking is discrimination. Put bluntly: I allege that the Jewish network discriminates in order to hold onto power in the MPAA studios.

>>I'm sorry Mitch, but length of time dominating an industry is NOT the sole factor.

>- For some reason, you just can't get it through your head that NO ONE is claiming that it's A factor.

Oh horse. You are screaming it in every post.

>>Actively networking to ensure the ascendancy of the dominating group (in otherwords Discrimination B, and in some cases blatant Discrimination A) is the major reason the playing field in Hollywood is not level and the reasons why the MPAA studio/distributors are dominated by politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage to this day.

>- There is no "Discrimination B":

Yes there is. Discrimination B is the MO of the Hollywood control group.

>No one prevented Gentiles from entering the movie business in the first place, nor is anyone preventing them from entering the business today.

Your favorite word: PREVENTED. You picked up this argument from George Shelps. This is an extremist word which you are using to qualify your argument. By phrasing your argument in a "NO ONE PREVENTED" entry to the MPAA, you are obfuscating the greater issue that NO ONE SEEKS OUT highly qualified Gentile executives. They simply aren't even placed on the list of interview candidates. It's like keeping African Americans off the jury list. It's Discrimination B.

>>>You cannot demand that a business hand over its leadership to someone that has inferior qualifications just because of their ethnicity - that's why Affirmative Action offers minorities entry-level positions, and not CEO status.

>>That's what's referred to in the business world as "merit." That's how it should be run, at least at the very highest levels. If the studios refused to higher non-Jewish Jr. execs and producers, that would be discrimination. They don't,

>Prove they don't Mitch.

>- Sure: open up a copy of Variety (which you should be doing anyhow if you really are running a media company), and you'll see the names of numerous non-Jewish Jr. Execs and producers. That should be a pretty clear indication.

Variety is not the proper source for this. Why don't you open you copy of the HCD and list all the Gentile executives in the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.


>>>>THEN, by defining the word "experience" as a FUNCTION OF "time," or "first-ness," Mr. Levin

>>>- If you're going to mis-spell my name, at least do it consistently.

>>Irrelevant.

>- And that's coming from a guy who seriously claims that it's his Germanic surname that keeps him from getting hired as a film exec, and not his loony beliefs.

Huh?!

James Jaeger


 

Re(2): Discrimination A and B
Posted on February 2, 2004 at 01:55:46 AM by Mitchell Levine

>- Human beings and social groups DO NOT OBEY EXACT LAWS OF NATURE - this is the most ridiculously reductionist thing I've ever heard, and there is no proof of any kind it's true.

Well welcome to the real world. It has been recently discovered that almost all networks, including social networks, obey the same laws. Surprise. Go book up on this and then get back to me.

- This is JUST a theory: No one, including its proponents, believe that its been proved. Economists and sociologists just build models - no one's proven that they work, otherwise the markets would be much easier to predict and you wouldn't have to complain about how much money other people have. Also, just about the only person who believes that celluar automata is a valuable paradigm for modeling the world is Wolfram.



>>- This is just inane.

>Not at all. If there was random mixing in the movie industry, there would be the same ratio of Jews to Gentiles in the studio ranks as there are in the general population.

>- No, what's inane is that you'd try to explain a complex sociological phenomenon in terms of Brownian motion, as if human beings obeyed the same simple, deterministic laws particles do. It's probably indicative of why you take such a simplistic, black-and-white perspective on everything else.

The idea that networks form due to random forces is not inane at all. You take any 100 people and place them in a party, their initial interaction will be basically random I am NOT saying that complex social networks, such as the Hollywood Control Group is a product of just random connections. What I am saying is that by now, there should be a greater percentage of Gentile executives in the control group by sheer dumb luck if discrimination weren't prevalent.

- No, because the social forces that guided it were NOT random - Jews were motivated to enter the business, and Gentiles were motivated not to. No "discrimination" is evidenced. People aren't hired for a job because they are lucky, it's because they have superior qualifications, and, primarily, for top management, that means because they, as individuals, have been in the business the longest.


There was simply a divergence of interests, and the fact that many who entered the business were Jewish was a motivation for many non-Jews to not enter it.


Social conventions mount, and people tend to meet the expectations they feel society sets for them.

That's why so many Irish people enter the police force, Greeks begin diners, and so on, regardless of the fact that the initial factors that led to those associations have primarily passed on as influences.

It's also why so many Jews still eat Chinese food on Sunday nights, regardless of the fact that neither they nor anyone in their immediate family grew up in New York, where Chinatown borders on the Lower East Side, which, at the turn of the last century, was the Jewish Ghetto. That doesn't mean Jews are "discriminating" against non-Chinese Gentiles.



>- No, that had to do with IBM's tragically-limited marketing vision, not any pseudo-scientific psycho-babble.

No, I am referring to the fact THAT it happened, not the details of WHY it happens. You are trying to sidetrack the argument.

No, I'm not. There's no legitmate analogy: the rights of corporations and individuals are NOT parallel, and IBM's failure had nothing to do with networking.

>>Thus Jewish hubs in the movie biz are HELD TOGETHER because of ACTIVE networking to this day.

>- You are either simply incapable of comprehending the difference between a wild speculation and a fact, or just plain willing to embrace anything whatsoever that you perceive as being helpful in rationalizing your obsessions.

Network analysis as applied to the Hollywood control group is no wild speculation, but a new mathematical tool that allows us to understand how and why networks form, how nodes and links operate and how hubs form to dominate social networks.

- Network analysts would never claim that their theories as applied to such cases stand up as proven facts in the way you are. And Bose-Einstein condensates are artifically created forms of matter: what causes them are engineers hoping to find a room-temperature superconductor.

>>- No, it isn't: there's an infinite number of ways that could have happened. It's just what you want to be true, so you can scapegoat an outgroup for your insecurities.

Yes, there ARE an infinite number of ways crafty, extremist members of a 3000 year old network can and do discriminate -- and discriminate in order to KEEP power within their network.

- Gee, Jim, how could ANYONE get the idea that you're a BIGOT???

>>Were all this random, the mathematical chances are great that other Gentile hubs would have developed by now, and we ARE talking about at least 50 - 90 years.

- It's not random: it's due to various sociological forces that don't require discrimination to occur. Unless you have further evidence that there is discrimination occurring, like, for example, identifying anyone who's ever been discriminated against by name, then you aren't justified in making the charge on the basis of the evidence.

SO NOT ONLY DOES THE HOLLYWOOD CONTROL GROUP DISCRININATE, THEY MUST DISCRIMINATE, and FURTHER the MUST DISCRIMINATE FURIOUSLY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A DOMINATING NETWORK OF CONTROL OVER THE ADVENT OF SUCH TECHNOLOGIES AS SOUND, COLOR, TV, CABLE, HOME VIDEO and now the INTERNET.

- They didn't have to discriminate, they just had to make good business choices. It's perfectly possible for them to be successful in these fields without doing so - although I don't deny in the slightest the economic abuses that Cones points out, and highly encourage you to focus on them.

>Once again; A) STATEMENTS ABOUT HUMAN MOTIVATIONS CANNOT "PROVEN" MATHEMATICALLY,

Straw argument. I said that social networks can now be understood as to a) how they form and b) how they grow and c) how they maintain power.

- Not with the mathematical precision you're alluding to.

>and B) YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANYONE BY NAME THAT'S EVER BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN HOLLYWOOD.

Each one of the studio distributors, which are public companies, have a record of all the people who have applied and who have not received a post of CEO or President of Production or COO. Each one of the studio distributors ALSO have a record of all the people who have applied and who HAVE received a post of CEO or President of Production or COO. Given that they have not, or do not after reading this, shred this information, you should be able to call them up and just ask for it. So have at it Mitch. See how cooperative they are. I bet they will be just as cooperative as they were in Art Buchwald's case against Paramount. But then I guess you haven't read FATAL SUBTRACTION yet.

- All you have to do is identify Gentile executives with careers just as extensive and profitable as David Geffen or Mike Ovitz that have been passed over for CEO status on the basis of their religion.

If they do have track records as successful as the above, everyone would have heard of them already, and you wouldn't need subpeona power. If they don't have this status, then they haven't been discriminated against, they've been passed over on the basis of their lesser qualifications.


>>>But itís the usual counter-argument trotted out by Hollywood apologists to "justify" its "normality" and/or "acceptability" for Hollywood.

>>>- No, the argument is that you can't hold Hollywood to a different standard than any other industry JUST because many in it are Jewish. You really believe the studios are supposed to hire somebody off the streets to run a multi-national conglomerate just because they're non-Jewish??? That is simply not responsible business, nor is it legally or ethically justified.

>Yap yap yap...

- Notice how you have to resort to sarcasm to try and gloss over the fact you have no logical refutation of the argument, a habit you seem to share with your buddy Jenks.
Yap yap yap. The reason I said yap yap yap is because you are like a broken record.

- Simply because you've never been able to successfully mount a reply to the arguments, because you can't.

You only see what you want to see. How many times have you said to the effect "... You really believe the studios are supposed to hire somebody off the streets to run a multi-national conglomerate just because they're non-Jewish??? That is simply not responsible business, nor is it legally or ethically justified."

- And it continues to be true. For example, the only suggestion you've made is for highly unconstitutional ethnic quota systems.

To me this is just your boilerplate yapping showing again. I have addressed this point at length and in detail in this and many other posts.

- You've never addressed the arguments; you've tried unsuccessfully to dance around them, hoping no one would notice they refute your claims.

James Jaeger


P.S. And please stop trying to cross-collaterallize me with Jenks.

- How am I trying to use your success to simultaneously finance Jenks???

I have never met the man and have no association or relationship with him.

- That's strange: You seem to have an interesting habit of using his prejudiced buzzwords like "Jewish Hegemony" - as though having to live in a society where there were many successful people that didn't share your religion constituted a form of "oppression" - and Shelps says you constantly spam his inbox with that scumbag's latest ravings.

I simply maintain that he has as much right to speak and write his piece as you do.

- Apparently you haven't convinced Cones, whom routinely deletes his posts on the reasonable grounds that they don't obey the site guidelines.

Unfortunately, he has not been provided that opportunity and you know why.

- Because most people are disgusted by his hateful idiocy, providing publishers an understandable reason not to pay him to represent them, and attorneys that run websites to delete his posts.

>- You wonder why people don't take you seriously when you keep spouting pseudointellectual bullshit like this???

Mitchell, this is not pseudointellectual but mainstream mathematics. You are behind the times. Again, you need to check out a book called "LINKED: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means" by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. The Internet has made it possible to study and understand social networks in high detail for the first time. Get used to it. Your little Hollywood control group is busted.

- Barbasi's book is hardly a statement of a proven fact, it's a highly speculative theory. It's typical of you not to be able to tell the difference.

>>Given the structure of the Hollywood network and the energy it would require to hold it together such that the hubs are as they are, I would say there is a very good chance that many Jewish studio executives (not only over look as in Discrimination B's case, but) refuse to hire Gentile executives to the top three position of the studio.

- Where are these Gentile executives??? All you have to do is present a little evidence that are Gentile executives with qualifications equal to the current studio heads that are being passed over, and you'll have a very convincing argument. Of course, you'll never do that, because you can't.

I am working on getting that evidence together now. Most executives that have been discriminated against are afraid to talk for fear that the will be blackballed. Thus the scarcity of evidence.

- If they really had qualifications as extensive and careers as successful as David Geffen and Michael Ovitz, everyone would have heard of them already.

If they don't have such credits, then they are inferior, and they were legitimately passed over for more qualified candidates, and no "discrimination" occurred.


>>NBC is not one of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors. FIRM only addresses the MPAA studio/distributors. Thus your example is irrelevant.

>- No, we were discussing your ridiculous concept of "Discrimination A" vs. the supposed "Discrimination B" and how it relates to your favorite obsession - the "Jewish domination" of the media. The same principle is also at work at the major television studios as well.

Discrimination A and Discrimination B are perfectly reasonable labels to place on the phenomenon. In the one case, discrimination occurs openly and illegally, in the latter case, discrimination occurs covertly, and while possibly not illegal, is unethical.

No, your theory of "Discrimination B" is flawed because no one prevent Gentiles from entering the business, and no one is preventing them from entering the business today. No one discriminated against them then and there's no legitimate evidence that anyone is today.

>>Even if it was 50 years snubbing it (I say it was more like 40 years), we now know from the study of social networks (such applied to the network of nodes, such nodes being eligible executives for the top 3 positions), that there should naturally have been an increase of Gentile studio executives of at least 10% per decade over the past 5 decades. Thus, in the absence of active and intense discriminatory networking on the part of Jewish executives and other Jewish participants in the movie industry, we should now have the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors occupied by at least 50% Gentile executives. But that is not the case today. It is estimated that Gentiles occupy less than 25% of these top positions and it may be as little as 15% because it is now realized that significant numbers of Jews after the Holocaust and prior to the Immigration Act of 1965, were highly motivated to change their names and hide their ethnic identity.

>- Your apparent need to spout inane drivel like this as if anyone was impressed probably explains why your last production went direct-to-video twenty years ago.

Typical tactic, attack me when you have no valid argument.

- You have no valid argument: you're trying to make your irrational sophisms look substantial by propping them up with somebody's unproven speculations as an attempt to make yourself look "deep." It's just as ridiculous as your musings on "physics."


>>- No one's claiming that the individuals running the studios are most qualified because they're Jews: they are the most qualified because they've had the longest and most successful individual careers.

Like David Begleman I suppose?

- Can't really speak about Begelman, simply because I don't know enough about the incident you're referring to. I'll leave that issue for George to possibly discuss, if he chooses to make a cameo as he occasionally does.



Mitch, my analogy is between two industries: the compute software industry and the motion picture industry, both in fact SOFTWARE industries, so they are significantly comparable.

- That's just silly: the comparison you're trying to draw is inappropriate, not because of the nature of the product sold, but because it's inapplicable as a concept.

What's under discussion is the right of companies to hire the most qualified candidates for their top leadership positions without regard for their ethnic origins. It has nothing to do with any collective "right" of Jews to "dominate" the motion picture business because they were "there first."

It also has nothing to do with any putative "right" of IBM's to dominate the software field because they were in it the longest. Companies don't have a right to be a market leader; they do have one to hire CEOs that are legitimately most qualified, and the primary qualification for a CEO is seniority.

This is about the rights of individuals, and not groups. You just don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction, for some reason.

Both industries have a network of social/business connections and in these two networks hubs have formed, Jewish hubs in the MPAA and Gentile hubs in IBM. Both hubs exist because of seniority, however there is one important difference between the two: the computer software industry led by IBM wasn't as successful in maintaining its domination because it did not hold its network together as furiously as the Jewish motion picture industry did.

- No, IBM lost its market dominance not because of any supposed loss of its "hub," it lost it because it failed to understand the value of licensing an icon-based operating system for mass consumption, and Microsoft did understand it.

It had zero to do with social networking. Also, the status of IBM as a company and Jews as an ethnic group have nothing to do with one another. No one is suggesting that Jews as an ethnic group have a "right" to "dominate" the studios. I'm claiming that the relative prevalance of Jews in the business is due to historical factors, and that companies should hire the most legitmately qualified candidates without regard to ethnicity - whether that leads to diversity or not. However, I do believe that it will lead to diversity.

The studio are much more diverse today overall then they were even twenty or thirty years ago. Considering the fact that they would have no motivation to diversify as no legal action would be likely to be taken against them, the studios seem to simply acting in what they perceive as their general best interests - hiring without regard to ethnicity. If they didn't want to hire non-Jews at all, they probably could.

Thus, the relative newcomer, Microsoft, was able to come along and dominate the computer software industry in just one decade. Thus I maintain that seniority alone does not provide for domination.

- SENIORITY AS A LEGITIMATE QUALIFICATION FOR A MANAGEMENT POSITION APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT "SOCIAL HUBS," OK??? NO ONE IS SUGGESTING OTHERWISE!!! GOT IT???


Other factors can over ride domination, one of those factors being selective networking and discrimination A and B. In other words, the Hollywood based US motion picture industry has maintained its domination NOT necessarily through seniority, but through aggressive discrimination and effective networking.

You have NEVER been able to offer the slightest evidence of discrimination, other than simply noting a prevalence of Jews in the business, and "effective networking" is hardly a crime!


>>The point is that companies are entitled to hire the individuals whom are most qualified and experienced to run them as their leaders. No one is saying that Jews are most qualified to run the studios because Jews have run the studios the longest - it's that the specific individuals whom have had the longest and most successful careers as executives are the ones whom are most qualified to run the studios.

This is certainly not true as the David Beglemen case suggests. Begleman was dismissed from Columbia for having his hand in the till yet he afterwards emerged back in the top executive echelons. This suggests that his Jewish network preferred his services even though he was a criminal, than the services of a Gentile who had no such history.

- How do you know that was because he was Jewish? Just because he WAS Jewish???

Perhaps the studio didn't believe he was guilty or that he was productive enough that they didn't care whether or not he was guilty. In case you didn't notice, they also didn't hire another Jewish executive either, did they???


>>Microsoft superceded IBM because the latter failed to foresee the value of developing an operating system with a desktop format, and Apple failed to understand the value of licensing its technology. This has nothing to do with your ideas of "ethnic politics."

For whatever reasons Microsoft prevailed is NOT the argument. The argument is THAT they prevailed, a newcomer. IBM had all the so called "experience and seniority" you rant about, yet they were displaced by a newcomer. They were displaced because they don't network and discriminate like Hollywood Jews do.

- It had nothing whatsoever to do with networking, it had only to do with IBM's bad marketing decisions, and seniority has nothing to do a companies "right" to be a market leader. It IS a legitimate reason for a business to hire a top manager.


This is why I said in an earlier post, the Jews network more intensely than Gentiles. A part of this intensive networking is discrimination. Put bluntly: I allege that the Jewish network discriminates in order to hold onto power in the MPAA studios.

Networking is NOT discrimination, and if Jews have better networking skills than Gentiles, then they've earned their success in the business world. The key would be to learn to network better and stop complaining about other people's religions.

>>I'm sorry Mitch, but length of time dominating an industry is NOT the sole factor.

>- For some reason, you just can't get it through your head that NO ONE is claiming that it's A factor.

Oh horse. You are screaming it in every post.

- No, I am simply saying that length of time an individual has successfully held a leadership position in an industry is a valid criterion for hiring them for a management position, not that I believe in any supposed right of any ethnic group to "dominate" an industry.

>>Actively networking to ensure the ascendancy of the dominating group (in otherwords Discrimination B, and in some cases blatant Discrimination A) is the major reason the playing field in Hollywood is not level and the reasons why the MPAA studio/distributors are dominated by politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage to this day.

>- There is no "Discrimination B":

Yes there is. Discrimination B is the MO of the Hollywood control group.

- The whole concept is inherently flawed. It does not fit the definiton of discrimination. It's just some bullshit you're trying to ramrod into your argument to sustain your usual attempts to blame everything you don't like on Jews, and your simple jealousy of the success of people who don't share your religious background
.
>No one prevented Gentiles from entering the movie business in the first place, nor is anyone preventing them from entering the business today.

Your favorite word: PREVENTED. You picked up this argument from George Shelps. This is an extremist word which you are using to qualify your argument. By phrasing your argument in a "NO ONE PREVENTED" entry to the MPAA, you are obfuscating the greater issue that NO ONE SEEKS OUT highly qualified Gentile executives. They simply aren't even placed on the list of interview candidates. It's like keeping African Americans off the jury list. It's Discrimination B.

- That's bullshit. If those gentile executives really had careers and track records as successful as Eisner and Geffen, everyone would have heard of them already, and they would certainly have been considered, as in the case of Don Simpson, who was non-Jewish, but highly successful.

If they didn't have careers as lengthy and successful as Eisner and Geffen, then no "discrimination" took place: they were inferior candidates, and were legitimately passed over.

Once again, where are the Gentile executives that have had careers just as extensive and profitable as the top people in industry, despite the fact that no one appears to have ever heard of them, and are just rejected simply for not being Jewish??? How could they have made just as much money for the studios as Ovitz and Bruckenheimer yet remain invisible???

>>That's what's referred to in the business world as "merit." That's how it should be run, at least at the very highest levels. If the studios refused to higher non-Jewish Jr. execs and producers, that would be discrimination. They don't,

>Prove they don't Mitch.

>- Sure: open up a copy of Variety (which you should be doing anyhow if you really are running a media company), and you'll see the names of numerous non-Jewish Jr. Execs and producers. That should be a pretty clear indication.

Variety is not the proper source for this. Why don't you open you copy of the HCD and list all the Gentile executives in the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

- Because I said "Jr. executives and producers," the minor leagues from which future top management is selected, and not the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

 

Re(3): Discrimination A and B
Posted on February 3, 2004 at 00:09:33 AM by James Jaeger

Everything in science is a theory. Even E=mc squared. Stop diluting Barbasi's work when you obviously haven't even read it.

- If they really had qualifications as extensive and careers as successful as David Geffen and Michael Ovitz, everyone would have heard of them already.

Not true. Everyone has heard of the Jewish executives like Geffen and Ovitz because they monopolize the top positions of a MEDIA industry. Duh.

>- You have no valid argument: you're trying to make your irrational sophisms look substantial by propping them up with somebody's unproven speculations as an attempt to make yourself look "deep." It's just as ridiculous as your musings on "physics."

Mitchell, I'm an amateur scientist. I read extensively on cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, physics, AI and mathematical systems as applied to networks. I have never claimed to be a professional scientist, but I'm sure I have a wider knowledge of science than you do as you are obviously not very up to date on what's happening. You spend too much time at FIRM (but then I guess the pay must be good, eh?!).

>- Can't really speak about Begelman, simply because I don't know enough about the incident you're referring to. I'll leave that issue for George to possibly discuss, if he chooses to make a cameo as he occasionally does.

Well if you read INDECENT EXPOSURE you will know all about David Begleman and what he did and how his cronies in the industry brought him back, more than likely to the exclusion of others.

>- That's just silly: the comparison you're trying to draw is inappropriate, not because of the nature of the product sold, but because it's inapplicable as a concept.

Movies are considered a type of software just as computer programs are considered software. In fact, actual software runs much of the entertainment industry's product, such as DVDs and video games. So it is just you that are silly.

>What's under discussion is the right of companies to hire the most qualified candidates for their top leadership positions without regard for their ethnic origins. It has nothing to do with any collective "right" of Jews to "dominate" the motion picture business because they were "there first."

No what's under discussion is how and why the major studios discriminate in order to maintain their power base.

>It also has nothing to do with any putative "right" of IBM's to dominate the software field because they were in it the longest. Companies don't have a right to be a market leader; they do have one to hire CEOs that are legitimately most qualified, and the primary qualification for a CEO is seniority.

Did your dad write that one? What a spin master.

>This is about the rights of individuals, and not groups. You just don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction, for some reason.

Bill Gates is an individual. Microsoft was totally dependent on him as an individual. He moved in and took over the highest executive position in the software business. He was able to do this because the discrimination and cabals present in the computer industry aren't as intense as in the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry.

>- No, IBM lost its market dominance not because of any supposed loss of its "hub," it lost it because it failed to understand the value of licensing an icon-based operating system for mass consumption, and Microsoft did understand it.

Once again you are showing your ignorance about networks. A hub is CAUSED by the fact that many links go to a particular node over other nodes. IBM was a hub because it had, prior to Microsoft, almost all the links to money, customers and technology. When Bill Gates came along and formed Microsoft, he took the links away from IBM as they flocked to MSDOS due to the fact that he GAVE IT AWAY through hardware manufacturer licensing agreements (known as an OEM product). This is the act of creating links. Every time someone USED an OEM version of MSDOS they created another link to Bill Gates and dropped a link from IBM. Thus IBM lost its status as a hub and this is why it lost market dominance. What Microsoft did was apply a new networking law, the idea of giving away a product in order to establish links.

>It had zero to do with social networking. Also, the status of IBM as a company and Jews as an ethnic group have nothing to do with one another. No one is suggesting that Jews as an ethnic group have a "right" to "dominate" the studios. I'm claiming that the relative prevalence of Jews in the business is due to historical factors, and that companies should hire the most legitimately qualified candidates without regard to ethnicity - whether that leads to diversity or not. However, I do believe that it will lead to diversity.

If Jews in the movie business weren't networking and discriminating furiously, new hubs would have formed long ago. Microsoft thus proves that, on a level playing field, a new company can come along and surpass even an entrenched company or industry.

>The studio are much more diverse today overall then they were even twenty or thirty years ago. Considering the fact that they would have no motivation to diversify as no legal action would be likely to be taken against them, the studios seem to simply acting in what they perceive as their general best interests - hiring without regard to ethnicity. If they didn't want to hire non-Jews at all, they probably could.

Pure fantasy.


>- SENIORITY AS A LEGITIMATE QUALIFICATION FOR A MANAGEMENT POSITION APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT "SOCIAL HUBS," OK??? NO ONE IS SUGGESTING OTHERWISE!!! GOT IT???

No, seniority can also apply to a company that has dominated market share because it was there first. I will grant you that the term, seniority, IS usually used in connection with individuals however. But the concept applies to both individuals and companies. The top three positions of the top 7 companies are type of market just as a company can have market share. Since we are FIRM are ONLY talking about the top 3 positions in the 7 MPAA studios, we can consider this a FINITE job market and thus such market is analogous to a market share for products and services. A job is simply a sub-product.


>You have NEVER been able to offer the slightest evidence of discrimination, other than simply noting a prevalence of Jews in the business, and "effective networking" is hardly a crime!

You keep asking for evidence. As John Cones and I have repeatedly pointed out the observable state of the industry, as stipulated at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist, IS EVIDENCE. You continually NOT-IS that. And I have never SAID that networking is a crime. I have in fact validated Jews and Scientologists as being VERY good at it. But when networking is used to discriminate, such as in Discrimination A, it IS illegal, and when networking is used to discriminate as in Discrimination B, it is unethical.



- How do you know that was because he was Jewish? Just because he WAS Jewish???

Almost every single person he came in contact who was involved with handling the scandal was Jewish, from Alan Hirshfield to Herbert Alen on down. See INDECENT EXPOSURE. So whether or not it was his Jewishness one cannot directly say, but one can say that he was in a club that almost in every case had as one of its prime attributes the fact of being Jewish. This is evidence of networking at its best or worst and doesn't look good for Hollywood Jews.

>Perhaps the studio didn't believe he was guilty or that he was productive enough that they didn't care whether or not he was guilty. In case you didn't notice, they also didn't hire another Jewish executive either, did they???

Are you referring to David Puttnam? How long was he there? Not very long.

>- It had nothing whatsoever to do with networking, it had only to do with IBM's bad marketing decisions, and seniority has nothing to do a companies "right" to be a market leader. It IS a legitimate reason for a business to hire a top manager.

You talk about ability as being the prime criterion. There are always independent producers out there that earn much more money on the investment dollar than sitting studio executives. Such as the producers of FULL MONTY and BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and even MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING. Why don't we see some of these people who have come up with genius movies or marketing strategies get into the executive suits of the studios? Answer: because it's NOT a merit system, it's a club that acts like a tribe.


>Networking is NOT discrimination,

But networking with only, or significantly, people of the same race or religion is bigotry. To that degree it IS discrimination, because the people networking are excluding all others from their sweet spots.

>and if Jews have better networking skills than Gentiles, then they've earned their success in the business world. The key would be to learn to network better and stop complaining about other people's religions.

I have suggested this already. See my post: "Jewish Networking Capabilities" posted December 20, at 08:22:55 PM.

>- No, I am simply saying that length of time an individual has successfully held a leadership position in an industry is a valid criterion for hiring them for a management position, not that I believe in any supposed right of any ethnic group to "dominate" an industry.

But that is not the issue. The issue is: does an entrenched control group overtly and/or covertly discriminate in order to keep themselves in power? And the answer to this is yes, because the results of 90-some years of supposed free market enterprise produce rosters in all the 7 MPAA studios that are highly non-diverse.

>Yes there is. Discrimination B is the MO of the Hollywood control group.

- The whole concept is inherently flawed.

Not at all.

>It does not fit the definiton of discrimination.

Sure it does. The actual act of discrimination takes place before the ostensible act of discrimination. In otherwords, all the "ineligible" executives have been pre-screened so that the potential hiring rosters don't include any executives that are not in the cabal.

>It's just some bullshit you're trying to ramrod into your argument to sustain your usual attempts to blame everything you don't like on Jews,

Hey, now that's getting a little puerile Mitch. To claim that I blame everything I don't like on Jews is not only preposterous, but sounds like you're just whining and waving a subtle form of the anti-Semitic Sword.

>and your simple jealousy of the success of people who don't share your religious background.

Anyone who knows me knows that I greatly respect accomplishment and never ask or look to religious background. But I don't respect people that gain success through predatory or unethical means. And if such a person happens to be Jewish, I likewise don't respect them.

>Your favorite word: PREVENTED. You picked up this argument from George Shelps. This is an extremist word which you are using to qualify your argument. By phrasing your argument in a "NO ONE PREVENTED" entry to the MPAA, you are obfuscating the greater issue that NO ONE SEEKS OUT highly qualified Gentile executives. They simply aren't even placed on the list of interview candidates. It's like keeping African Americans off the jury list. It's Discrimination B.

- That's bullshit. If those gentile executives really had careers and track records as successful as Eisner and Geffen,

Here you go again. A broken, one-track mind.

>everyone would have heard of them already, and they would certainly have been considered, as in the case of Don Simpson, who was non-Jewish, but highly successful.

I believe Don Simpson was a producer, or can you show me that he held one of the top three positions at one of the 7 MPAA studios.

>If they didn't have careers as lengthy and successful as Eisner and Geffen,

There is nothing distinguished about either Eisner or Geffen. Do you actually KNOW anything about Geffen and how he clawed his way into power? Are you aware of the abortion we now call DISNEY all under the "leadership" of Eisner? Are you aware of the outrageous salaries Eisner was cutting for himself? His actions of unprecedented greed practically wrote the How-to manual for the ENRON executives. If these are your examples of "lengthy and successful" careers, excuse me, but I don't think we're on the same page. Now Michael Ovitz, I will agree -- he was an incredible executive and I believe that the industry, especially Eisner, was not fair to him. I respect Ovitz, but EVEN HE is an example of an OUTSIDER who could not get into one of the top 3 positions of the 7 MPAA studios. And I don't consider his stint as a co-CEO of DISNEY as him having arrived. Ovitz is a perfect example of a guy who came along and didn't play by the studio cabal's rules. He was innovative and ethical to a fault. He also provided name talents what they needed and wanted and in doing this, he pissed off the studios that held the real power. That agents, in particular CAA, were the most powerful players I believe was a red herring. The studios have always held the monopoly on power in Hollywood, they just like to get people thinking that such is held elsewhere because it takes pressure off them.

>then no "discrimination" took place: they were inferior candidates, and were legitimately passed over.

I refuse to believe that there are candidates out there that have not been in every way as qualified and more qualified than many of the executives that have occupied the top 3 posts in the MPAA studios.

>Once again, where are the Gentile executives that have had careers just as extensive and profitable as the top people in industry, despite the fact that no one appears to have ever heard of them, and are just rejected simply for not being Jewish??? How could they have made just as much money for the studios as Ovitz and Bruckenheimer yet remain invisible???

Ovitz was an agent and Bruckheimer is a producer.


>Variety is not the proper source for this. Why don't you open you copy of the HCD and list all the Gentile executives in the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

>- Because I said "Jr. executives and producers," the minor leagues from which future top management is selected, and not the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

Fact still remains there are still few Gentile executives in the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

 

 

 

 

 

Re(4): Discrimination A and B
Posted on February 4, 2004 at 12:00:16 PM by Mitchell Levine

>This is about the rights of individuals, and not groups. You just don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction, for some reason.

Bill Gates is an individual. Microsoft was totally dependent on him as an individual. He moved in and took over the highest executive position in the software business. He was able to do this because the discrimination and cabals present in the computer industry aren't as intense as in the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry.

- He was able to do that because he: a) started Microsoft, and b) had a better understanding of the market than IBM and Apple, and c), because you are apparently unaware of it, HE MADE USE OF ILLEGAL TRADE PRACTICES TO UNFAIRLY DOMINATE THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY THAT WERE RECENT THE SUBJECT OF THE LARGEST ANTITRADE SUIT IN HISTORY!!!

It's typical that you are so busy looking for the mote in someone else's eye, you over look the whole damn beam.

>- No, IBM lost its market dominance not because of any supposed loss of its "hub," it lost it because it failed to understand the value of licensing an icon-based operating system for mass consumption, and Microsoft did understand it.

Once again you are showing your ignorance about networks. A hub is CAUSED by the fact that many links go to a particular node over other nodes. IBM was a hub because it had, prior to Microsoft, almost all the links to money, customers and technology. When Bill Gates came along and formed Microsoft, he took the links away from IBM as they flocked to MSDOS due to the fact that he GAVE IT AWAY through hardware manufacturer licensing agreements (known as an OEM product). This is the act of creating links. Every time someone USED an OEM version of MSDOS they created another link to Bill Gates and dropped a link from IBM. Thus IBM lost its status as a hub and this is why it lost market dominance. What Microsoft did was apply a new networking law, the idea of giving away a product in order to establish links.

- The reason IBM gave it away was because they didn't appreciate its value, as they failed to properly understand that the future of the market was in licensing an operating system, rather than selling the machines, in much the same way that Jobs and Wozniak failed to realize that licensing their technology to other manufacturers was the correct decision.

This had nothing to do with networking, and everything to do with marketing understanding, in which Gates turns out to have been superior.

If Jews in the movie business weren't networking and discriminating furiously, new hubs would have formed long ago.

- Not necessarily: there was no mass exodus of non-Jews into the industry, not even a trickle until the 70's, and the studios had a BIG headstart.

The technology business is really dependent on nothing but ideas primarily, while the entertainment business revolves around hard commodities like stars and name directors, and capital.

Your theory of hubs requires the assumption of a level playing field, and although the field may not have been level, that does not necessarily mean that illegal discrimination was the cause. There were historical reasons Jews started the studios and Genties avoided the business altogether until the end of normative anti-communism. You still have not provided any good evidence that the disparity is due to discrimination other than your antisemitic belief that Jews just discriminate against Gentiles on principle the way Gentiles did them.


>The studio are much more diverse today overall then they were even twenty or thirty years ago. Considering the fact that they would have no motivation to diversify as no legal action would be likely to be taken against them, the studios seem to simply acting in what they perceive as their general best interests - hiring without regard to ethnicity. If they didn't want to hire non-Jews at all, they probably could.

Pure fantasy.

Then why are the industry trades filled with the names of non-Jews as Jr. Execs and Producers today, when they weren't so extensively even twenty years ago? Because FIRM is so powerful that you've created a vast social stigma the webs are terrified of???


>- SENIORITY AS A LEGITIMATE QUALIFICATION FOR A MANAGEMENT POSITION APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT "SOCIAL HUBS," OK??? NO ONE IS SUGGESTING OTHERWISE!!! GOT IT???

No, seniority can also apply to a company that has dominated market share because it was there first.

- That's ridiculous: employment legislation applies to the hiring of individuals by companies, not the "rights" of companies as a collective to keep their market share in industries. There is no Affirmative Action program that gives fledgling corporations automatic placement in the Fortune 500 because the market has "discriminated" against them by not making them leader.

 

Re(5): Discrimination A and B
Posted on February 4, 2004 at 01:08:29 PM by James Jaeger

>You still have not provided any good evidence that the disparity is due to discrimination other than your antisemitic belief that Jews just discriminate against Gentiles on principle the way Gentiles did them.

So you feel that Gentiles have discriminated against Jews in the past?

James

P.S. Mitch, I appreciate your posts and I will do my best to post responces, however I am in post production on a project right now so my time is limited, that's why this short post.

 

 

 

Re(4): Discrimination A and B
Posted on February 4, 2004 at 12:00:54 PM by Mitchell Levine




>You have NEVER been able to offer the slightest evidence of discrimination, other than simply noting a prevalence of Jews in the business, and "effective networking" is hardly a crime!

You keep asking for evidence. As John Cones and I have repeatedly pointed out the observable state of the industry, as stipulated at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist, IS EVIDENCE. You continually NOT-IS that. And I have never SAID that networking is a crime. I have in fact validated Jews and Scientologists as being VERY good at it. But when networking is used to discriminate, such as in Discrimination A, it IS illegal, and when networking is used to discriminate as in Discrimination B, it is unethical.

- The fact that there is a prevalence of Jews in the industry does NOT prove that they must be illegally keeping out non-Jews just for being non-Jews, any more than the prevalence of Irish in law enforcement that the NYPD refuses to hire anyone else, or that Greeks will only hire other Greeks for positions in shipping.

If there were loads of people of other ethnicities that wanted to be cops that were being turned down in favor of Irish, that would be different. There weren't a lot of non-Jews that wanted to go into the movie business, as you note, thus Jewish executives got the opportunity to develop their career records and qualfy themselves for the top positions. If they just refused to hire non-Jews thus creating a lack of executives, that would be a parallel. They didn't. You can't expect the studios to go out and recruit non-Jews like the NCAA does basketball stars. It would place an unfair burden on them that other industries aren't forced to endure.

You talk about ability as being the prime criterion.

- It is a prime criterion, but it's not the only one. For CEO, experience is the most important one.

There are always independent producers out there that earn much more money on the investment dollar than sitting studio executives. Such as the producers of FULL MONTY and BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and even MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING. Why don't we see some of these people who have come up with genius movies or marketing strategies get into the executive suits of the studios? Answer: because it's NOT a merit system, it's a club that acts like a tribe.

- They eventually will, quite possibly - if they are interested in going into corporate management instead of making movies. Just producing one successful independent film hardly qualifies you to run a studio, any more than writing a good book necessarily qualifies you to run a publishing house. Creative ability and corporate management skills are two different things. Henry Ford ran Ford Motors and not an engineer.


>Networking is NOT discrimination,

But networking with only, or significantly, people of the same race or religion is bigotry. To that degree it IS discrimination, because the people networking are excluding all others from their sweet spots.

- No it's not - refusing to network with others is bigotry. If that weren't true, then everyone would be a bigot, because everyone tend to befriend those that they have something in common with.


But that is not the issue. The issue is: does an entrenched control group overtly and/or covertly discriminate in order to keep themselves in power? And the answer to this is yes, because the results of 90-some years of supposed free market enterprise produce rosters in all the 7 MPAA studios that are highly non-diverse.

- No, you are claiming that those individuals were hired simply for their ethnic status without merit: they had the longest and most successrul careers in a business that was unintentionally and vountarily segregated by historical forces. It will take a while before complete diversity is achieved to overcome that. In today's studio world, if you can make them money, you are likely to get a job, otherwise they wouldn't have been promoting the career of a guy whose dad was a card-carrying Nazi official.



>It does not fit the definiton of discrimination.

Sure it does. The actual act of discrimination takes place before the ostensible act of discrimination. In otherwords, all the "ineligible" executives have been pre-screened so that the potential hiring rosters don't include any executives that are not in the cabal.

- They "prescreened" themselves by not entering the business at the appropriate time because it was considered unacceptable as a career by WASP old money.

>It's just some bullshit you're trying to ramrod into your argument to sustain your usual attempts to blame everything you don't like on Jews,

Hey, now that's getting a little puerile Mitch. To claim that I blame everything I don't like on Jews is not only preposterous, but sounds like you're just whining and waving a subtle form of the anti-Semitic Sword.

- I'm not subtly wielding it, I'm expressly stipulating it. True, you are not the same kind of vindictive hater as Jenks or Anami, nor are you a despicable person, but that does not mean you aren't remarkably prejudiced and incapable of viewing others in terms of anything but stereotypes.

>and your simple jealousy of the success of people who don't share your religious background.

Anyone who knows me knows that I greatly respect accomplishment and never ask or look to religious background.

- You have to be joking. It's all you talk about.

But I don't respect people that gain success through predatory or unethical means. And if such a person happens to be Jewish, I likewise don't respect them.

- Well, like George Shelps says, you could possibly criticize their behavior without having to bring up their religion.

>Your favorite word: PREVENTED. You picked up this argument from George Shelps. This is an extremist word which you are using to qualify your argument. By phrasing your argument in a "NO ONE PREVENTED" entry to the MPAA, you are obfuscating the greater issue that NO ONE SEEKS OUT highly qualified Gentile executives. They simply aren't even placed on the list of interview candidates. It's like keeping African Americans off the jury list. It's Discrimination B.

- That's bullshit. If those gentile executives really had careers and track records as successful as Eisner and Geffen,

Here you go again. A broken, one-track mind.

- And still you never point out how it's not true.



>If they didn't have careers as lengthy and successful as Eisner and Geffen,

There is nothing distinguished about either Eisner or Geffen. Do you actually KNOW anything about Geffen and how he clawed his way into power? Are you aware of the abortion we now call DISNEY all under the "leadership" of Eisner? Are you aware of the outrageous salaries Eisner was cutting for himself? His actions of unprecedented greed practically wrote the How-to manual for the ENRON executives. If these are your examples of "lengthy and successful" careers, excuse me, but I don't think we're on the same page. Now Michael Ovitz, I will agree -- he was an incredible executive and I believe that the industry, especially Eisner, was not fair to him. I respect Ovitz, but EVEN HE is an example of an OUTSIDER who could not get into one of the top 3 positions of the 7 MPAA studios. And I don't consider his stint as a co-CEO of DISNEY as him having arrived.

- He was a great agent, but a terrible movie executive. Geffen was an incredible executive and talent handler that made more money than any one else in entertainment. That, of course, doesn't mean he's a good person.

Eisner made a ton of money for Disney, but was indiscrimant in other ways. I've never said you shouldn't concentrate on the Enron-like corporate malfeasance, have I?



>Variety is not the proper source for this. Why don't you open you copy of the HCD and list all the Gentile executives in the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

>- Because I said "Jr. executives and producers," the minor leagues from which future top management is selected, and not the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

Fact still remains there are still few Gentile executives in the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

- But that wasn't the point: Variety is the key industry trade, and it reveals the existence of many Gentile Jr. Execs and producers, which is where future top execs come from. You just can't stick to a topic of conversation: you asked me to prove it, I did.

Everything in science is a theory. Even E=mc squared. Stop diluting Barbasi's work when you obviously haven't even read it.

- I read Barbasi's book when he sent me a copy of it, and I interviewed him last July.

Everything in Science is NOT just a theory - some ideas - for example, Special Relativity - have been subjected to carefully conducted tests and found to be accurate. Others, like Mathematical Networking, are still just unproven theories.

That's the process that's referred to as "the scientific method."

Not true. Everyone has heard of the Jewish executives like Geffen and Ovitz because they monopolize the top positions of a MEDIA industry. Duh.

- And, duh, if your hypothesized oppressed Gentile executives had careers that had been as successful as Geffen and Ovitz prior to their ascendancy to their current positions, they would also be equally well-known.

Both Ovitz and Geffen were well-known long before they became the heads of their media companies - that's why they became the heads of their industries: they had the longest and most successful careers in their firms prior to their being named heads of CAA and Dreamworks.

And if there are Gentile execs just as successful and qualified as they, then they should also be just as well known as Geffen and Ovitz were before they became chiefs


>- You have no valid argument: you're trying to make your irrational sophisms look substantial by propping them up with somebody's unproven speculations as an attempt to make yourself look "deep." It's just as ridiculous as your musings on "physics."

Mitchell, I'm an amateur scientist. I read extensively on cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, physics, AI and mathematical systems as applied to networks. I have never claimed to be a professional scientist, but I'm sure I have a wider knowledge of science than you do as you are obviously not very up to date on what's happening. You spend too much time at FIRM (but then I guess the pay must be good, eh?!).

- I have a graduate degree in science, earned when I was 19. I just don't dump it into everything I discuss to prop up invalid arguments with a phony display of pseudo-scholarliness


Movies are considered a type of software just as computer programs are considered software. In fact, actual software runs much of the entertainment industry's product, such as DVDs and video games. So it is just you that are silly.

- Once again, the inappropriateness of the comparison is not that the products are dissimilar, it's that:

1) IBM's loss of market dominance to Microsoft had nothing to do with social networking: it was due to bad marketing strategy, just like the case of Apple, and

2) Companies have no right to be market leader, but do have the right to hire the individuals in their industry with the most seniority to run them.

No what's under discussion is how and why the major studios discriminate in order to maintain their power base.

-We were discussing your stupid concepts of "Discrimnation A" and "Discrimination B," and why your analogy to the Microsoft/IBM situation was inappropriate.

>It also has nothing to do with any putative "right" of IBM's to dominate the software field because they were in it the longest. Companies don't have a right to be a market leader; they do have one to hire CEOs that are legitimately most qualified, and the primary qualification for a CEO is seniority.

Did your dad write that one? What a spin master.

- What's my dad have to do with this, or is this yet another one of your bigoted stereotypes about "Jewish Identity?"

By the way, you still haven't been able to provide any valid counter-argument, other than trying to side-step the question with an ethnic slur.

 

Re(4): Discrimination A and B
Posted on February 3, 2004 at 10:58:15 AM by George Shelps

every single person he came in contact who was involved with handling the scandal was Jewish, from Alan Hirshfield to Herbert Alen on down. See INDECENT EXPOSURE. So whether or not it was his Jewishness one cannot directly say, but one can say that he was in a club that almost in every case had as one of its prime attributes the fact of being Jewish. This is evidence of networking at its best or worst and doesn't look good for Hollywood Jews.

>Perhaps the studio didn't believe he was guilty or that he was productive enough that they didn't care whether or not he was guilty. In case you didn't notice, they also didn't hire another Jewish executive either, did they???

_____Been lurking, but thought I'd comment on the distortion being peddled
about the Begelman affair.

There was significant opposition to keeping Begelman on after his crimes
were discovered. The President of
Colmbia, Alan Hirchfield, was ultimately
fired because of his opposition.

And in the end, they brought in the
non-Jewish Fay Vincent to replace Begelman.

Begelman later turned up at MGM, hired
by onon-Jewish Kirk Kerkorian--and he
was fired from that position as well
in due course.

 

Re(6): Discrimination A and B Cont.
Posted on February 4, 2004 at 04:34:37 PM by James Jaeger

Re(5): Discrimination A and B Cont.
Posted on February 2, 2004 at 00:47:42 AM by Mitchell Levine


- Barbasi's book is hardly a statement of a proven fact, it's a highly speculative theory. It's typical of you not to be able to tell the difference.

Everything in science is a theory, including the scientific method. And Barbasiís book is not as speculative as you are trying to paint it as heís in the tradition of mainstream mathematics, such as Erdos and Renyi. Heís also endorsed by Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief, Science magazine and Mark Granovetter of Stanford University. So I think itís un kind of you to attempt to discredit his fine work by writing it off as a speculative theory. If Barabasi were Jewish, I bet you wouldnít be so quick to invalidate him.


>>I am working on getting that evidence together now. Most executives that have been discriminated against are afraid to talk for fear that the will be blackballed. Thus the scarcity of evidence.

>- If they really had qualifications as extensive and careers as successful as David Geffen and Michael Ovitz, everyone would have heard of them already.

Your response here is spin. I said that "Most executives that have been discriminated against are afraid to talk." Thus they are silent, i.e., we donít see them promoting the fact of their existence. Your statement in reference to Geffen and Ovitz has ignored the fact that no one would "have heard of them already" (i.e., executives discriminated against) because they ARENíT talking. In many ways, especially in the movie industry, discrimination is like being raped, you are hesitant to discuss it openly for fear, once again, of the black listing in Hollywood. Also, people call you a whiner if you speak up. I have been called a whiner endlessly for taking the stand that I have taken. Few are willing to subject themselves to the harassment of the industries apologists and sycophants as John Cones and I have done.

>If they don't have such credits, then they are inferior, and they were legitimately passed over for more qualified candidates, and no "discrimination" occurred.

As I have tried to say many times, many able executives donít get a chance to develop "credits." What you call "experience" in the movie business really boils down to one word: "relationships." If you read POWER TO BURN, the story about Michael Ovitz, you will see how the hiring process in Hollywood actually works. Itís all done within a small network of "insiders" who "relationships" with each other. Itís never done by looking over the "bios" of all the "promising junior executives" and producers in the middle ranks that are mentioned in Variety. Since you have never actually lived in Hollywood nor worked in the movie biz, Mitchell, itís understandable that you have a somewhat academic view of the way things work. When I was working Barry Mahon and Doris Keating before at Columbia Pictures, Barry and I had many conversations about how the industry works. I might mention that Barry was a very close friend and he has seen more of the industry than you or many other will ever see. Barry was good friends with Jack Warner and he managed Errol Flynn for a number of years. Barry was present the day Marilyn Monroe walked in the door. Barry would tell you youíre full of bullshit and that your view of the way the industry works is naive.

>>NBC is not one of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors. FIRM only addresses the MPAA studio/distributors. Thus your example is irrelevant.


>No, your theory of "Discrimination B" is flawed because no one prevent Gentiles from entering the business, and no one is preventing them from entering the business today. No one discriminated against them then and there's no legitimate evidence that anyone is today.

You seem to like that word: PREVENTS. Why do you always attempt to seek safe haven by using that word? "Prevents" makes it look like thereís some ACTIVE methodology. Discrimination in the movie industry is not so blatant. Discrimination in the movie business is much more subtle. The senior executives KNOW that discrimination is illegal. Thus they donít "prevent" anyone from rising to the top. Inhibit might be a better word. They INHIBIT the ascension of non Jewish power. They also "ignore" merit unless it comes out of their circle. Thus they IGNOR the merit of those seeking ascension. The fear is that Jewish interests will be displaced. How do I know this: because in fighting the FIRM fight for 6 years, with hundreds of people all over the Internet, I have EXPERIENCE HEARING THIS COMMON COMPLAINT.

Thus itís not PREVENT. Discrimination B = INHIBIT and IGNOR.

James Jaeger

 

 

Re(7): Discrimination A and B Cont.
Posted on February 5, 2004 at 00:00:29 AM by Mitchell Levine

Everything in science is a theory, including the scientific method.

- The scientific method is not a theory; it's a method. If everything was just a theory, there would be no difference between theories and facts, and there would be no need for the scientific method.

True, today's "fact" can be overturned by a superior theory, but only because that latter theory can be better validated by the scientific method, and explain more of observed experience. That doesn't mean that some ideas can't be better validated than others. If that weren't true, you wouldn't bother to run this site.

And Barbasiís book is not as speculative as you are trying to paint it as heís in the tradition of mainstream mathematics, such as Erdos and Renyi.

- Erdos worked in number theory, so what's that have to do with it??? And just because he "works in the tradition of mainstream mathematics" hardly means that its: a) correct; b) non-speculative, or; c) reasonably applied by you.

Heís also endorsed by Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief, Science magazine and Mark Granovetter of Stanford University. So I think itís un kind of you to attempt to discredit his fine work by writing it off as a speculative theory.

- I'm not discrediting it by referring to it as a "speculative theory," nor am I denying his academic credentials. I'm simply stating that his theory is just that: a theory.

When it's been validated by careful independent exiperiment in peer-reviewed journals, then you'll be justified in referring to it as a scientific fact.


If Barabasi were Jewish, I bet you wouldnít be so quick to invalidate him.

- Of course, you couldn't pass up a chance for a gratuitous ethnic slur. The idea that it's possible to think independently of stereotypes is just anathema to you.

For example, eminently qualified academicians Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, and Stanley Fish either are or were Jewish, and I certainly don't buy into their theories. I don't "invalidate" Barbasi's; I have no idea whether or not they're true, although on principle, I don't believe human behavior can be reduced to a mathematically precise science. I simply don't think you're justified in using them to prop up your arguments when they haven't been proven.


>>I am working on getting that evidence together now. Most executives that have been discriminated against are afraid to talk for fear that the will be blackballed. Thus the scarcity of evidence.

>- If they really had qualifications as extensive and careers as successful as David Geffen and Michael Ovitz, everyone would have heard of them already.

Your response here is spin. I said that "Most executives that have been discriminated against are afraid to talk." Thus they are silent, i.e., we donít see them promoting the fact of their existence. Your statement in reference to Geffen and Ovitz has ignored the fact that no one would "have heard of them already" (i.e., executives discriminated against) because they ARENíT talking.

- Then where's the strings of box-office hits they oversaw, how many top-earning quarters for the studios did they oversee, what famous projects and talents did they develop, etc???


In many ways, especially in the movie industry, discrimination is like being raped, you are hesitant to discuss it openly for fear, once again, of the black listing in Hollywood.

- In Hollywood, if you the qualifications, they speak for themselves. A search on IMDB should be enough to end the argument immediately. If they really have the credentials, they can be instantly verified.

Also, people call you a whiner if you speak up. I have been called a whiner endlessly for taking the stand that I have taken.

- You??? Go on!!!

Few are willing to subject themselves to the harassment of the industries apologists and sycophants as John Cones and I have done.

- "Harassment" is defined by you two as "refutation of your arguments."

>If they don't have such credits, then they are inferior, and they were legitimately passed over for more qualified candidates, and no "discrimination" occurred.

As I have tried to say many times, many able executives donít get a chance to develop "credits."

- Either you can produce hits or you can't. Either you can develop projects that are successful or you can't. Either you can oversee departments and make them successful, or you can't. When you get hired as a Jr. Exec, you get assigned projects, or you seek them out and make them successful. It's that success that builds up the credits to which I refer. Every executive gets the chance to build them; that's why they go t hired in the first place.

What's "unfair" in the abstract sense is that how much money you made doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your individual "merit" even as a producer or executive. It could just be dumb luck. But in the business world, it's who should get hired for CEO, because that's what's most likely to build the business and ultimately the economy.

The ones that end up CEOs are the ones that make the most money and usually are the ones that have been in the business the longest.

What you call "experience" in the movie business really boils down to one word: "relationships."

- Sad to say, son, that's true in every business.

If you read POWER TO BURN, the story about Michael Ovitz, you will see how the hiring process in Hollywood actually works. Itís all done within a small network of "insiders" who "relationships" with each other. Itís never done by looking over the "bios" of all the "promising junior executives" and producers in the middle ranks that are mentioned in Variety.

- Of course not. It doesn't work that way in any business. Those promising Jr. Execs build up buzz by being in Variety and eventually producing hits. They also network within the studios like everyone else. The insiders then try to figure out what's ultimately going to be best for the business and the bottom line. The Boards of Directors of businesses in any other industry don't approach hiring CEOs in the manner you're suggesting either.

Since you have never actually lived in Hollywood nor worked in the movie biz, Mitchell, itís understandable that you have a somewhat academic view of the way things work.

- I certainly have lived in Hollywood for over a year, and work in the movie biz today. I also work as an education editor.

When I was working Barry Mahon and Doris Keating before at Columbia Pictures, Barry and I had many conversations about how the industry works. I might mention that Barry was a very close friend and he has seen more of the industry than you or many other will ever see. Barry was good friends with Jack Warner and he managed Errol Flynn for a number of years. Barry was present the day Marilyn Monroe walked in the door. Barry would tell you youíre full of bullshit and that your view of the way the industry works is naive.

- Oh really? So he admitted to you that he discriminates against non-Jews just because they are non-Jews, or that he knows that others do???

>>NBC is not one of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors. FIRM only addresses the MPAA studio/distributors. Thus your example is irrelevant.


>No, your theory of "Discrimination B" is flawed because no one prevent Gentiles from entering the business, and no one is preventing them from entering the business today. No one discriminated against them then and there's no legitimate evidence that anyone is today.

You seem to like that word: PREVENTS. Why do you always attempt to seek safe haven by using that word? "Prevents" makes it look like thereís some ACTIVE methodology. Discrimination in the movie industry is not so blatant. Discrimination in the movie business is much more subtle. The senior executives KNOW that discrimination is illegal. Thus they donít "prevent" anyone from rising to the top. Inhibit might be a better word. They INHIBIT the ascension of non Jewish power. They also "ignore" merit unless it comes out of their circle. Thus they IGNOR the merit of those seeking ascension.

- There are non-Jewish people in the power base, and the success of non-Jews in the business is evidenced all the time.

You are just buying into your personal bugaboo about "Jewish hegemony." There's no evidence that non-Jews are "inhibited" in any way. When you can produce some, that'll be a different story.

The fear is that Jewish interests will be displaced. How do I know this: because in fighting the FIRM fight for 6 years, with hundreds of people all over the Internet, I have EXPERIENCE HEARING THIS COMMON COMPLAINT.

- From who??? Jenks??? From Jews that tell you if they hire more non-Jews like Faye Vincent as CEOs, they'll insist on firing Jews??? What credible evidence has this produced?

And even if there are Jews that tell you that they personally felt that way, why would you just assume that people in the studios would necessarily share their opinion? Because you believe all Jews think alike? Don't you see how your personal prejudices are informing you???

 

 

Re(8): Discrimination A and B Cont.
Posted on February 5, 2004 at 07:03:23 PM by James Jaeger

>- The scientific method is not a theory; it's a method. If everything was just a theory, there would be no difference between theories and facts, and there would be no need for the scientific method.

No, it's a theory that the scientific methodology works properly. It certainly does in most cases we are able to discern here and now in puny 2004, but there are serious questions as to whether this "method" will provide the longer-term answers.

>True, today's "fact" can be overturned by a superior theory, but only because that latter theory can be better validated by the scientific method, and explain more of observed experience.

I don't think you were really getting what I was saying about the scientific method and how, by its very nature, it provokes the very reality it explores.

>That doesn't mean that some ideas can't be better validated than others. If that weren't true, you wouldn't bother to run this site.

True.

>- I'm not discrediting it by referring to it as a "speculative theory," nor am I denying his academic credentials. I'm simply stating that his theory is just that: a theory.

Okay, but it's a pretty good one as far as I can see. We just disagree on its merits.

>When it's been validated by careful independent exiperiment in peer-reviewed journals, then you'll be justified in referring to it as a scientific fact.

I'm not attempting to do this, I'm simply saying that his theory is very reasonable. It takes no huge leaps of faith to see that it makes sense.

>>Your response here is spin. I said that "Most executives that have been discriminated against are afraid to talk." Thus they are silent, i.e., we donít see them promoting the fact of their existence. Your statement in reference to Geffen and Ovitz has ignored the fact that no one would "have heard of them already" (i.e., executives discriminated against) because they ARENíT talking.

>- Then where's the strings of box-office hits they oversaw, how many top-earning quarters for the studios did they oversee, what famous projects and talents did they develop, etc???

None. Because they never were given a shot at doing these things due to Discrimination B.



>- In Hollywood, if you the qualifications, they speak for themselves. A search on IMDB should be enough to end the argument immediately. If they really have the credentials, they can be instantly verified.

So how many non-Jewish people who have credentials on the IMDB and/or in Variety and/or in the HCD have moved into one of the top three positions in the MPAA studios in the past 5 years? Zip.

>- "Harassment" is defined by you two as "refutation of your arguments."

No harassment is being endlessly called a Nazi and a jack-booted little friend and a German, or idiots, or buffoons, and/or or every other "slur" apologists could throw at me/us.

>>>If they don't have such credits, then they are inferior, and they were legitimately passed over for more qualified candidates, and no "discrimination" occurred.

>>As I have tried to say many times, many able executives donít get a chance to develop "credits."

>- Either you can produce hits or you can't. Either you can develop projects that are successful or you can't. Either you can oversee departments and make them successful, or you can't. When you get hired as a Jr. Exec, you get assigned projects, or you seek them out and make them successful. It's that success that builds up the credits to which I refer. Every executive gets the chance to build them; that's why they go t hired in the first place.

All sounds good in theory, but it simply doesn't seem to be happening, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. But so far you haven't.

>What's "unfair" in the abstract sense is that how much money you made doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your individual "merit" even as a producer or executive. It could just be dumb luck. But in the business world, it's who should get hired for CEO, because that's what's most likely to build the business and ultimately the economy.

An often heard view is that ultimately, what features "work" and make money is pure dumb luck. Much, if not all, of it has to do with the mix of people that are thrown together for each production. If this is true -- and, again, I have heard it said true by many, as well as seen it in print -- then I don't see how "experience" makes much different when a top executive is being hired. What so-called "experience" does a top studio executive need to "pick," "greenlight" a bunch of movies that such picks can't really be provided by anyone, Jew or Gentile? Your whole case is predicated on the idea that, since Jews were here first, they have more experience and thus deserve being hired to the top three positions in the MPAA. This is kind of a bogus premise in light of the idea that "no one can predictably cause success in Hollywood." You know the idea that -- "there's no business like show business." If Hollywood IS basically a crap shoot -- and I have also spoken to MANY investors over the years that feel it is -- what function do your "experienced" executives with "seniority" serve? Any executive, that can manage a pile of beans, should do. The actual physical production process in the movie biz is really not THAT different from most other businesses. Just the raw materials differ. And sure you deal with many intangibles, such as "talent" and "story ideas" -- but in the end making a movie is a manufacturing process, very similar to all other. I have produced many movies and videos and worked on major features over the years so I know this from first hand experience. Technically, running a studio would be easier than producing a given feature, because this game is won by basically delegating the work to executive producers and producers you feel can get the 20- to 30-feature annual slate done each year on time and on budget. And this gets back to why the biz is "relationship-driven," and not "experience-driven" -- because those senior executives pick their trusted friends, more specifically, fellow tribe members, to do the work and they over look all others = Discrimination B. I don't even say that I blame them. I would probably do the same thing, so I'm not saying I'm any better. But when you look at all this from a MACROSCOPIC point of view, it's not healthy for society at the end of the day. And the reason it's not healthy is all the reasons John Cones cites in his books, such as WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD available for free at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm

>The ones that end up CEOs are the ones that make the most money and usually are the ones that have been in the business the longest.

But making the most money is basically a crap shoot, and the crap shoot comes down to relationships.

>>What you call "experience" in the movie business really boils down to one word: "relationships."

>- Sad to say, son, that's true in every business.

So what. Just because it happens in other business doesn't justify it in the movie business. And since the movie industry is probably MORE of a crap shoot than other industries, it's more true that "experience" in the movie business really boils down to "relationships."

>- Of course not. It doesn't work that way in any business. Those promising Jr. Execs build up buzz by being in Variety and eventually producing hits. They also network within the studios like everyone else. The insiders then try to figure out what's ultimately going to be best for the business and the bottom line. The Boards of Directors of businesses in any other industry don't approach hiring CEOs in the manner you're suggesting either.

But most of their 'figuring'is a crap shoot.

>>Since you have never actually lived in Hollywood nor worked in the movie biz, Mitchell, itís understandable that you have a somewhat academic view of the way things work.

>- I certainly have lived in Hollywood for over a year, and work in the movie biz today. I also work as an education editor.

Well I lived and worked there for 11 years and have been dealing with it ever since for a total of 27 years. So one could say I have almost 27 times more experience with Hollywood than you do. Sorry to pull "seniority" on you, son, but as you say -- this is the only valid measure.

>- Oh really? So he admitted to you that he discriminates against non-Jews just because they are non-Jews, or that he knows that others do???

No, I never heard the word Jew come out of Barry's mouth even once. In fact Barry was good friends with the Jewish Warner brothers, especially Jack, and they used to sit around up at Errol's house and drink and party all the time. Barry was told me about the night they sat old John Barrymore up in a chair, after he was dead, and even had a last drink with him.

>>NBC is not one of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors. FIRM only addresses the MPAA studio/distributors. Thus your example is irrelevant.

>>The fear is that Jewish interests will be displaced. How do I know this: because in fighting the FIRM fight for 6 years, with hundreds of people all over the Internet, I have EXPERIENCE HEARING THIS COMMON COMPLAINT.

>- From who??? Jenks??? From Jews that tell you if they hire more non-Jews like Faye Vincent as CEOs, they'll insist on firing Jews??? What credible evidence has this produced?

I have heard this from various Jewish people on the Newsgroups, such as Bob Morine and a Beverly Hills money manager, Stan Nugit. I believe even George Shelps has expressed this concern when he wondered if Cones and I advocated kicking Jews out of the studios for some quota system.

>And even if there are Jews that tell you that they personally felt that way, why would you just assume that people in the studios would necessarily share their opinion? Because you believe all Jews think alike? Don't you see how your personal prejudices are informing you???

I don't know if "all Jews think alike" but if you were watching Bill O'Reilly last night he was interviewing a Jewish pollster and a Black political annalist over the question of why, if the Jewish mean income in the U.S. is 12% HIGHER than the average mean income and the Black mean income in the U.S. is 12% LOWER than the average, WHY do 79% of Jews continue to vote Democratic as 92% of Blacks do? The consensus on THE FACTOR was that, as mean income rises, people in such demographic usually vote Republican. The answer as to why, was that the Jewish voting "block," and yes this term was used repeatedly, votes Democratic because it tends to be secular rather than religious. Thus Jews decry the right wing religious Republicans who they see as threatening to the doctrine of separation of church and state. So they vote Democratic to counter this. Then O'Reilly brought up the idea that many people are concerned about them, implying that they are kind of scary. Given this, O'Reilly and his two guests acknowledged that there was not only a Black and Jewish voting block, but an Evangelical voting block as well and all these were equally polarizing, if not of concern. In this case, they're all talking about VOTING blocks, but many believe that Jews in general act in a monolithic fashion, a general block. I don't know, in all honesty, if this is true, but many believe, and have suggested that it is true and that Jews tend to act more monolithically than other groups. If it is true, it is disconcerting to think the major media and the Hollywood based U.S. motion picture industry are dominated by such a minority block. This is certainly one of the dangers of a lack of diversity at the top, as John Cones and I have been suggesting here at FIRM for almost 6 years.

James Jaeger

 

 

 

Inhibited & Ignored
Posted on February 4, 2004 at 07:16:07 PM by James Jaeger

>- The fact that there is a prevalence of Jews in the industry does NOT prove that they must be illegally keeping out non-Jews just for being non-Jews, any more than the prevalence of Irish in law enforcement that the NYPD refuses to hire anyone else, or that Greeks will only hire other Greeks for positions in shipping.

Again, this use of the phrase, KEEPING OUT is almost identical to your use of the word, PREVENT. As I said in an earlier post, the control group doesnít do anything as crass as PREVENT or KEEP OUT non-Jewish people or interests from the top executive pool. They know this would be illegal, thus they use more subtle means, such means better-described by the words INHIBIT and IGNOR. Thus, Gentile executives are INHIBITED from ascension to power and even when they show management ability, they are IGNORED because they donít have the proper "experience" such experience being defined as RELATIONSHIPS, and these "relationships" are the type of "relationships" that are only/mostly gained through inter-tribal/mural networking. Thus the entrance to power in cabal-ridden Hollywood is INHIBITED by a catch-22: You canít get hired unless you have the proper experience and you canít get the proper experience unless you have been hired or are part of the insider network.

>- They eventually will, quite possibly - if they are interested in going into corporate management instead of making movies. Just producing one successful independent film hardly qualifies you to run a studio, any more than writing a good book necessarily qualifies you to run a publishing house. Creative ability and corporate management skills are two different things. Henry Ford ran Ford Motors and not an engineer.

Youíre such an unrealistic academic Mitch. It makes me laugh. Boy Barry would have had fun with you. He would have said, "You know Mitch, you know what your fuckiní problem is: you think too much and you read too many bullshit books, and you probably went to too many idiot universities." Barry said this to me so many times over the course of the 16 years I knew and worked with him, I took it to heart and realized that what he was saying is, you canít learn it all from books, newspapers and school, you need to infer certain truths directly from life. No one practiced this more courageously than Barry. Barryís bio is at http://www.mecfilms.com/barry.htm in case you want to learn a little about who he was.

>- No it's not - refusing to network with others is bigotry. If that weren't true, then everyone would be a bigot, because everyone tend to befriend those that they have something in common with.

I have a Gentile friend that sought employment in a Jewish-owned jewelry shop. Almost everyone in that store was Jewish, except for two or three employees out of about 30. My friend really wanted to work at this shop so she called and called and stopped by and stopped by. Over and over she was IGNORED. She wasnít KEPT OUT or REFUSED employment, she was IGNORED. Yet, the only other person in the entire company, the PRESIDENT, had credentials as good as hers. She was a GIA certified gemologist and had not only extensive sales experience in three other shops on both coasts, but also had extensive experience designing jewelry that had a 100% batting average of selling. In other words she was HIGHLY QUALIFIED Ė but she was still HIGHLY IGNORED.

Finally, after continuing to persist, the Jewish jewelry store hired her. After they hired her, they complimented her on her persistence. She worked for this store for about three years, selling pieces for as much as $30,000, purchasing stones at the Javiz Center in NYC and designing over 100 original pieces, 100% of which were sold. In other words, she was a perfectly EXPERIENCED and QUALIFIED candidate yet she was IGNORED and INHIBITED from working in this store. At this time this store had two shops and was opening a third shop, thus they were in hiring mode. While my friend was applying, other Jewish people were being hired to work in the new shop and none of these people were more qualified than my friend. My feeling is that she was finally hired for fear that it would look like they were trying to KEEP HER OUT if they persisted with their campaign of IGNORING and INHIBITING a perfectly acceptable candidate.

The above example is not even the movie industry. If it takes this much PUSH for a completely qualified Gentile to get hired in but a Jewish jewelry store, imagine how much push it takes to get hired in a highly sought out, top position in a glamorous movie studio. Mitch youíre whistling Dixie in your theories about how power works in the movie industry.

>- No, you are claiming that those individuals were hired simply for their ethnic status without merit: they had the longest and most successful careers in a business that was unintentionally and vountarily segregated by historical forces.

No, this is NOT what I am arguing. I am NOT saying that they donít have merit or experience. I am NOT saying that the Jewish executives that monopolize the top positions of the studios donít have such Ė I am saying that OTHERS, like my friend in the Jewelry shop, often have just as much experience but are ignored. Discrimination B: they arenít on the psychological list. Maybe there arenít as MANY Gentile studio exec candidates, but thereís certainly enough to produce more diversity than that which can be observed after 90-some years. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>It will take a while before complete diversity is achieved to overcome that. In today's studio world, if you can make them money, you are likely to get a job, otherwise they wouldn't have been promoting the career of a guy whose dad was a card-carrying Nazi official.

And who is this you are referring to? Arnold? Heís an actor. Weíre not talking about actors. He just an employee of the people weíre talking about. The top exec posts positions hardly change their demographic components.

>- They "prescreened" themselves by not entering the business at the appropriate time because it was considered unacceptable as a career by WASP old money.

Well thatís what you say, and it may have been true for certain years, but remember, GENTILES started the business. So technically your argument falls flat. Gentiles were actually in the biz before Jews. By your logic, they should thus be the MOST experienced and thus the most highly employed. But the fact is: a small cabal of Jewish moguls stole the movie camera, hightailed it to Hollywood where they could be close to the Mexican boarder to escape the law, and there the only did business with those they trusted, i.e., other Jews and other outlaws. Thatís how it developed in a nutshell. Question: Why didnít the early Jewish moguls hire the more-experienced Eastern executives that actually started the movie biz? Answer: because they were running from.

>- I'm not subtly wielding it, I'm expressly stipulating it. True, you are not the same kind of vindictive hater as Jenks or Anami, nor are you a despicable person, but that does not mean you aren't remarkably prejudiced and incapable of viewing others in terms of anything but stereotypes.

Mitch, I wish you and I could meet in person sometime because it just isnít true that Iím prejudiced. If someone walks up to me and itís obvious that they are NOT similar to me in ethnic background or religion, I almost always have the consideration that they probably have some form of genius that I do not have simply because they ARE different. I thus love people that are different than me and therefore the only prejudice I might have is I might expect that they are more capable than they may turn out to be (but thatís usually not the case). That said, once one DOES experience a given person, place or thing, generalizations CAN be made. Thus all stereotypes, or generalizations, are NOT incorrect. A stereotype, or generalization is ONLY in accurate, hence possibly destructive, when it is used as a filter PRIOR to observing the actual phenomenon (i.e. the person place or thing). Herein lies, even, the very problem with the scientific method, if I may digress. The scientific method in some ways encourages prejudice. It operates as follows: A. Observe the universe by collecting data; B. Postulate a reason, a theory, a hypothesis, as to WHY something in the observed universe works as it is observed; C. Look for more data to see if the hypothesis holds true; D. If new data is found that does NOT support the hypothesis, the theory, the postulate, dream up a new, hopefully better, hypothesis and repeat steps C Ė D. So hereís why the scientific method encourages prejudice: The universe may be infinite, NOT finite as current theories postulate. Even if the universe is not infinite, it has a large enough data set to provide almost any supporting data that needs to be aligned to any hypothesis or theory homo sapiens can muster, itís simply a matter of looking for it in an infinite, or almost infinite universe. Thus the very idea of a hypothesis is a prejudicial influence in the search for "substantiating" data. So in this sense, I can actually agree with you that Barabasi is speculative, but then so is Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the only factor that qualifies the degree of such speculation is the element of time. Itís only a matter of time before every theory, every postulate, opinion and every law is found to be but the mere speculation of a tiny meat brain huffing and puffing for "truth" while forced down to the surface of some planet in the "middle" of an unfathomable wilderness of space. When views in these terms: who really gives a fuck who controls the movie business! :)

>Anyone who knows me knows that I greatly respect accomplishment and never ask or look to religious background.

- You have to be joking. It's all you talk about.

I said I never look into religious background of those with whom I associate, but obviously since there is a preponderance of evidence that this practice is not universal (no pun intended), I have been forced to "talk about" this on this forum because this discriminatory practice not only threatens my career, but the careers of many others in the movie business. In actual fact, that you would jump to the conclusion that this is Ďall I talk about,í leads me to believe that this is actually your crime, not mine.

>>But I don't respect people that gain success through predatory or unethical means. And if such a person happens to be Jewish, I likewise don't respect them.

>- Well, like George Shelps says, you could possibly criticize their behavior without having to bring up their religion.

I brought this very thing up with John Cones year one of FIRM. I said repeatedly: "John WHY must we mention the idea that the control group has as one of its elements the fact that they are JEWISH. Canít we just drop this? Why is this relevant." John said to me: "To fail to include this highly observable fact in any study in connection with a description of the Hollywood control group would be dishonest."

>>Your favorite word: PREVENTED. You picked up this argument from George Shelps. This is an extremist word which you are using to qualify your argument. By phrasing your argument in a "NO ONE PREVENTED" entry to the MPAA, you are obfuscating the greater issue that NO ONE SEEKS OUT highly qualified Gentile executives. They simply aren't even placed on the list of interview candidates. It's like keeping African Americans off the jury list. It's Discrimination B.

>- That's bullshit. If those gentile executives really had careers and track records as successful as Eisner and Geffen,

Hereís we are back in the catch-22 of this argument.

>>Here you go again. A broken, one-track mind.

>- And still you never point out how it's not true.

I have. Itís a catch-22 argument. We could be here arguing about this same thing forever.

>>>Variety is not the proper source for this. Why don't you open you copy of the HCD and list all the Gentile executives in the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

>>>- Because I said "Jr. executives and producers," the minor leagues from which future top management is selected, and not the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

>>Fact still remains there are still few Gentile executives in the top three positions of the MPAA studio/distributors.

>- But that wasn't the point: Variety is the key industry trade, and it reveals the existence of many Gentile Jr. Execs and producers, which is where future top execs come from. You just can't stick to a topic of conversation: you asked me to prove it, I did.

What future top executives? Show me the Gentile executives that were in Variety 5 years ago as producers and junior executives and that are now employed as either the President & CEO (or the Chairman & CEO), the President of Production or the Chief Operating Officer of one of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors? Give me the list. Why do John and I have to keep proving our thesis to you when all you do is throw around accusations and invalidations at us? You have never done a study or written three books on this subject as John has. Whereís your study? Prove your points are valid by producing your own study. There have never been any studies that refute Coneís work. All we get is (paid) agitators attempting to discredit the proceeds of a valid study by throwing words at it.


>>Everything in science is a theory. Even E=mc squared. Stop diluting Barbasi's work when you obviously haven't even read it.

>- I read Barbasi's book when he sent me a copy of it, and I interviewed him last July.


Okay, tell you what, do you have Barabasiís phone number? I want to contact him and get to the bottom of this. Tell him I want to talk to him and donít poison him by telling him I a bigoted idiot, even if you think it. Iíll even take a conference call with you and he on the line. My number is 800/576-2001. There the call will even be on me.

>>Everything in Science is NOT just a theory - some ideas - for example, Special Relativity - have been subjected to carefully conducted tests and found to be accurate. Others, like Mathematical Networking, are still just unproven theories.

Special Relativity is still JUST a theory. New data in connection with the observable universe published on January 8, 2004, at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society indicate that "the early universe, a couple of billion years after the Big Bang, looks remarkably like the present-day universe." . . . and that "they had found huge elliptical galaxies that formed within one billion to two billion years after the Big Bang, perhaps a couple of billion years earlier than expected.
Advertisement" and that "Some astronomers said the discoveries could challenge a widely accepted picture of the evolution of the universe, that galaxies, clusters and the galactic strings formed in a bottom-up fashion, that the universe's small objects formed first and then clumped together into larger structures over time." "Massive galaxies seem to be forming surprisingly early after the Big Bang," said Dr. Roberto Abraham of the University of Toronto and a co-principal investigator on the team. "It is supposed to take time. The data actually fit better with the views that astronomers held before the rise of the current dark-matter models, when they theorized that the largest galaxies formed first. "If we presented this to astronomers 25 years ago," Dr. Abraham said, "they wouldn't have been surprised."

In other words Mitch, the present day theories can have it wrong: even the Big Bang theory. Donít be so arrogant as to think that any theory, even relativity and quantum mechanics are correct just because they get an excessive amount of promotion.

>- And, duh, if your hypothesized oppressed Gentile executives had careers that had been as successful as Geffen and Ovitz prior to their ascendancy to their current positions, they would also be equally well-known.

Geffen was pulled in as a partner by Spielberg. He wasnít even in the movie business but the music business. Donít you think itís a little strange that Spiebergís
only two partners are both Jewish? Why is that? I would think that if Spielberg wanted to build an international company, at least one of his partners would have been Hispanic or Asian.

>Both Ovitz and Geffen were well-known long before they became the heads of their media companies - that's why they became the heads of their industries: they had the longest and most successful careers in their firms prior to their being named heads of CAA and Dreamworks.

Hey, Geffen was a music man and Ovitz was an agent. Surly these two men were not the MOST QUALIFIED to be MOVIE executives. You gonna tell me that there were NO OTHER Gentile MOVIE executives just as qualified or more qualified, than two Jewish executives WHO WEREíNT EVEN MOVIE EXECUTIVES?! And an agent is very different than studio executive. And so is a music executive. Looks to many as if the only qualification they have to have is that they had to be Jewish. Where were all those producers and junior executive you say are all over Variety? Why werenít THEY hired? Even a production manager is more qualified than an agent and a music man. If the studios concentrated more on hiring properly experienced executives, maybe the cost of movies would not have so ridiculously escalated since the mid 198s from 10 million a picture to over $50 million. Ridiculous. The executives running Hollywood arenít there because they are BETTER qualified, theyíre there because theyíre all in the same cabal and covering for each otherís out ethics.

>And if there are Gentile execs just as successful and qualified as they, then they should also be just as well known as Geffen and Ovitz were before they became chiefs

Horse.


>>- You have no valid argument: you're trying to make your irrational sophisms look substantial by propping them up with somebody's unproven speculations as an attempt to make yourself look "deep." It's just as ridiculous as your musings on "physics."

Horse.


>Mitchell, I'm an amateur scientist. I read extensively on cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, physics, AI and mathematical systems as applied to networks. I have never claimed to be a professional scientist, but I'm sure I have a wider knowledge of science than you do as you are obviously not very up to date on what's happening. You spend too much time at FIRM (but then I guess the pay must be good, eh?!).


>- I have a graduate degree in science, earned when I was 19.

So how old are you now 20?

>I just don't dump it into everything I discuss to prop up invalid arguments with a phony display of pseudo-scholarliness

Mitch, you may be too young to realize this yet, but everything in this world is connected and science is the most valid study because it has been the most civilizing of humanityís endeavors. Even the humanities will some day yield to science, and yes, social networks, and even the stock market, will reveal themselves as emergent properties of something we can understand and even meter. Eventually we will conquer death and eventually, within the next 30 years, humans will not even be the most intelligent creatures in this world. Eventually we will colonize the solar system and then the galaxy. Get used to it dude. Itís all gonna happen faster than you expect too.

>Movies are considered a type of software just as computer programs are considered software. In fact, actual software runs much of the entertainment industry's product, such as DVDs and video games. So it is just you that are silly.

>- Once again, the inappropriateness of the comparison is not that the products are dissimilar, it's that:
1) IBM's loss of market dominance to Microsoft had nothing to do with social networking: it was due to bad marketing strategy, just like the case of Apple, and
2) Companies have no right to be market leader, but do have the right to hire the individuals in their industry with the most seniority to run them.

Mitch youíre acting so dense on this I can hardly believe it. You seem to have a serious problem with cause and effect. Iím not using the term "social networking" as a verb to mean "calling up a lot of dudes on the phone and asking them whatís happening." Iím using the term social network as a noun. A network that is observed to develop after certain nodes and connections are established. Microsoftís ascendance proved that a new network can develop where even an old entrenched network has enjoyed a monopoly before. Unless some force is actively applied to counter this, such as discrimination, the new network can and does take over the old entrenched network. The your argument that the Hollywood Jews are in there till this very day because they were there first is invalid. They are ALSO there because they are playing unfairly.

>-We were discussing your stupid concepts of "Discrimnation A" and "Discrimination B," and why your analogy to the Microsoft/IBM situation was inappropriate.

No it is not. Itís a perfectly valid rebuttal to your argument that seniority is the determining factor of holding power.

>>Did your dad write that one? What a spin master.

>- What's my dad have to do with this, or is this yet another one of your bigoted stereotypes about "Jewish Identity?"

Itís you that are the bigot. You canít tolerate John and I here on the Net expressing the proceeds of our research and views on the movie industry. Why are you here? Why do you feel itís so important for your to protect Jews? Whatís the big deal? Whatís in it for you? If John and I are so wrong, shouldnít it be self-evident? Or do you feel Jews and others are so stupid that they need you out there to tell them what to think?

>By the way, you still haven't been able to provide any valid counter-argument, other than trying to side-step the question with an ethnic slur.

What is an "ethnic slur?"

James Jaeger

 

 

 

 

 

 

Passion & The Holocaust ©
Posted on January 31, 2004 at 07:38:01 PM by LAX

So what's the first thing Mel is forced to affirm in connection with his film?


Gibson: I was 'spiritually bankrupt'

'Passion' producer opens up as film generates unprecedented buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 31, 2004

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Mel Gibson says his upcoming controversial film "The Passion of the Christ" has become a strong force in his life after years of living as a "monster" and "spiritually bankrupt" in the thralls of success.


The producer and director spoke with conservative Catholic columnist Peggy Noonan in an interview to be published in the March issue of Reader's Digest.

Amid accusations of anti-Semitism against him and his father, Noonan asked Gibson to state on the record whether he believed the Holocaust happened, the New York Post reported.

"I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms," he said. "The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

Gibson's father has been accused of questioning the attempted extermination of all Jews by Hitler.

The actor said of his father: "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."

Gibson admitted, according to the Post, his spiritual life is "nowhere complete yet. I'm still so full of flaws."

In the interview, the New York paper said, he spoke of his passion for the new film, the gospel and what he wants to do next ≠ "something light and funny, and nobody'll be angry at me!"

Noonan asked him: "Give me the headline you want to see on the biggest paper in America the day after 'The Passion' opens."

Gibson: "War Ends."

Big buzz

Meanwhile, Jewish leaders continue to lambaste the film as a dangerous slur that could ruin interfaith relations for decades.

Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who posed as a pastor to see a private screening, said Gibson "didn't miss any chance to malign Jews."

But already, church groups are snapping up tickets in unprecedented numbers and planning private showings.

"This is really the highest demand we have seen this far in advance for group sales," Dick Westerling of Regal Entertainment, a major chain, told the New York Daily News.

The New York-based Catholic League bought 1,200 tickets at $9.75 apiece and will make them available to members for $5.

"We could probably sell 10,000 of these tickets," Catholic League President William Donohue told the Daily News. "The reason I'm subsidizing it is to make a point ≠ it's important to see this movie. And it's to drive Mel's critics crazy."

Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., where Gibson hosted the first large-scale screening for pastors in early January, has purchased 18,000 tickets at seven theaters for the first two days the film is out, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

The Evangelical Free Church of Naperville, Ill., near Chicago, which has bought more than 1,000 tickets, already has been showing a trailer for "The Passion" at services, the Chicago paper said. The church plans to host a discussion with biblical scholars Feb. 29 and a six-week series of small-group studies about the film beginning in March, said Rick Pierson, pastor of spiritual life transformation.

Pierson told the Sun-Times church leaders are encouraging members to buy tickets for friends as well as themselves.

"In the kind of world we live in today, people need to come to grips with the reality of who [Jesus] is and why he did offer his life for them as individuals," he said.

At Wheaton Bible Church in suburban Chicago two members have offered to buy out two screenings of "The Passion" at a local theater.

John Mitchell, the church's pastor of evangelism, said: "We're getting involved in this way because we believe that Mel Gibson's movie ä will cause people to ask the most important question of life, which is, 'What was Jesus doing on that cross?'"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read WorldNetDaily's extensive coverage of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

Re(1): Passion & The Holocaust ©
Posted on February 1, 2004 at 07:44:44 PM by James Jaeger

"Gibson will be lucky to get his money back. . ."

-- Mitchell Levine(1)



See :"Re(1): Billy Graham Endorses PASSION" Posted on November 26, 2003 at 03:49:01 PM by Mitchell Levine

Re(2): Passion & The Holocaust ©
Posted on February 2, 2004 at 01:59:21 AM by Mitchell Levine

He will be lucky to get his money back. Losing money is unlucky.

If he had released his film in its original form, and not generated the controversy he wouldn't have gotten jack. The whole thing is probably just a publicity stunt on Mel's part.

I'm looking forward to seeing it myself.