FIRM Discussions

May 23, 2003 - June 5, 2003

---

Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?

---

Re(13): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 01:37:42 PM by Anonymous

No, George, bombing My Lai Hospital is disgusting. Expressing contempt for a politician whom subverted democracy to his own political ends is being an American.

Butterfly ballots, gerrymandering, and using your family's power to racially profile and intimidate is disgusting too. Since Florida election law was violated to take the legitimate title away from Gore, undercutting the popular majority, how was the Florida Supreme Court "out-stepping its bounds" by performing judicial review? That's exactly its function. There's nothing "irrational" about that in the slightest. I'm not the biggest Gore supporter in the world either, but he's certainly an improvement over this idiot.

You honestly believe that Michael Moore is the ONLY one who agrees? You really should get out more. Many other pundits and analysts sustained that reading of the events of November 2000; as people often do, with time, they simply lost interest and went with the political flow. Nothing further could be done, and no one wanted civil war. That doesn't make it right.

Although (based solely on your posts, of course) I respect you as an intelligent man of conviction, George, it looks like we're not going to agree on this one. I guess that's why you're not supposed to publicly discuss religion and politics, and pretty much all we ever discuss is religion and politics.

I will now retreat to my worker's collective and prepare dialectic re-education for the Great Leap Forward of the People's Revolution for Social Justice! UNGOWA!!!!


Re(14): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 07:28:32 PM by George Shelps



No, George, bombing My Lai Hospital is disgusting. Expressing contempt for a politician whom subverted democracy to his own political ends is being an American.

___Except that is a slander as bad as some of JJ's slander of the Jews.

Butterfly ballots,

___Created by a Democrat.

gerrymandering, and using your family's power to racially profile and intimidate is disgusting too. Since Florida election law was violated to take the legitimate title away from Gore, undercutting the popular majority,

___That is false.

how was the Florida Supreme Court "out-stepping its bounds" by performing judicial review? That's exactly its function.

___Wrong. A state court cannot "review"
a constitutional law. The constitution
specifically states that the state
legislatures have the right to set the
terms of Presidential elections. Since
it is a constitutional mandate, only
the Supreme Court may review a Presidential election law.

Which it did.

There's nothing "irrational" about that in the slightest. I'm not the biggest Gore supporter in the world either, but he's certainly an improvement over this idiot.

___Seems like most Americans disagree
with you about Bush.

You honestly believe that Michael Moore is the ONLY one who agrees? You really should get out more. Many other pundits and analysts sustained that reading of the events of November 2000; as people often do, with time, they simply lost interest and went with the political flow. Nothing further could be done, and no one wanted civil war. That doesn't make it right.

____You don't understand the constitution. We don't have popular
election of Presidents.

And we don't count ballots by what
the voter "might" have done. My mother
intended to vote for Bush but she forgot
to send in her absentee ballot. Should
her vote count? And if people can't mark a ballot properly, they don't deserve to have their voted counted.



Re(15): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 09:39:34 PM by Anonymous

As I said, despite my admiration for your character, principles, and knowledge of film, I really don't wish to debate this further, as we are never going to agree.

But, since you seem to insist, I suppose I'll oblige you. The analogy between myself and J.J. is grossly inaccurate: J.J.'s diatribes are expressions of hate and prejudice fueled by ignorant stereotypes directed at an entire ethnicity uniformly as a class. While you might not concur with my reading of the facts, that's at very least exactly what it is - my reading of the facts, and not a manifestation of my prejudice against any particular group, except possibly corrupt politicians, against whom we should all be prejudiced. There is no hatred in my communicated beliefs other than for what I believe is a legitimate subversion of our attempts at self-government. Of course, I'm sure you'll reply, that's what J.J. believes too, but he's an idiot whom is completely incapable of critically evaluating anything.

The fact that a Democrat designed those ballots is irrelevant, and you know it. They weren't created with the intent to defraud, it was a side-effect; but that doesn't change the fact that they still threw the count, and did not meet the applicable legislation. The idea that hundreds of Miami Beach Jews would have voted for Buchanan just certifies the incompetence of the methodology.

What your mother might have done is irrelevant, because forgetting to send your ballot in is voter error. Running a ballot that does not meet the regulations of the election code invalidates the procedure as a matter of law. The fact that it might have been designed by the party whose opponents benefited is completely immaterial. We do not decide the assignment of the most powerful executive office in our nation on that playground-like basis: we have laws that determine what happens, and those election laws were subverted by the Republicans.

The only reason the law was circumvented, and the election allowed to continue was that the Republicans used their influence in the area. It should have triggered a recount, or a new election, but pressure was brought to bear in Jeb Bush's state. A Democrat may have designed the thing, but that doesn't mean that no fraud was committed by the Republicans. Clear legislation existed as to how the situation was supposed to be handled, but because of partisan interference, that law was ignored.

Of course I understand that the Consitution sanctions electoral colleges as the means for presidential selection. The point is not that the popular vote should have been substituted for the electoral, but that the indications of the popular vote, while not technically decisive, still provide evidence that the Bush's manipulation of the process undermined the express will of the people.

Your dismissal out of hand of Dershowitz's arguments as "partisan," only underlines the fact that you have no way of discounting them rationally. Numerous African-Americans reported the various means by which they were denied their voting rights, including harassment by Florida state troopers through racial profiling, road blocks, physical intimidation, and even illegaly extending correctional expungement from voter registration logs to ex-cons charged with misdemeanors, instead of convicted felons only.

Rep. John Sweeney actually led a group of thugs that committed physical assault with the intent to "shut down" the manual recount, even chasing people into elevators by threatening them with violence in Palm Beach. He doesn't even deny it. Furthermore, what the State Supreme was ruling on was not what the law was, but whether the election law could be applied as inconsistently as it was. The fact that several of the high court justices whom eventually ruled had children employed associates in the Bushs' law firm that earned substantial fees (Florida taxpayers were billed $750,000 by just one firm alone) just provides additional confirmation of rampant corruption at work.

What most Americans believe is irrelevant as well. A large majority elected Nixon, condoned McCarthyism and blacklisting, and supported Vietnam for quite some time too.





Re(16): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 23, 2003 at 10:54:11 PM by George Shelps




As I said, despite my admiration for your character, principles, and knowledge of film, I really don't wish to debate this further, as we are never going to agree.

___I regret we had to go into this,too
but you attacked Bush and I am a Bush-admirer. You should have stuck
to the FIRM topics.

But, since you seem to insist, I suppose I'll oblige you. The analogy between myself and J.J. is grossly inaccurate:

___Not completely. He hates a whole
ethnic group, whereas you just
have contempt for the President
of the US and consider him a crook
and a war criminal....I consider both
views to be off-the-wall and irrational
and full of prejudice.


J.J.'s diatribes are expressions of hate and prejudice fueled by ignorant stereotypes directed at an entire ethnicity uniformly as a class.

__True.

While you might not concur with my reading of the facts, that's at very least exactly what it is - my reading of the facts, and not a manifestation of my prejudice against any particular group, except possibly corrupt politicians, against whom we should all be prejudiced. There is no hatred in my communicated beliefs other than for what I believe is a legitimate subversion of our attempts at self-government. Of course, I'm sure you'll reply, that's what J.J. believes too, but he's an idiot whom is completely incapable of critically evaluating anything.

____Yes, but your charge of subversion,
while not motivated by irrational
hatred, is still irresponsible.

The fact that a Democrat designed those ballots is irrelevant, and you know it.

___No, it's relevant---because the
problem was not corruption but
ballot design or stupidity....by
Democrats.

They weren't created with the intent to defraud, it was a side-effect; but that doesn't change the fact that they still threw the count, and did not meet the applicable legislation. The idea that hundreds of Miami Beach Jews would have voted for Buchanan just certifies the incompetence of the methodology.

___I think their age had something to do with the fact that they couldn't figure out a very simple ballot.


What your mother might have done is irrelevant, because forgetting to send your ballot in is voter error. Running a ballot that does not meet the regulations of the election code invalidates the procedure as a matter of law.

___Where's your evidence for that
statement? The ballot was published
in the papers and approved by everyone.

The fact that it might have been designed by the party whose opponents benefited is completely immaterial. We do not decide the assignment of the most powerful executive office in our nation on that playground-like basis: we have laws that determine what happens, and those election laws were subverted by the Republicans.

___Yes, and our ultimate lawgiving
institution is the Supreme Court---which ruled for Bush.

The only reason the law was circumvented, and the election allowed to continue was that the Republicans used their influence in the area.

___They did not. The Florida Supreme
Court was stacked with Democrats and
exerted the maximum of influence.

It should have triggered a recount, or a new election, but pressure was brought to bear in Jeb Bush's state. A Democrat may have designed the thing, but that doesn't mean that no fraud was committed by the Republicans. Clear legislation existed as to how the situation was supposed to be handled, but because of partisan interference, that law was ignored.

___Oh, nonsense. The legislature was
going to send Bush electors to Washington no matter what happened...
they had that constitutional right and they were going to use it.


Of course I understand that the Consitution sanctions electoral colleges as the means for presidential selection. The point is not that the popular vote should have been substituted for the electoral, but that the indications of the popular vote, while not technically decisive, still provide evidence that the Bush's manipulation of the process undermined the express will of the people.

___No, it is not evidence. And
how about the 100% turn-outs in some
urban wards..? Very unlikely. In
Philadelphia, the Democrats have been
stealing elections for decades.

Philadelphia provided the margin of
victory for Gore in PA.



Your dismissal out of hand of Dershowitz's arguments as "partisan,"

__Dersh's partisanship is rampant---when he isn't getting killers off the hook, that is.

only underlines the fact that you have no way of discounting them rationally.

___I discount the basic one that I
remember, that the Florida Court had
the right to extend the certification
deadline---which it did in a clear
attempt to steal the election for Gore


Numerous African-Americans reported the various means by which they were denied their voting rights, including harassment by Florida state troopers through racial profiling, road blocks, physical intimidation, and even illegaly extending correctional expungement from voter registration logs to ex-cons charged with misdemeanors, instead of convicted felons only.

___All allegations.

Rep. John Sweeney actually led a group of thugs that committed physical assault with the intent to "shut down" the manual recount, even chasing people into elevators by threatening them with violence in Palm Beach. He doesn't even deny it.

__Actually, I thought that was the moment when I knew the GOP was not going to allow the Democrats to steal another
election.

Furthermore, what the State Supreme was ruling on was not what the law was, but whether the election law could be applied as inconsistently as it was.

___No, it tampered with the ruling of
the state legislature, which it had
not the authority to do in the matter of
Presidential elections.

The fact that several of the high court justices whom eventually ruled had children employed associates in the Bushs' law firm that earned substantial fees (Florida taxpayers were billed $750,000 by just one firm alone) just provides additional confirmation of rampant corruption at work.

__Irrelevant. And the Bushes are
not lawyers (W is an MBA) so what
"firm" are you talking about?

What most Americans believe is irrelevant as well.

___Oh, really? And you're the one
who's squawking about frustrating
the will of the people in Florida!

A large majority elected Nixon, condoned McCarthyism and blacklisting, and supported Vietnam for quite some time too.

___All different matters.


Re(17): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 01:44:17 AM by mg

This is amusing: locked in a room for a week, Levine the leftie Jew and Shelps the Republican Christian Zionist would soon be at each other's throats on a thousand issues, discovering they loathe each other completely.




Re(18): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 02:59:55 AM by George Shelps



This is amusing: locked in a room for a week, Levine the leftie Jew and Shelps the Republican Christian Zionist would soon be at each other's throats on a thousand issues, discovering they loathe each other completely.

__Stop snickering. Despite our vast
differences, we both respect the Jewish
faith and people and consider you the
scum of the earth.




Re(19): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 11:23:54 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Stop snickering. Despite our vast differences, we both respect the Jewish faith and people and consider you the scum of the earth.

RESPONSE: Exchanges with you two are pretty much good for comic relief for the day.

So Levine, the Leftie Jew, and Shelps, the conservative Christian, unite to shout epithets at those who dare to point out the poignant issues of modern Jewish hegemony.

Shelps, in his own interpretation of his Christian faith, exemplifies the problem succinctly: he cannot express any rational thoughts on the subject of Judeocentrism because -- via his interpretation of his Christian faith --he is welded to Judeocentrism at the very bone.


Re(20): The Jewish Cabal around the Hitler Mini-series Do The Major Studios Discriminate In The
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 11:33:23 AM by Anonymous



YOU SAY: Stop snickering. Despite our vast differences, we both respect the Jewish faith and people and consider you the scum of the earth.

RESPONSE: Exchanges with you two are pretty much good for comic relief for the day.

___Then why bother?


So Levine, the Leftie Jew, and Shelps, the conservative Christian, unite to shout epithets at those who dare to point out the poignant issues of modern Jewish hegemony.

___Because you're not doing that.

You're demonizing Jews and selecting
everything negative you can find to
back that up.

That's the same thing that Southern
Klansmen did to blacks.


Shelps, in his own interpretation of his Christian faith, exemplifies the problem succinctly: he cannot express any rational thoughts on the subject of Judeocentrism

___Ethnocentrism is commonplace. It is
not restricted to Jews.

because -- via his interpretation of his Christian faith --he is welded to Judeocentrism at the very bone.

___Jesus was a Jew. His mother was
a Jew. He quoted Jewish scripture.
He claimed that he was the Jewish
Messiah, the King of the Jews. The
Romans wrote it on the cross.

An attack on Jews is an attack on
Christ. Period.





Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 21, 2003 at 00:19:14 AM by James Jaeger

From time to time I get criticized for complaining about Hollywood (FIRM) and not doing enough to try and improve things (MEC) -- or build a more competitive paradigm/company/situation/mousetrap.

For those of you who feel this way, I have posted a copy of MONEY MATTERS which I was recently on(1). If you care to watch the show, you will see some of my efforts to DO something about Hollywood rather than just criticize it.

A 27-minute broadband version of the show is at http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/movies/mm_jrj2.wmv and a 56K dial-up version is at http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/movies/mm_jrj1.wmv. I'm being interviewed by a stock broker with Merrill Lynch and a money manager with Devon Financial Group. Constructive criticism welcome.

James Jaeger

------------------
(1) I was on MONEY MATTERS last year so this new show should not to be confused with that one. Also see a related show with one of our partnering companies, Patrick McShane of ICDC Wireless.com, at http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/movies/mm_icdc2.wmv





Re(1): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 22, 2003 at 04:53:24 AM by Mitchell Levine

Great show, Jim, but don't you think you should have warned us that the opening seg was THE MOST BORING THING EVER FILMED?!!!!

Good work going five minutes without talking about Jews!



Re(2): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 03:35:56 PM by James Jaeger

>Great show, Jim, but don't you think you should have warned us that the opening seg was THE MOST BORING THING EVER FILMED?!!!!

Sorry, but I didn't have any control over the show. I found what Dave and Mike were saying to be very interesting. But then maybe you're just not interested in the subject of investing.

>Good work going five minutes without talking about Jews!

I guess that's a real compliment coming from you Mitchell. Thanks. :)

James


Re(3): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 04:28:47 PM by Mitchell Levine

Fair enough!








Re(2): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 01:34:32 AM by mg

YOU TOO! (?)

Whoops! YOU can't go a sentence without stating the "J" word.





Re(3): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 09:50:05 PM by Mitchell Levine

Like YOU"RE one to talk, Jenks?!!!



Re(3): Not Just Complaining
Posted on May 24, 2003 at 01:53:58 PM by Anonymous

Like YOU"RE someone to talk?!!!





Jews Cause "Anti-Semitism"
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 00:49:49 AM by Moishe the Goyim

Jews systematically mystify hostility to Jewish racism and chauvinism as "anti-Semitism." Below is an Israeli who has the guts to admit that Jews CAUSE anti-Semitism, the same way they're causing it in Hollywood: omnipresent Jewish subversion of the non-Jewish status quo.


http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=12796&intcategoryid=5

No matter its origins, anti-Semitism, like any disease, needs to be fought,
By Hillel Halkin, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 20, 2003

"When we ask ourselves whether anti-Semitism is essentially one
thing or many, just as when we ask ourselves whether or how it will
cease — when we ask, in other words, what must change to make it cease
— are we not really asking whether the real cause of anti-Semitism is
to be found in the Jews or in the world? Before anyone protests that
even to inquire whether the Jews might be the cause of anti-Semitism
is an abject capitulation to the anti-Semites, I would remind you that
the belief that they are the cause of it has been traditionally shared
by anti-Semites with Jews. Why are the Jews like the fruit of the olive tree? ask the rabbis in the Midrash. 'Because,' they answer, 'as all liquids mix with each other, but the oil of the olive does not, so Israel does not mix with the Gentiles . . . And as the olive does not yield its oil unless it is crushed, so Israel does not return to God unless it is crushed by affliction.' Being chosen and set apart exacts a double
price. It makes an envious and indignant world persecute the Jews and
it makes a pedagogical God allow this to happen. Historically, this
is the normative Jewish point of view. Classical Zionism, too, viewed
the Jews as the cause of anti-Semitism ...

Zionism understood the Jews’
misfortunes differently from rabbinic Judaism, which made it more optimistic
about overcoming them. And yet there is in all self-blame a peculiar sort of optimism that helps to explain why, starting with the biblical prophets, there has been so much of it among Jews; for if you are the cause of your own suffering, you have the ability to rectify it, as you do not if it is caused by something or someone outside you ...

If anti-Semitism has a single cause — the Jews — it is a dragon that can
be slain. If it has many causes — as many as the world has fears, hatreds
and phobias — it is a hydra: Cut off one head and it will grow another.
Is that, then, what we are asking when we ask whether the new anti-Semitism
is or is not just the old one all over again: whether we are fighting
a dragon or a hydra? ...

[A. B.] Yehoshua is writing a book, too. In it he maintains that the ultimate reason for anti-Semitism is the Jews themselves. Although
this does not, needless to say, excuse or justify prejudice against
them, the Jews have throughout their history, Yehoshua believes,
baffled and exasperated the world. They have done this by taking two ideas that were their contribution to civilization and by which civilization subsequently organized itself — the idea of monotheistic universalism and the idea of national particularism — and fusing them in a way that has subverted both, thus ironically making them in the world’s eyes the symbolic enemy of humanity and of the nation alike. It is this fusion, or confusion, Yehoshua argues, that has enabled the Arab
states to turn a political and territorial conflict with Israel into
a successful anti-Semitic campaign, since Israel’s failure to distinguish
clearly between religion and nationality — that is, between Jewishness and Israeliness — makes it an anomaly among democracies and exposes it to charges of racism and discrimination."



Re(1): Jews Cause
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 01:23:56 AM by Mitchell Levine

Jenks, yet another example of your boundless intellect!

Next, you can expand the conceptual base of your ground-breaking theory to tell us how Blacks cause racism, gays cause bashing, and housewives make their alcoholic, red-neck husbands beat them!


Re(2): Jews Cause
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 01:43:15 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Jenks, yet another example of your boundless intellect!

RESPONSE: Alas, the "intellect" you defame is that of an Israeli Jew. Go call the Israeli author an "anti-Semite" for laying blame where blame should be: on Jewish racism, chauvinism, and ethnocentrism.

YOU SAY: Next, you can expand the conceptual base of your ground-breaking theory to tell us how Blacks cause racism, gays cause bashing, and housewives make their alcoholic, red-neck husbands beat them!

RESPONSE: You did not read the article posted, nor do you care about any facts that counter your precious illusions.

Your secular Jewish "religion" is exposed here: you believe -- like most Jews -- that all of the historical hostility against Jews (across class, geography, and history) has no basis in factual reality.

You live in a dream world. The problem is that this Jewish dream world controls way too much of modern reality.




Re(2): Jews Cause
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 01:48:27 AM by Mitchell Levine

And then, of course, you'll sequel your masterstroke of exegesis with an explanation of how racism, gay-bashing, and housewives being beaten by their alcoholic, redneck husbands are actually the fault of Jews!




Re(3): Jews Cause
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 11:20:53 AM by George Shelps

Your secular Jewish "religion" is exposed here: you believe -- like most Jews -- that all of the historical hostility against Jews (across class, geography, and history) has no basis in factual reality.

___Like most bigots, you miss the
point.

Even there was some justification for
hostility, that doesn't mean you defame, persecute and kill a group. You are
attempting justify all three of these
evils.

What did the Jews do to justify the
Roman conquest of your country? They
were expelled from their land and Jerusalem was decimated and thus began
their long history of wandering. There
was no justification for this, they
were fighting for their freedom against
the tyranny of Rome.

Being a country-less people in exile
automatically put them at odds with
a world dominated by another religious
faith. Conflict was inevitable.




What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, Part 1
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 10:21:47 PM by Moishe the Goyim

What you won't see in the Hitler mini-series, part 1:

Pre-Nazi Germany is yet another of the dramatic examples of the rise of Jewish economic influence and control in European countries, in this case violently ended by the Nazi destruction of German Jewry. Jews numbered at most about one per cent of the German population between 1871 and 1933, and this percentage had been steadily declining [GORDON, p. 8] but by the end of the eighteenth century, "a high proportion of the landed and liquid wealth in Prussia was in the hands of either nobles or Jews." [HERTZ, p. 36] By 1908, 12 of the 20 richest Berliners were of Jewish ancestry, as were 11 of the 25 richest people in Prussia. [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 208] Of the top 200 Prussian millionaires, 55 were Jewish. Of the top 800, 190 were of Jewish extraction. [MOSSE, p. 30] 41% of Prussian iron and scrap iron firms, and 57% of other metal businesses were owned by Jews. [GORDON, p. 11] Although Jews in 1903 were only 0.74% of the labor force in Prussia, 27% of all Prussian lawyers were Jews, as were 10% of apprenticed lawyers, 47% of magistrates, and 30% of all higher ranks of the judiciary. [GORDON, p. 13]

By the 1930s, 46% of German Jews were self-employed. [KOTKIN, p. 43] In 1932, six million Germans were unemployed. [RUBENSTEIN, R.L., p. 117] In the town of Sonderburg, in the Rhineland area of Germany, "of the five largest employers, two were Jewish firms; in one case, the Jewish-owned mill employed hundreds of Gentile workers -- as many as 20 percent of the working adult labor force. In a very real sense, the Gentile community depended on Jews for employment and for retail goods." [HENRY, F., p. 52]

Gentile fortunes in Germany and its environs were based in landownership and agriculture; Jewish fortunes were founded upon banking and finance. [MOSSE p. 206] In Berlin, by the eighteenth century, "the income of Jews in the middle of the Jewish tax scale would be about three times higher than the average Berliner. The middle of the Jewish tax scale would thus be approximately equal to the top ten per cent of Berlin households." [LOWENSTEIN] The average income of Jews in pre-Nazi Germany was 3.2 times higher than the rest of the population. [NIEWYK, p. 16] "At the end of the eighteenth century 400 Jewish families formed one of the wealthiest groups in Berlin ... In Bavaria, in 1808, 80% of government loans were endorsed and negotiated by Jews." [ARENDT, p. 17] By 1914 the Jews of Berlin -- 5 per cent of that city's population -- paid over a third of its taxes [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 13] and there were "a large number of domestic servants in the two most important Jewish areas of Berlin during the 1920's." [GORDON, p. 15]

In 1923, 150 of the 161 privately-owned banks in Berlin were Jewish; [GORDON, p. 11] "In Berlin alone," notes Jewish author Edwin Black, "about 75% of the attorneys, and nearly as many doctors, were Jewish." [BLACK, p. 58] "All the major Berlin department stores -- Wertheim, Herman Tietz, N. Israel, KaDeWe," says Jewish author Peter Wyden, "were the properties of Jews. All the principal newspaper publishers and thirteen of the drama critics were Jews. Garment manufacturing, a major industry, was generally known to be in Jewish hands." [WYDEN, p. 21] "In Germany," says Nachum Gidal, "Jews above all developed the setting up of department stores, the manufacture and ready-made ladies and gentlemen's clothing, the tobacco, leather, and fur industries and the new film industry." [GIDAL, p. 17]

By 1823, the Bavarian government owed 23% of its public debt to Jews; as early as 1818, there was growing complaint about excessive Jewish influence in Germany. One German writer, Garlieb Merkel, noted that while the "German peoples had, in many years of political disaster lost their precious political rights and had diminished in stature, [Jews] had increased their wealth at a terrifying rate. They knew how gain equality with Christians everywhere and they zealously set about developing this equality into further privileges." "This statement of Merkel has some truth in it," says scholar Jacob Katz, "Jews had exploited, economically and socially, the new status they had achieved in the past generation." [KATZ, From, p. 94] With formal emancipation, the Jews of Berlin, complained Merkel, "now bought up every house afforded for sale in the main streets and filled the cities with their shops. The Jews had long dominated in financial deals and trade in bills. Now they led in occupations such as the book trade ... Almost all the country homes on both sides of the Tiergarten, the Berliners only place of recreation, had passed into Jewish hands ... The Jews has made their gains at the expense of other citizens." [KATZ, From, p. 94-95]

The Jewish-French intellectual, Bernard Lazare, noted in 1894 that:

"In Germany [Jewish] activity was exceedingly great. They were at the
bottom of legislation favourable to the carrying on of banking and
exchange, the practice of usury and speculation. It was they who profited
by the abolition, in 1867, of the ancient laws limiting the rate of interest.
They were active in bringing about the enactment of the law of June
1870, which exempted stock companies from government supervision.
After the Franco-German War, they were among the boldest speculators,
and at a time when German capitalists were carried away by a passion for
the creation of industrial combinations, they acted a no less important
part than had the Jews of France, from 1830 to 1848. Their activity
persisted until the financial panic of 1873, when the country squires and
the small traders who had been ruined by the excesses of this Grunder
Periode in which the Jew had played the most important part, gave
themselves up to the most violent anti-Semitism, such, indeed, as
proceeds only from injured interests." [LAZARE, p. 166]

With the rise of consolidated corporations in the late 1800's and early 1900's, says W. E. Mosse, a Jewish scholar, "a picture emerges of a number of [German] companies with significant Jewish representation in the top positions, which constitutes something of a network with certain common features and common interests." [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 219] For those men with "multiple board memberships" in a variety of major companies, 18 men had more than 21 board positions each. Of these 18, 10 were Jewish. [MOSSE, p. 257] "The distribution of these Jewish board members among major companies shows a distinctive interlocking pattern." [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 253]




Part 2
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 10:22:59 PM by mg

This typical business formulation had been evidenced in the German elite some years earlier when Jews tried to gain acceptance into Masonic lodges. Jacob Katz notes that

"Members of the lodge were expected to communicate with each other
on equal footing. Jews, so the complaint ran, tended to cluster together
whenever they appeared in the lodge, creating a subgroup, a clique.
Similar observances were made in other quarters as well. I do not think
this accusation was a figment of their imagination with no basis in fact.
Jewish historical experience, as well as Jewish concepts and practices,
created a mentality functioning as a factor of cohesion among Jews and
thereby as a barrier between them and non-Jews." [KATZ, RoGH, p. 5]

Many German Jews were known to have, at least officially, converted to Christianity. Like the Spanish Marranos, this was often merely expeditious. As the German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine observed, baptism was "the ticket of admission into German culture." [VARON, p. 10] Heine himself, notes Nahum Goldmann, "was a very good Jew at the end of his life and [his] conversion to Christianity was only a formality." [GOLDMANN, N., 1978, p. 66] Popular German Jewish author Emil (born Cohen) Ludwig's "conversion to Christianity had been merely an effort to buy the respect of Germans." [MOSSE, G., 1985, p. 26] "Often one submitted [to baptism]," notes Adam Weisberger, "as an opportunistic matter of convenience ... A Jewish origin was a handicap but one which baptism could remedy." [WEISBERGER, A., 1997, p. 48] (Even in America, noted James Yaffe, reflecting a theme, "Serge Koussevitzky, Eugene Ormandy, and Pierre Monteux, all Jews, had to convert to Christianity in order to reach the top of the symphony world.") [YAFFE, J., 1968, p. 52]

Even among the wealthy assimilationists to German society in the Jewish communities "mixed marriages were the exception rather than the rule and the Jews continued to live a life apart. They interacted with non-Jews in their professional lives, but very seldom in private." [TRAVERSO, p. 15] This model even parallels the wealthy German-Jewish situation in the United States in the same era: "The social solidarity [in America] was no way better exemplified and furthered than by the tendency -- common to all unified elite -- to intermarry ... [SUPPLE, p. 80] ... German-Jewish investment banking [in the U. S.] in the late 19th century ... was ... based upon the proliferation of kinship groups ... it seems possible to say that the German-Jewish groups had a strategic role to play in the providing of capital from Germany for American industrial development." [SUPPLE, p. 84-85] By 1937 nine of America's richest 60 families were Jewish, including the Guggenheims, Lehmans, Warburgs, Kahns, Schiffs, Blumenthals, Friedsams, Rosenwalds, and Baruchs. [GOLDSTEIN, D. p. 101] Stephen Birmingham notes that the insularity of the wealthy Jewish strata in America: "For forty-five years after its founding in 1867, Kuhn, Loeb, and Company had no partners who were not related by blood or marriage to the Loeb-Kuhn-Wolff family complex. For nearly fifty years after Goldman, Sachs was founded, all partners were members of the intermarried Goldman and Sachs family. The Lehmans hardly seemed to need intermarriage at all: until 1924, nearly 75 years after the firm was founded, all the partners were named Lehman." [BIRMINGHAM, p. 9-10]

By 1907-08 Jews had a conspicuous presence in the corporate sector of the German economy. Despite representing only one per cent of the German population, 20 per cent of the largest companies had a "substantial" Jewish involvement. A further 16 per cent had "significant' Jewish management. [MOSSE, W., 1987, p. 273] Examing the very largest companies, W. E. Mosse notes that over two-thirds of such firms had a "significant Jewish component." Of the most powerful corporate organizations in Germany, only 7.7 per cent were "without some degree of Jewish participation." [MOSSE, p. 273, 274] In 1913, fifteen Jews held 211seats on boards of German banks; by 1928 this number was 718. In that same year Jews represented 80% of the leading members of the Berlin stock exchange. Five years later the Nazis expelled 85% of all stockbrokers because of "race." [GORDON, p. 12]

In the pre-World War II Weimar Republic of Germany that fell to the Nazis, 11% of Germany's doctors were Jews, and 16% of its lawyers. [MOSSE, p. 26] By 1909-10, about one-fourth of the teachers at German universities were of Jewish descent. [GORDON, p. 13] As elsewhere, an expediential prerequisite for advancement was at least superficial conversion to Christianity. "Those who were baptized," says Nachum Gidal, "were then eligible to be appointed to professional chairs." [GIDAL, p. 17] "In the spring of 1933," notes Anthony Heilbut, "Hitler shocked the world by dismissing from their jobs the titans of German scholarship, the vast majority of whom were Jewish." [HEILBUT, p. 23] (Adolf Hitler's family doctor had been Jewish. Hitler's sister was even once employed by the Mensa Academica Judaica in Vienna. Hitler was awarded a medal of honor for his deeds in Wold War I; the award was reportedly expedited by a Jewish army officer, Hugo Gutmann.) [GOLDBERG, M., 1976, p. 38-39]

Almost 80% of department and chain store business in pre-war Germany were Jewish, 40% of wholesale textile firms, and 60% of the wholesale and retail clothing business. By 1895, 56% of German Jews were involved in commerce; correspondingly, only 10% of non-Jewish Germans were in this field. [TRAVERSO, p.15] By the 1930s, Jews controlled 90% of the world's fur trade, reflected in an important yearly auction in Leipzig. [BLACK, p. 131] "Jews were also important in the wholesale metal business and retail grocery business." In Upper Silesia more than half of the local industry -- coal, iron, steel, petroleum, et al -- was owned or directed by Jews before 1933. [NIEWYK, p. 13-14] "The coal and iron industry of Upper Silesia," says Sidney Osborne, "-- the second largest in Germany -- was almost the exclusive creation of a handful of Jews." [OSBORNE, S., 1939, p. 18]

This area included the Jewish-owned iron company owned by Mortiz Friedlander, Sinai Levy and David Lowenfeld; the "well-known iron and steel works, Bismarkshutte" which was founded by two Jewish merchants; an "extensive iron pipe and tube works" owned by Mortiz Hahn and Simon Huldschinsky; the Upper Silesian Iron Industry (with branches Tubenhutte and Baildonhutte); "one of the largest enamel works" in Germany; Ferrum, and iron and steel firm; the Upper Silesian Zinc Foundries company; the "coke-oven industry Gluckauf; the Upper Silesian Coke and Chemical Works; and coal mining (Otto Friedlander). [OSBORNE, S., 1939, p. 18] "Other important industries in Jewish hands," adds Sidney Osborne,

"were leather, textiles, and cigarette factories, the Portland cement and
lime industry, and important iron and lumber interests. This account
of Jewish enterprise in Upper Silesia is given with some particularity
because it was more or less typical of what was going on in other
industrial regions of Germany." [OSBORNE, S., 1939, p. 19]



Re(1): Part 3
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 10:24:16 PM by mg

]

"The Hirsch copper works in Halberstadt ...," notes Nachum Gidal, "[became] the most important copper and brass works in Europe. The works was still owned by the Orthodox family until 1933. In the basic materials industry, Fritz von Friedlander-Fuld (1858-1917) was outstanding with his Silesian enterprises ... [comprising] a group of major firms. Friedlander-Fuld was responsible for building up the coke industry in Germany ... Closely linked with the coke industry was the petroleum industry, led by general director M. Melamid ... The founder of the Silesian iron industry (Caro-Hegenschedt) was George von Caro ... His brother Oskar Caro ... is regarded as the founder of the German enamel industry. Mortiz von der Porten ... spearheaded the aluminum sector in Germany." [GIDAL, p. 266] Wilhelm Von Gutmann's Gebruder Gutmann Industries "was the largest single factor in the coal industry of the Austro-Hungarian empire." [GREENBERG, M., p. 70] Philip Rosenthal founded "the most famous porcelain factory in Selb in Bavaria." [GIDAL, p. 267] Albert Balin "played an outstanding part in the building up of the German merchant fleet ... Under his guidance [the Hamburg-America line] developed into Europe's leading shipping company." Walter Rathenau was president of the "Siemens works, the largest electricity company in Germany." [GIDAL, p. 266-268]

In the 1930s, notes Ian Kershaw, during Nazi efforts to politicize the German peasants against Jews in the Alzenau district,

"Jewish-owned cigar factories dominated local industry ... Jews in fact
owned most of the twenty-nine factories, with a combined work force
of 2,206 women and 280 men ... In the countryside ... the main issue
was the remaining dominance in many areas of the Jewish cattle
dealer, the traditional middle-man and purveyor of credit for untold
numbers of German peasants ... [As late as 1935,] the wholesale
cattle trade in Ebermannstadt was ... still 'to a good ninety percent'
in Jewish hands." [KERSHAW, p. 241-242]

Jews were likewise dramatically over-represented in every sphere of academic enterprise, from philosophy to science. "Jews were also the most influential critics of drama, art, music, and books as well as the owners of the most important art galleries and theatres." [GOLDBERG, p. 26] In the Berlin of 1930, 80% of the theatre directors were Jewish and they authored 75% of the produced plays. [MACDONALD, p. 125] Many prominent actors, actresses, and moviemakers were Jewish. Some Jewish scholars, like Walter Laquer, have even went so far as to claim that without Jewish influence the culture of the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic "would not have existed." [TRAVERSO, p. 12] "Jews," says Laqueur, "were prominent among Expressionist poets, among the novelists of the 1920's, among the theatrical producers and, for a while, among the leading figures of cinema." [LAQUER, p. 73] "Jewish names," notes Nachum Gidal, "were numerous among the pioneers of film and the film industry," [GIDAL, p. 370] including Paul Davidson and Herman Fellner who founded "the first German film company." [GIDAL, p. 370]

Frederick Grunfeld romanticizes the Jewish road from an economic base to enormous influence upon German popular culture:

"The shoe-factory generation regularly produced and nurtured a brood of
scribes, artists, intellectuals. Else Lasker-Schuler was the daughter of an
investment banker, Carl Sternheim the son of a banker and newspaper
publisher, Walter Benjaim of an antique dealer, Alfred Neumann of a lumber
merchant, Stefan Zweig of a textile manufacturer, Franz Kafka of a
haberdashery wholesaler, Herman Bloch of a cotton-mill owner; Theodore
Lessing and Walter Hasenclver were sons of doctors and grandsons of
manufacturers, and so on, in an orderly and predictable procession from
the department store into the library, the theatre and the concert hall. " [GRUNFELD,
F., 1996, p. 28-29]

Most of the members of the famously influential "Frankfurt School" of politics, philosophy, and culture were also Jewish -- Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, and many others. Frederick Grunfeld argues that these people did not really experience anti-Semitism in pre-Nazi Germany. Why? "All of these privileged witnesses ... came from well-to-do families of the upper middle class, for whom money had always been a talisman against the cruder forms of prejudice." [GRUNFELD, F., 1996, p. 17]


Although such people were from affluent families, socialism and communism were often the worldviews they championed. "What today we are apt to call Weimar culture," notes Jewish scholar Werner Mosse, "was largely the creation of left-wing intellectuals, among whom there was such a disproportionate number of Jews that Weimar culture has been called, somewhat snidely, an internal Jewish dialogue." [MOSSE, W., 1985, p. 22] "In twentieth century Germany where the Jews formed less than one percent of the nation's population," observes Istvan Deak,

"Jews were responsible for a great part of German culture. The
owners of three of Germany's greatest newspaper houses; the editors
of the Vossiche Zeitung and Berliner Tagleblatt; most book publishers;
the owners and editors of the Neue Rundschau and other distinguished
literary magazines; the owners of Germany's greatest art galleries were
all Jews. Jews played a major part in theatre and in the film industry as
producers, directors, and actors. Many of Germany's best composers,
musicians, artists, sculptors, and architects were Jews. Their
participation in literary criticism and in literature were enormous:
practically all the great critics and many novelists, poets, dramatists,
and essayists of the Weimer Republic were Jews ... If cultural
contributions by Jews were far out of proportion to their numerical
strength, their participation in left-wing intellectual activities were
even more disproportionate." [DEAK, p. 28]

By the 1920s German critics like Theodore Fritsch, Hans Blucher, and Adolf Bartel were influential in the growing German complaint that German culture was dominated by Jews. [TRAVERSO] A German Jew, Moritz Goldstein, had poured fuel on the issue of Jewish dominance by writing a much-discussed article in 1913 in which he wrote that Jews essentially ran German culture, from an almost complete monopoly of Berlin newspapers and dominance of German theatre, music, and literature. [LAQUER, p. 74] "German cultural life seems to be passing increasingly into Jewish hands," Goldstein wrote, "... We Jews are administering the spiritual property of a nation which denies us our right and our ability to do so." [GRUNFELD, F., 1996, p. 21] Even in the nineteenth century the German composer, and nationalist, Richard Wagner, was horrified to realize the large number of Jews in his audiences, as well as in the receptions for him afterward. [TRAVERSO, p. 12]


Re(2): Part 4
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 10:25:16 PM by mg

Although Jews, as 1% of the German population, represented a negligible electoral power, by the early twentieth century their economic and social impact was considerable in the political sphere. Jewish-funded lawyers, for instance, were instrumental in securing fines against, or jail terms, for right wing politicians, often for disorderly conduct charges or libel. [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 27] Even "the police commissioner of Berlin during part of the period of Nazi agitation for power was a Jew, Dr. Bernhard Weiss." [GOLDBERG, M. H. 1979, p. 121] "In 1933," says Anthony Heilbut, "[Jews] were only five hundred thousand of Germany's sixty-four million people, and one-third of these lived in Berlin. Jews had infiltrated many areas of German life, particularly the media, through the newspapers they owned and edited, as well as the movies they wrote and produced." [HEILBUT, p. 25] Before World War I, two of the most important German newspapers -- the National-Zeitung of Berlin and the Franfurter Zeitung -- were owned and edited by Jews. [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 25] 13 of 21 daily newspapers in Berlin in the 1870's were Jewish-owned, among them the only three that focused on political satire. [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 25] In the pre-Nazi era of the Weimar Republic, three of Germany’s important newspapers were Jewish-owned -- the Vossiche Zeitung, the Berliner Tageblatt (founded in 1872 by Rudolf Mosse and Georg Davidsohn) and the Frankfurter Zeitung (Heinrich Simon/Leopold Sonnemann). (The eventual president of the World Zionist Organization, Nahum Goldmann, began writing for the Frankfurt paper when he was 15 years old). [GOLDMANN, N., 1978, p. 16] The newspapers Grenzboten and Ostdeutsche Post were also owned by a Jewish media mogul, Ignaz Kuranda. [ROTH, C., 1940, p. 142] The two largest publishing houses in Germany -- the Ullstein, and Mosse companies -- were also owned by Jews, as were a number of smaller ones. [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 26] Rudolf Mosse, the founder of the Mosse company, and a colleague also began "building up an advertising bureau which soon overtook the former leaders, the English advertising agencies, and had 275 branches worldwide." [GIDAL, p. 272] In the late 1800s Leopold Ullstein "launched the Berliner Morgenpost, which built up a circulation of six hundred thousand, the largest in Germany, but perhaps his most dramatic breakthrough came with the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung which by 1894 had a circulation of two milion ... Ullstein had five sons, all of whom developed different branches of his enterprise. By the 'thirties they were not only the biggest newspaper group in Germany, but they also published books, magazines, dress patterns and music. They also had their own news agency, picture service, film studio and even a zoo to serve their children's papers." [BERMANT, C., 1977, p. 70]

The Jewish-owned Landhoffs book publishing firm was also a "book trade dynasty," [LOTTMAN, p. 51] as was the Springers company. "Not just the principals of the [Springers] firm," notes Business History, "but many of the distinguished scientists among their authors and editors were Jewish.' [SHAW, C., p. 214] Leading "avante garde" publishing firms included the Jewish houses of S. Fischer, Kurt Wolff, Georg Bondi, Erich Reiss, and the Malik Verlag. [LAQUER, p. 73] "Bote and Bote was Germany's largest music publisher and ran a concert agency as well ... Both Rutter and Loening in Frankfurt am Main and the Deutsche Verlegsantalt in Stuttgart were founded by Jews, as were the later publishing houses of Erich, Reiss, Brandus, and a number of specialist presses." [GIDAL, p. 35]

With the rise of German fascism, in 1933 a retired United States Department official, Edward House, told a new ambassador to Berlin: "You should try to ameliorate Jewish suffering. [The Nazis] are clearly wrong and even terrible, but the Jews should not be allowed to dominate economic or intellectual life in Berlin as they have for a long time." [GROSE, p. 97-98] Anthony Heilbut notes a joke that was a favorite of Albert Einstein's, "in which an émigré asks a friend if he is homesick for Berlin, and the other replies: 'What for? I'm not Jewish.'" [HEILBUT, p. 46]

Jews were also vastly over represented as editors and reporters in German journalism. "Unfortunately," says Sarah Gordon, "many of them tended to use their works as vehicles to oppose or criticize prevalent German values." [GORDON, p. 14] Among these critics of German society was Kurt Tucholsky, "whose biting satire made him a hero of the more cosmopolitan segments of the German middle class. The son a successful Jewish businessman-lawyer, Tucholsky flayed Germans and German values mercilessly. By the late 1920s, he had decided that Germany was hopeless and that middle-class Germans were either idiots or positively evil." [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 85] Germans, assessed prominent Jewish pianist Arthur Rubinstein in the 1930s, "are not a musical people. They accept the heavy, pedantic music of Pfitzner, Reger and Bruckner with their long-winded 'developments,' just as they enjoy a stodgy meal of sauerkraut and sausages." [SACHS, D., 1992, p. 21]

On one hand, Jews were increasingly perceived to have strangleholds on the German social, cultural and economic system. On the other, in the political field, Richard Rubenstein notes that

"Marxism was seen by conservative Europe as Jewish in origin
and leadership, a view that was reinforced in Germany by the
three successive left wing regimes that succeeded the Bavarian
royal house of Wittelsbach from November 7, 1918 to May 1,
1919, at the end of World War I. In Munich, the city that did
more than any other to give birth to [Hitler's] National Socialism,
and in the era in which Hitler first joined the miniscule party, a
series of politically naive, left-wing Jewish leaders attempted
ineffectually to bring about an enduring socialist revolution
in Catholic, conservative Bavaria." [RUBENSTEIN, p. 113]

"As Robert Michel pointed out in his classic Political Parties," note Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter,

"Jews at that time [late 1800s] were playing a key role in socialist
parties in almost every European country in which they had
settled in any numbers." [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 84]

In Germany, thse inlcuded Daniel deLeon, a Sephardic Jew who headed the Socialist Labor Party. DeLeon "attempted to conceal his Jewish background, pretending that he was descended from an aristocratic family of Catholic background." [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 95]

At the influential Die Weltbuhne left-wing intellectual journal in pre-Hitler Germany, 42 of 68 writers "whose identity could be established" were found to be of Jewish descent. Two more were "half-Jews" and three others were married to Jewish women. But, notes Isak Deak, "only a few of the Weltbuhne circle openly acknowledged that they were Jews ... Die Weltbuhne was in this respect not unique; Jews published, edited, and to a great part wrote the other left-wing intellectual magazines ... Jews created the left-wing intellectual movement in Germany." [DEAK, p. 24-25, 29]



Re(4): Part 5
Posted on May 25, 2003 at 11:32:23 PM by George Shelps

Very diligent summary, but what's
your point? For over a 1000 years
Jews were ghettoized, they contributed
very little and they were not prominent.

Then gradually they emerged during the Enlightenment. There was a lot of pent-up energy there and they surged into prominence.

Good for them!

But for all their power, they were
still destroyed by Nazism.


Re(5): Part 5
Posted on May 26, 2003 at 00:04:53 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Very diligent summary, but what's your point? For over a 1000 years Jews were ghettoized, they contributed very little and they were not prominent.

RESPONSE: This is not so. This is myth. Jews originally CHOSE "ghettoization" (i.e. enforced separation from Christians). Compared to the average non-Jew throughout Europe, Jews were better off (again, they dominated usury and were instrumental beneficiaries in the rise of capitalism).

YOU SAY: Then gradually they emerged during the Enlightenment. There was a lot of pent-up energy there and they surged into prominence.

RESPONSE: This "pent-up energy" of exploitation has always been evidenced throughout Jewish history.

YOU SAY: Good for them!

RESPONSE: ?!

YOU SAY: But for all their power, they were still destroyed by Nazism

RESPONSE: Not so. Look at you. As a Christian Zionist, you are OWNED by Judeocentrism. When you speak, you speak from the Jewish root. The lessons of history have been learned by no one. Least of all you.




Re(6): Part 5
Posted on May 26, 2003 at 02:19:33 AM by Anonymous

Sorry, but no one who lived in the Jewish Ghettos felt they were "better off." They weren't even protected any further, as the case of the pogroms in both Russia and Poland demonstrates. Enforced separation by ghettoization was hardly something desired by the Jewish population, whom would have much preferred not to have to live in a goddamn ghetto!

Your interpretations of history are ridiculous, and the fact that you might occasionally be able to find an anomaly like Shakak to state otherwise is completely belied by the vast consensus of historical opinion.

Your "crucial source" strategy of finding a single reference, often distorted and quoted completely out of context, to back your antisemitic bullshit is similar to the holocaust deniers in its bogus methodology: only quote sources that seem to support your preconceived hateful thesis, and ignore all contradictory evidence which doesn't get the job done.

And people who lived in the ghetto WERE the exploited. Also, your claim to reject communism is rather undercut by your idea that the rise of capitalism is somehow exploitationist. Apparently, your gameplan here is to pin either capitalism or communism (or anything else you can somehow exploit regardless how inappropriate), if it, once again, gets the job of prejudicially attacking Jews done. Truth and logical consistency are not an issue to you.



Re(6): Part 5
Posted on May 26, 2003 at 03:46:09 AM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: Very diligent summary, but what's your point? For over a 1000 years Jews were ghettoized, they contributed very little and they were not prominent.
RESPONSE: This is not so. This is myth. Jews originally CHOSE "ghettoization" (i.e. enforced separation from Christians).

___Who cares whether they "chose" it
or not. The point is, until they entered non-Jewish society full-blown,
they were not the major players they
eventually became.


Compared to the average non-Jew throughout Europe, Jews were better off (again, they dominated usury and were instrumental beneficiaries in the rise of capitalism).

___I am in favor of the rise of capitalism. I am a capitalist.

But Jews were never prominent in
the major social and culture arenas
until after the Enlightenment, despite
their efforts in limited areas prior
to that.

YOU SAY: Then gradually they emerged during the Enlightenment. There was a lot of pent-up energy there and they surged into prominence.

RESPONSE: This "pent-up energy" of exploitation has always been evidenced throughout Jewish history.

___Your summary gives very little
evidence of that. What it shows is
Jewish aspiration to succeed. That's
commendable. You should try it instead
of running a putrid website.

YOU SAY: Good for them!

RESPONSE: ?!

__Yeah, I like to see talented and intelligent people succeed.

YOU SAY: But for all their power, they were still destroyed by Nazism

RESPONSE: Not so

___I am talking about European Jewry,
you moron. The same Jews you were
discussing were gassed by Hitler.


Look at you. As a Christian Zionist, you are OWNED by Judeocentrism. When you speak, you speak from the Jewish root.

___Hah! Just ask my Jewish friends.
I have arguments with them that have
caused serious breaches over the years!

I alienated a friend because I disagreed
with the Netanyahu point of view
about the Palestinians.

I obviously disagree majorly with Levine--except about your evil activities.

So don't give me that shit about
"kissing Jewish butt."


The lessons of history have been learned by no one. Least of all you.

___You know, you really are insane.



Re(7): Part 5
Posted on May 27, 2003 at 10:41:51 PM by mg

One of the privileges Jews enjoyed throughout Europe until relatively modern history was that they didn't have to serve in the local military organizations. "During the continuous wars of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries," wrote Baron, " ... the Jews were neutral and suffered few losses. If they had been combatants they might have lost more than in all the pogroms." [LIBERLES, p. 42] Yet Medieval Jews were allowed the extremely significant privilege of carrying weapons, a privilege equal to knights and one to which all commoners (the overwhelming majority of the population) were forbidden. [GOLDBERG, p. 123] Baron also noted that, while there were certainly Jews who suffered poverty, the surrounding Christian population was worse off. And if the Jewish ghettos were, as widely claimed, abject holes of enforced degradation, "is it not remarkable that the most typical Ghetto in the world, the Frankfurt Judengasse, produced in the pre-Emancipation period the greatest banking house in history?" [LIBERLES p. 45]

"The Jews," says Israel Shahak,

"in spite of all the persecution to which they were subjected, formed
an integral part of the privileged classes ... Jewish historiography,
especially in English, is misleading on this point inasmuch as it tends
to focus on Jewish poverty and anti-Jewish discrimination ... The
poorest Jewish craftsman, peddlar, landlord's steward, or petty cleric
was immeasurably better off than a serf [most of the non-Jewish
population]. This was especially true in those European countries
where serfdom persisted until the nineteenth century, whether in a
partial or extreme form: Prussia, Austria (including Hungary), Poland,
and the Polan lands taken by Russia. And it is not without significance
that, prior to the beginning of the great Jewish migration of modern
times (around 1889), a large majority of all Jews were living in those
areas and that their most important social function there was to
mediate the oppression of peasants on behalf of the nobility and
the Crown." [SHAHAK, p. 52-53]

Jews in Eastern Europe understood the people around them as, categorically, persecutors. And "the Jews saw their persecutors as an inferior race," noted World Zionist Organization President Nahum Goldmann, "Most of my [physician] grandfather's patients [in Lithuania] were peasants. Every Jew felt ten or a hundred times the superior of these lowly tillers of the soil; he was cultured, learned Hebrew, knew the Bible, studied the Talmud -- in other words he knew that he stood head and shoulders above these illiterates." [GOLDMANN, 1978, p. 13]

"It would never have occurred to us," said one Jewish immigrant to the United States, "that the Gentile world [in Eastern Europe] was happier ... On the contrary, we considered our world happier and finer." "We thought they were unfortunate," says another, "We were above them, this was the feeling [towards peasants]." [MORAWSKA, p. 17] In the face of the commonly cherished belief among modern Jews that their brethren of Eastern Europe were terribly and uniformly impoverished, it is a fact that Jews were doing so well (relative to the non-Jews around them) that non-Jewish servants in Jewish households were common.

Apart from racist folk tales, Zborowski and Herzog note that most Jewish children in Eastern Europe learned fragments of the surrounding non-Jewish culture via the Gentile servants in their homes. "These impressions [of non-Jewish life]," the scholars write, "[were] available not only to the children of the rich, for [Jewish] women of modest circumstances who worked in a store or at the market often had the help of a [non-Jewish] peasant girl in the house." [ZBOROWSKI, p. 155] "[Jewish life] was certainly better than the life of the Russian peasant," remarks Howard Sachar. [SACHAR, p. 215]

"We were luckier than most of our fellow-Jews in being able to afford 'servants,' if that is the real name for them," declares Chaim Weizmann, an immigrant from the "Pale" of Russia, an agitator for how bad Jews had it in his place of birth, and the first president of modern Israel, "... [My second servant] who outlived the first and was with us for something like thirty-five years, was a lovable peasant by the name of Yakim ... He had learned to sing, after a fashion, the Jewish national anthem, Hatikvah; and in moments of enthusiasm would cry out: 'Come, little ones, let us sing Tikvah!'" [WEIZMAN, C., 1949, p. 22]

Elsewhere, Weizman adds:

"The teachers and governing authorities of the schools within the Pale [an area of Russia] were typical Russian officials, and as such, not free from corruption. So the rich Jew would use his gold to pave the way for his boy to enter the school ... There were occasions when a rich Jew would hire ten non-Jewish candidates (at times rather oddly selected) to sit for the entrance examination at the local school, and thus make room for one Jewish pupil -- needless to say his own son or a protege." [WEIZMAN, C., 1949, p. 31]


"Even when the Jewish common people were known to be desperately poor," adds Albert Lindemann, "as in Austrian Galicia or parts of the Jewish Pale of Settlement in tsarist Russia, their overall per capita wealth still seems to have been greater than that of non-Jews, mostly peasants, among whom they lived." [LINDEMANN, Esau's, p. 21] "On the whole," says sociologist Stephen Steinberg, "Eastern European Jews [prior to immigration to America in the late nineteenth century] were unquestionably poor, though decidedly better off than the surrounding peasant population." [STEINBERG, p. 97]

What, one wonders, is to be read between this relativity of being "poor?" How poor could Jews have really been if they were "decidedly better off" than the non-Jewish peasants (who were most of the Eastern European population), even hiring Polish servants for their homes?

Another part of Jewish popular mythology is that the Jews were forced against their will into ghettos in Europe. The widely-believed accusation that Jews were forcibly segregated, particularly into ghettos, is a distortion of historical fact. In the Middle Ages most Christian towns themselves had walls, gates, and locks for protection from outsiders. The enclosed Jewish ghetto was, in origin, a Jewish construction, conceived for both protection and self-segregation from the taint of non-Jewish ways.

"In the thirteenth century," writes Max Weinrich, "segregated living quarters for Jews were made compulsory. The fact of the matter is that separate Jewish streets had existed all along ... If the Jews lived together long before segregated living quarters were imposed upon them, then their segregation must have been voluntary. It was. Living apart, no matter how bizarre it may appear in the light of present day concepts and attitudes, was part of the 'privileges' accorded to the Jews in conforming with their own wishes." [WEINRICH, p. 105]

As president Nachum Goldmann of the World Zionist Organization notes:

"It is wrong to say that the goyim forced the Jews to separate themselves
themselves from other societies. When the Christians defined the
ghetto limits, Jews lived there already." [GOLDMANN, N., 1978, p. 66]

For centuries Jews isolated themselves from their surrounding non-Jewish neighbors except, of course, for the necessities of commerce. "Had the Jews not possessed a deep-rooted conviction of the truth of their religion," says Jacob Katz, "and had they not actively sought to maintain their separate identity, the tendencies inherent in medieval conditions would inevitably have ended by breaking down the social barrier erected by Jewish ritual." [KATZ, Ex, p. 40] "In Orthodox Judaism," wrote anthropologist Maurice Fishberg in 1911, "a Jew must not eat at the same table with a Gentile, nor any food prepared by the latter; must not eat or drink from dishes, with spoons, forks, knives, etc. which have been used by a Gentile; must not drink wine with the container of which has been touched by a Christian, Mohammadan, or heathen ... I know Jews to feel nauseated and even vomit when told that the food they have consumed was not kosher. ... It was the intense tribal spirit engendered by his religion which kept the Jew from intimate contact with the Gentiles, more than the laws promulgated by Christian states for the purpose." [FISHBERG, p. 536]

"We [Jews] formed the ghetto ourselves," wrote the Zionist leader Vladamir Zabotinsky, " ... voluntarily, for the same reason for which Europeans in Shanghai established their separate quarter, to be able to live their own way." [KORBANSKI, p. 8] "The Ghetto was rather a privilege than a disability," notes J. O. Hertzler, "and sometimes was claimed by the Jews as a right when its demolition was threatened." [HERTZLER, p. 73] Boas Evron cites the work of fellow Israeli scholar, Yehezkel Kaufmann, in noting that

"the popular assumption that external anti-Jewish pressures forced
group identify and exclusivity on the Jews is unconvincing, since
historical evidence shows that Jewish exclusivity and aloofness
preceded outside hostility and were thus its cause, not its result ...
Jewish communities were always borne by host societies ... They
never shared in political, military, administrative, or technological
responsibilities." [EVRON, p. 53]





Re(1): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 26, 2003 at 00:17:42 AM by Mitchell Levine

Once again, your moronic bigotry makes itself evident.

The strongest charge that any of this bullshit has to offer is that Jews had successful businesses and were influential critics and academics. This would be a very damning charge if there were anything wrong with having successful businesses or being an influential critic or academic.

That theory could be countenanced if there was any evidence that those businesses were criminal in nature, or that those critics were incompetent. The only evidence that was true is that the people in question were Jewish - not exactly a sufficient criterion. Even if it were true, as you have no way of demonstrating, that some of them were criminal, it would hardly indict all or most of them as being criminal, any more than the fact that many crack dealers are black implies that "black people are criminals."

We can therefore comfortably state that the entire line of reasoning is antisemitic bullshit based on a double standard: if a gentile does something it's OK, but if a Jew does it it's somehow "bad" by definition. There is no evidence of any kind that having successful Jewish businesses in your country is undesirable in any way. That there are Jewish criminals and wrongdoers follows from the simple fact that Jews are human beings, and a fraction of such people exist in every demographic group. It does not indict the entirety of that group if they are non-Jews, so it therefore follows that the same is true for Jews as well. If your theory that Jews must be considered a plague because they are in some factually undemonstrable way "racist" or "ethnocentric," although you have never had any way to prove that, is to be accepted, then I would have to imagine that the German people's acceptance of Hitler's theory that imperialist hyper-expansionism into their neighbors' countries was OK because they were the "Master Race" would have to be seen as a little "racist" and "ethnocentric" as well. Therefore, using your argument, ALL Germans must be evil and don't deserve sympathetic treatment in any way.

There's nothing wrong with having a successful legitimate business, and that it might make other people jealous is really irrelevant. The fact that many of the above-mentioned businesses were financial in nature is unsurprising, because laws had been put into place forcing Jews to work as lenders, due on the one hand to the Church's condemnation of money-lending predicated on the Gospels, and the state's economic necessity for it on the other. The bottom line is that the traditional Jewish value placed on rationalism and education produces a lot of successful people in business, just like it does in the rosters of Nobel laureates and elsewhere. That wouldn't be considered shameful on the part of any other group - for example, no one complains of Italians pride in Da Vinci, Gallileo, and Michelangelo - and thereby shouldn't be so for Jews either.

In fact, German antisemitism was primarily rooted in antisemitic theological teachings promoted by many European churches, and circulated culturally since the time of the Middle Ages. It was based on nothing that the Jews ever did, except not choosing the majority religion, and it would have existed no matter what Jews did. It will also exist no matter what Jews do in the future. Unfortunately, that's simply part of being a minority in a majority, as you should know by being part of a minority yourself

The German government lied about the country's progress in WWI, and when they lost, a traditional scapegoat was produced to blame it on by the means of the legend of the "stab in the back" - a theory for which there is no foundation, other than wounded national pride. Combined with the economic devastation resulting from the excessive penalties assayed by the League of Nations at Versailles, it left a cultural weakness a charismatic demagogue could exploit.

Trying to make Hitler's "case" for a rational basis to genocide, especially considering that the single most characteristic feature the Nazis possessed was irrationality, and further complaining that he's somehow been unfairly "demonized" for exterminating millions, makes it more than a little disingenuous for you to claim that you aren't sympathetic to him.


Re(2): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 27, 2003 at 10:26:53 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Once again, your moronic bigotry makes itself evident.

RESPONSE: Once again YOUR "moronic bigotry makes itself evident.

YOU SAY: The strongest charge that any of this bullshit has to offer is that Jews had successful businesses and were influential critics and academics.

RESPONSE: Not so. A reasoned view of German history finds that Jews, as 1% of the Weimer Republic population, were taking over German culture. This was discussed by both German critics AND Jewish critics of the time. Jews CONTROLLED popular discourse to the increasing resentment of many non-Jews. Any IMBECILE would recognize the implicit problems in this scenario (especially when Jews are so incredibly ethnocentric and self-aggrandizing).

YOU SAY: This would be a very damning charge if there were anything wrong with having successful businesses or being an influential critic or academic.

RESPONSE: These citations are only the tip of the iceberg. I suggest you also peruse our citations about Jewish domination of the international prostitution trade in this era, with strong roots in central and eastern Europe.

See: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/10whsla.htm

The cumulation of ALL such things (Jewish dominance of such a criminal trade, dominance of journalism, the mass media, etc. etc) created enormous inter-ethnic tension. It takes your MORON to not grasp the implicit problems in such a scenario. If MONEY rules everything, as it seems to (and as you celebrate as a fine expression of "democracy," it is no wonder that Jews continue to have problems throughout history as they BUY so much of influential mediums in the nations they reside. Also o the detrement of the majority peoples within whom they live.

YOU SAY: That theory could be countenanced if there was any evidence that those businesses were criminal in nature, or that those critics were incompetent.

RESPONSE: Nonsense. You could take your argument and apply it to colonialism or imperialism: Those that have, rule. Those that are adept at seizing power are destined to rule. It seems to me that the Jewish community has been historically brilliant in "colonizing" cultures to their ethnocentric needs.

YOU SAY: The only evidence that was true is that the people in question were Jewish - not exactly a sufficient criterion. Even if it were true, as you have no way of demonstrating, that some of them were criminal, it would hardly indict all or most of them as being criminal,

RESPONSE: The issue is not just being "criminal" (although there were plenty of Jewish criminals in the Weimar Republic). The issue is that any minority group, ANYWHERE, is going to run into problems when they hold profoundly disproportionate power.

Again, the issue is more akin to cultural colonialism.

YOU SAY: any more than the fact that many crack dealers are black implies that "black people are criminals."

RESPONSE: No. But the "fact" that there are many Black crack dealers has social, political, and cultural meaning. And it is perfectly legitimate to investigate WHY, if your assertion is correct, this is so.

YOU SAY: We can therefore comfortably state that the entire line of reasoning is antisemitic bullshit based on a double standard: if a gentile does something it's OK, but if a Jew does it it's somehow "bad" by definition.

RESPONSE: Yours is the Judeocentric "bullshit." And the double standard is this: It's OK for Jews to deconstruct and destory WASP culture in the name of democracy and multiculturalism. But it is an absolute taboo to do the same to growing JEWISH hegemony in Western culture, particularly in America. Why? Jewish organizations looked at what happened in Germany and embarked on a massive social engineering policy in America towards toxifiying ANY investigation into Jewish power in America. Today, if you post historical facts like I do that expose Jewish power (current and historic) bigots like you condemn me (!) for some kind of immorality.

YOU SAY: There is no evidence of any kind that having successful Jewish businesses in your country is undesirable in any way.

RESPONSE: Nonsense. Jewish Tribal REview examines the "undesireable" effects of Jewish power, at length.

YOU SAY: That there are Jewish criminals and wrongdoers follows from the simple fact that Jews are human beings,

RESPONSE: No argument here, although you pray that I would.

YOU SAY: and a fraction of such people exist in every demographic group. It does not indict the entirety of that group if they are non-Jews, so it therefore follows that the same is true for Jews as well.

RESPONSE: Where did you learn "logic?" No one is saying that every Jew is Meyer Lansky. I am saying that Meyer Lansky was Jewish, as was greatest crime Syndicate in American history, and as is the current "Russian" mafia, etc. etc. etc.

It is perfectly legitimate (and increasingly necessary) to ask why. You toxify and censor anyone who dares to investigate Jewish power and influence in American culture, which is phenomenal.

YOU SAY: If your theory that Jews must be considered a plague because they are in some factually undemonstrable way "racist" or "ethnocentric,"

RESPONSE: "Plague" is your word.

YOU SAY: although you have never had any way to prove that,

RESPONSE: The issues I am interested in are noted in detail at Jewish Tribal Review. Such issues are echoed, in microcosm, at this FIRM web site and the Jews of Hollywood. It is the same story. It is the same problem. It is a recurring problem in history, and Jews have latched onto this device (the accusation of antisemitism) to pathologize open, reasoned, and moral inquiry into the underside of alleged Jewish saintliness.

YOU SAY: is to be accepted, then I would have to imagine that the German people's acceptance of Hitler's theory that imperialist hyper-expansionism into their neighbors' countries was OK because they were the "Master Race" would have to be seen as a little "racist" and "ethnocentric" as well.

RESPONSE: The "Master Race" idea is an echo of the "Chosen People" concept. It's not my particular insight. Others have recognized this obvious parallel as well.

YOU SAY: Therefore, using your argument, ALL Germans must be evil and don't deserve sympathetic treatment in any way.

RESPONSE: No. But MANY Jews have that opinion about Germans to this day. As you know. I see no problem with investigating why Aryan fascism arose in German culture, the same way I see no problem in investigating the recurring example of rising Jewish cultural and economic hegemony in many places in the world. What is it in the Jewish people that establishes this phenomenon? (Sorry, there's a lot more to it than Jews "are just smart" or "studious" or "entrepreneurial." It involved Jewish collective ethics, ethnocentrism, various forms of Jewish nationalism, Jewish ideas about money, etc.

YOU SAY: There's nothing wrong with having a successful legitimate business, and that it might make other people jealous is really irrelevant.

RESPONSE: If a justice-seeking slave is "jealous" of his master, and that is all you understand, then call me "jealous" if it salves your self-delusional soul.

YOU SAY: The fact that many of the above-mentioned businesses were financial in nature is unsurprising, because laws had been put into place forcing Jews to work as lenders, due on the one hand to the Church's condemnation of money-lending predicated on the Gospels, and the state's economic necessity for it on the other.

RESPONSE: THis is Jewish legend, and it is absurd. "Jews were forced into becoming rich." True, usury was condemned by the Church as being immoral. USury (in Hebrew, "nesek," BITING) is also condemned in the Torah, but ONLY if usury is performed upon other Jews. Ripping off non-Jews for interest has always been kosher.

YOU SAY: The bottom line is that the traditional Jewish value placed on rationalism and education produces a lot of successful people in business, just like it does in the rosters of Nobel laureates and elsewhere.

RESPONSE: Absolute horeshit. Jews are so chronically ashamed of their own dual moral standard exploitation of others thorughout history that they lean on all these noble legends. Therefore, Jews are saints, the Germans were demons, and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is an "antisemite," which, to you, is the most corrupt ideology on the planet. BECAUSE SUCH A PERSON PROFOUNDLY THREATENS YOUR MYTHIC JEWISH IDENTITY, WHICH -- DEVOID OF ITS TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS BASE -- IS TOTALLY ONLY RELIANCE UPON THE "ANTI-SEMITE" FOR DEFINITION. In other words, Jew=good; critic of Jew=bad. There are you nuances, or value shades, in these standard Jewish equations.

That wouldn't be considered shameful on the part of any other group - for example, no one complains of Italians pride in Da Vinci, Gallileo, and Michelangelo - and thereby shouldn't be so for Jews either.




Re(3): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 28, 2003 at 00:38:50 AM by Anonymous


RESPONSE: Not so. A reasoned view of German history finds that Jews, as 1% of the Weimer Republic population, were taking over German culture. This was discussed by both German critics AND Jewish critics of the time. Jews CONTROLLED popular discourse to the increasing resentment of many non-Jews. Any IMBECILE would recognize the implicit problems in this scenario (especially when Jews are so incredibly ethnocentric and self-aggrandizing).

- Idiot-boy, Jews couldn't be taking over German culture, becuase they WERE Germans! The fact that other Germans might refuse to accept them as fellow countrymen because they didn't share their religious beliefs DIDN"T revoke their citizenship. The correct formulation of the thought would have to be then that Jews were taking over Christian culture - an impossiblity in a country with a state church. You once again fail to provide any statistical evidence that shows that all or even most Jews are any more "self-aggrandizing" or "ethnocentric" than any other group. You are just trying to promote a typically ignorant stereotype.

RESPONSE: Nonsense. You could take your argument and apply it to colonialism or imperialism: Those that have, rule. Those that are adept at seizing power are destined to rule. It seems to me that the Jewish community has been historically brilliant in "colonizing" cultures to their ethnocentric needs.

- Sorry, neither colonialism nor imperialism apply to the case of being a businessperon or a critic as those are political actions undertaken leaders chosen by a referendum. Whomever is the best business person or most perceptive critic will be the most successful - and that's determined by the public in a capitalist society. If they don't like it, they don't buy or don't listen, and that doesn't follow a religious quota system. If the media was so all-powerful, either the Nazis never would have taken power, or the media couldn't have been "controlled" by the Jews - it's once again a matter of logical consistency.


RESPONSE: Yours is the Judeocentric "bullshit." And the double standard is this: It's OK for Jews to deconstruct and destory WASP culture in the name of democracy and multiculturalism. But it is an absolute taboo to do the same to growing JEWISH hegemony in Western culture, particularly in America. Why? Jewish organizations looked at what happened in Germany and embarked on a massive social engineering policy in America towards toxifiying ANY investigation into Jewish power in America. Today, if you post historical facts like I do that expose Jewish power (current and historic) bigots like you condemn me (!) for some kind of immorality.

-Bullshit yourself. If "WASP culture" was "destroyed" by democracy and multiculturalism, then it SHOULD have been destroyed because this country, as defined by the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, IS a multicultural democracy, NOT a WASP homeland! The fact that they might make a up a numerical majority means nothing: as a WASP Supreme Court justice definitively stated, "this is a nation of laws, not a nation of men." And the supreme law of our nation defines this as such, not a land where the desires of the many outweigh the rights of the few. If you don't like it, move to Europe.

You don't post facts, you post a bunch of crap ripped from any source possible whether validated, in-context, or not, that you think you can use to defame Jews. Many people on this site have pointed out numerous historical and logical errors and hidden agendas in your posts. Your only concern is to attack Jews - You don't care what the truth is anymore than the Institute for Historical Review does. And trying to spread hate is immoral!




Re(4): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 28, 2003 at 00:52:09 AM by Mitchell Levine

RESPONSE: Where did you learn "logic?" No one is saying that every Jew is Meyer Lansky. I am saying that Meyer Lansky was Jewish, as was greatest crime Syndicate in American history, and as is the current "Russian" mafia, etc. etc. etc.

It is perfectly legitimate (and increasingly necessary) to ask why. You toxify and censor anyone who dares to investigate Jewish power and influence in American culture, which is phenomenal.

-Sorry again, but to establish that the largest crime syndicate in American history was Jewish, you'd have to explain how people with names like Luciano, Perraino, Luchese, Tartaglia, Gravano, Gotti, and Gambino were Jewish. Lansky and Siegel had hands in, but they hardly RAN organized crime. You'd have a very hard time convincing any historian of the subject, the FBI, or Mario Puzo otherwise. While the Russian Mafia have Jewish ties and are players on the scene, groups like the Tongs, Yakuza, Jamican posses, Dominicans, and so forth are doing rather well, too, besides the well-entrenched Italian Mafia. The Russian mobsters, it must be said, however, are the best organized and educated. The latter quality, unfortunately, can be used for either good or ill.

No one is "censoring" you, despite George Shelps' repeated requests to Jaeger and Cones that they do so. Responding to your posts with criticism and arguments does not constitute censorship; it's just using my freedom of speech to respond. You have no right to racistly pontificate unopposed.

Everyone in this nation has the right to whatever power they can legitimately wield without trampling on the rights of others, as the marketplace of ideas and the
Bill of Rights will bear. What their race, religion, place of national origin, and so forth, are is simply irrelevant. The majority has no necessary right to dominate the majority, other than though the vote. Y

RESPONSE: The "Master Race" idea is an echo of the "Chosen People" concept. It's not my particular insight. Others have recognized this obvious parallel as well.

- Even yet more stupid horseshit! The idea that the Jews were the people chosen to bring monotheism to world in no way correlates to the idea that Jews are a superior race of beings - particularly because Jews are not a race, and membership is open to anyone - whose destiny it is to rule the world by exterminating everyone racially different and annexing their countries for lebensraum. The vast majority of Jews everywhere DO NOT believe that they are superior to non-Jews!

RESPONSE: No. But MANY Jews have that opinion about Germans to this day. As you know. I see no problem with investigating why Aryan fascism arose in German culture, the same way I see no problem in investigating the recurring example of rising Jewish cultural and economic hegemony in many places in the world. What is it in the Jewish people that establishes this phenomenon? (Sorry, there's a lot more to it than Jews "are just smart" or "studious" or "entrepreneurial." It involved Jewish collective ethics, ethnocentrism, various forms of Jewish nationalism, Jewish ideas about money, etc.

-Once again, until you can find peer-reviewed, double-blind research studies objectively and independently establishing that "Jewish ethics" and "Jewish ethnocentricism" are any different than any other group of people, the only thing that these concepts can represent are stereotypes. Posting a few articles with people with Jewish-sounding names that are accused of things that you somehow think might be "bad," usually just allegations and often completely out-of-context, proves nothing.

YOU SAY: There's nothing wrong with having a successful legitimate business, and that it might make other people jealous is really irrelevant.

YOU SAY: The fact that many of the above-mentioned businesses were financial in nature is unsurprising, because laws had been put into place forcing Jews to work as lenders, due on the one hand to the Church's condemnation of money-lending predicated on the Gospels, and the state's economic necessity for it on the other.

RESPONSE: THis is Jewish legend, and it is absurd. "Jews were forced into becoming rich." True, usury was condemned by the Church as being immoral. USury (in Hebrew, "nesek," BITING) is also condemned in the Torah, but ONLY if usury is performed upon other Jews. Ripping off non-Jews for interest has always been kosher.

- This is so factually ignorant that the mind just boggles: in the Middle Ages and Rennaisance when modern economic states arose, Christian nations needed lenders at a profit to survive. Christ forbids lending money at a profit in the Gospels, and indeed laws were put into place forcing Jews to do so to avoid censure from the Church, beginning with the Hapsburg dynasty onward, as any introductory European history text will verify. Oftentimes monarchs would expell all Jews as a class just to get out of their promissary obligations.

By the way, there's nothing inherently immoral about lending money at a profit within the legal limits. If you think it's too expensive, don't borrow. There's no logical reason a business should have to lend you money without profit, just because you desire it. Other than the biblical sanction, there's no rational basis for saying they "ripped off" anyone.

RESPONSE: Absolute horeshit. Jews are so chronically ashamed of their own dual moral standard exploitation of others thorughout history that they lean on all these noble legends. Therefore, Jews are saints, the Germans were demons, and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is an "antisemite," which, to you, is the most corrupt ideology on the planet. BECAUSE SUCH A PERSON PROFOUNDLY THREATENS YOUR MYTHIC JEWISH IDENTITY, WHICH -- DEVOID OF ITS TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS BASE -- IS TOTALLY ONLY RELIANCE UPON THE "ANTI-SEMITE" FOR DEFINITION. In other words, Jew=good; critic of Jew=bad. There are you nuances, or value shades, in these standard Jewish equations.

-That's nothing but a simple projection. What you wish to establish is the equation: Gentile = good, Jew = bad, and you support that by slandering Jews for doing what everyone universally does, or all Jews everywhere for something that might have been done by a few. You simply cannot get past the idea that if a non-Jew does something wrong it's just that individual's fault, but if a Jew does something wrong, it's all Jew's fault. Also, you once again make grandiose pronouncements about what constitutes "Jewish Identity," with absolutely no proof whatsoever. When you can provide statistical evidence from double-blind psychological research abstracts then begin proselytising. Until that time, you are just trying to spread stereotypes, as you have no basis to claim clairvoyant insight into the Jewish psyche. Post a few links to articles on a website proves nothing. People form their identities as a response to many stimuli. You are quite simply incapable of thinking outside of anything but the most vulgar of stereotypes.



Re(5): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 28, 2003 at 11:59:00 PM by George Shelps

No one is "censoring" you, despite George Shelps' repeated requests to Jaeger and Cones that they do so.

___No, wrong, Mitchell. I asked Jaeger and Cones to repudiate him the same way you and I doing.

I am warning them because they are allowing their discussion board to be
tainted by his bigotry.



Re(5): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 00:13:15 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Sorry again, but to establish that the largest crime syndicate in American history was Jewish, you'd have to explain how people with names like Luciano, Perraino, Luchese, Tartaglia, Gravano, Gotti, and Gambino were Jewish.

RESPONSE: There are a number of books about Jewish crime. Any ethnic group has criminals, but Jews have been maestros at it; Jews ran much of the underworld throughout Europe, from fencing operations to pawn shops. Arthur Rothstein helped raise organized crime in America to a new level. Jews are even credited with bringing the narcotics trade to America.

YOU SAY: Lansky and Siegel had hands in, but they hardly RAN organized crime.

RESPONSE: Lansky was THE man in the "Syndicate." That's not news to anyone who reads anything about him but those who wish to dissimulate this fact.

YOU SAY: You'd have a very hard time convincing any historian of the subject, the FBI, or Mario Puzo otherwise.

RESPONSE: Not so. We've got links to plenty of material about all this at our web site. Detroit's all-Jewish Purple Gang was especially violent.

YOU SAY: While the Russian Mafia have Jewish ties and are players on the scene, groups like the Tongs, Yakuza, Jamican posses, Dominicans, and so forth are doing rather well, too,

RESPONSE: There is no comparison. These groups are not power-house crime points in America. The reason the "Russian" mafia is so well-entrenched in America today is because of the Jewish Lobby's influence on immigration legislation to favor Russian Jews to U.S. shores. With all these "persecuted Jews" rode the "Russian" mafia.

YOU SAY: besides the well-entrenched Italian Mafia. The Russian mobsters, it must be said, however, are the best organized and educated. The latter quality, unfortunately, can be used for either good or ill.

RESPONSE: Please. Be serious. The "smart" Jews of the Russian Mafia will use their fine education social good. Tell me more about Boris Berezovsky.

YOU SAY: No one is "censoring" you, despite George Shelps' repeated requests to Jaeger and Cones that they do so. Responding to your posts with criticism and arguments does not constitute censorship; it's just using my freedom of speech to respond. You have no right to racistly pontificate unopposed.

RESPONSE: YOU are the racist, you are the bigot, and your posting of dribble here is what Theodore Herzl called "noise" -- necessary smokescreens to conceal Jewish propaganda.

YOU SAY: Everyone in this nation has the right to whatever power they can legitimately wield without trampling on the rights of others, as the marketplace of ideas and the
Bill of Rights will bear. What their race, religion, place of national origin, and so forth, are is simply irrelevant.

YOU SAY: A crock. Jewish ethnocentric power is relevant to all Americans -- white, Black, Muslim, Asian, etc.

YOU SAY: The majority has no necessary right to dominate the majority, other than though the vote.

RESPONSE: Democracy is "majority rules." You apparently have forgotten that in the wake of Jewry 2.5% of America's population and corresponding dominance in so many fields. No one votes about Jewish dominance. It is concealed. The way you try to conceal it.

YOU SAY: Even yet more stupid horseshit! The idea that the Jews were the people chosen to bring monotheism to world in no way correlates to the idea that Jews are a superior race of beings - particularly because Jews are not a race, and membership is open to anyone - whose destiny it is to rule the world by exterminating everyone racially different and annexing their countries for lebensraum. The vast majority of Jews everywhere DO NOT believe that they are superior to non-Jews!

RESPONSE: YOu are either a liar or misinformed. Examine classical Jewish texts and you will find the Jewish aim for world sovereignty. See Maimonides, for instance.

YOU SAY: Once again, until you can find peer-reviewed, double-blind research studies objectively and independently establishing that "Jewish ethics" and "Jewish ethnocentricism" are any different than any other group of people, the only thing that these concepts can represent are stereotypes.

YOU SAY: Your position is propagandistic legion. World Jewry has been profoundly active as a collective in asserting its will, particularly with regard to Israel. Again, what is a Jew? If it is forbidden to generalize about Jews, then how are they different than African-Americans, or Pakistanis? Or a loaf of bread?

YOU SAY: Posting a few articles with people with Jewish-sounding names that are accused of things that you somehow think might be "bad," usually just allegations and often completely out-of-context, proves nothing.

RESPONSE: We aim to open public discourse about what you forbid. Better these issues hide in shadows, no?

YOU SAY: This is so factually ignorant that the mind just boggles: in the Middle Ages and Rennaisance when modern economic states arose, Christian nations needed lenders at a profit to survive.

RESPONSE: Jewry can only see itself as "victims." So the fact that Jews have oppressed Christian peasants for centuries -- especially via usury -- is explained away by you as the "need" of Christians.

YOU SAY: Christ forbids lending money at a profit in the Gospels,

RESPONSE: Yes. Christ and his disciples were renegades from traditional Judaism.

YOU SAY: and indeed laws were put into place forcing Jews to do so to avoid censure from the Church, beginning with the Hapsburg dynasty onward, as any introductory European history text will verify.

YOU SAY: Nonsense. Jews were "forced" into usury the same way a banker might dive into a money pile.

YOU SAY: Oftentimes monarchs would expell all Jews as a class just to get out of their promissary obligations.

RESPONSE: This is the only thing you've stated that has any semblance of truth, but you twist it. Jews were kicked out of numerous towns, provinces, and countries over the centuries because they had driven huge numbers of people into debt, often with excessive interest demands.

YOU SAY: By the way, there's nothing inherently immoral about lending money at a profit within the legal limits.

RESPONSE: Traditional Christianity condemned usury as immoral. Islam condemns "loaning for interest" as immoral. And Judaism condemns it also, BUT ONLY IF THE USURY IS AIMED AT FELLOW JEWS.




Re(6): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 29, 2003 at 02:53:02 AM by Mitchell Levine

I'm not denying that, George, or implying any wrongdoing on your part.

I'm using Jenk's "definition," as opposed to the actual meaning, of the term "censorship."

In that fool's deranged mind, pointing out the logical fallacies, historical inaccuracies, methodological ineptitude, and general hateful bullshit he promotes constitutes "censorship."

It has nothing to do with any actual denial of his constitutional right to speak.

It seems to me that Cones and Jaeger feel that, as long as people insist on using their board for purposes other than those they've proscribed, don't expect them to jump in and referee.
Or maybe all the posts make the site look active, I don't know.

I like the way Cones posts a list of potential topics for people to discuss at the entry to the board like vertical integration and new channels for independent distribution, when all anyone has ever talked about are Jews.

I guess he's got nothing to lose by being optimistic.


Re(6): What you won't see in the Hitler Mini-series, pt. 1
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 11:29:47 PM by Mitchell Levine


Jenk's, please have someone affiliated with your site that possesses intellectual ability ghostwrite your posts, in case there is anyone. Refuting your stupid bullshit is just getting too easy to be entertaining. Specifically with regard to your latest bathetic idiocies:

There are a number of books about Jewish crime. Any ethnic group has criminals, but Jews have been maestros at it; Jews ran much of the underworld throughout Europe, from fencing operations to pawn shops. Arthur Rothstein helped raise organized crime in America to a new level. Jews are even credited with bringing the narcotics trade to America.

- PLEASE STOP YOUR PATHETIC ATTEMPTS AT THINKING! You are genetically incapable of doing do so! Just go back to discrediting antisemitism by your ludicrous example as a hilariously incompetent public laughingstock.

The Mafia originated in Sicily as the Black Hand, which is why it's called "the Mafia," an Italian word for "family." It was run, and continues to be run today, by six Italian families, all of whom have their point of origin in the Sicilian Laundry Co. Today, they have extensive networks in trade unions, construction, excavation, trucking, and waste disposal, all industries in which Jews play little to no role whatsoever. They live by a code called "Omerta," and are known to have made large contributions to the Vatican and various Catholic charities. Am Yisrael Chai!

There are a number of books about Jewish crime. Any ethnic group has criminals, but Jews have been maestros at it; Jews ran much of the underworld throughout Europe, from fencing operations to pawn shops. Arthur Rothstein helped raise organized crime in America to a new level. Jews are even credited with bringing the narcotics trade to America.

- Sorry, but all demographic evidence demonstrates that the Jewish crime rate is unusually low, and was so even during the period of the Jewish Ghetto. The idea that Jews are responsible for the narcotics trade is even stupider: the few Jews that were involved with organized crime, like Lansky and Siegel, were strictly opposed to expanding into the drug market, because they believed that it would lose them favor with their connections in politics. In Medieval Europe, because guild membership was entirely closed to Jews, as well as numerous other forms of discrimination, few means of making a living were left available. People of that time simply played the hand they were dealt.

Since virtually every study ever done of Jews in contemporary America has found that over 90% are employed in white collar capacities, it seems reasonable to ask why the lawyers, doctors, college professors, engineers, accountants, writers, and legitimate businesspeople that make up the vast majority of the community should be smeared as somehow responsible for a tiny minority of criminals? If the above list of majoritarian Jews are to be seen as "criminals," as well, an extraordinary amount of evidence would have to be available to support that, which there isn't, unless it's a crime not accept the majority religion. The various posts on your site intending to provide such, ignoring the fact that most of their content is worthless bullshit, wouldn't be anywhere near sufficient to do that, as even 1% of American Jewry is a figure on the order of magnitude of 60,000 people. Anecdotes don't mean shit. Provide some peer-reviewed double-blind research abstracts indicting Jews as being statistically more likely to be criminals and your thesis will have intellectual merit. Don't and it won't.

In fact, even given the vastly larger number of Italian Mafiosi, it's ridiculous to characterize the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Italians as being "criminal." The much smaller percentage of Jews involved in crime, which is certainly in line with the 2.5% of the general population they make up or probably less, should therefore be accorded the same.

If the rest of the ethnic criminals are such small-time players, then please tell me whom you know that ever bought crack from a Jewish dealer?

YOu are either a liar or misinformed. Examine classical Jewish texts and you will find the Jewish aim for world sovereignty. See Maimonides, for instance.

- Yes, if you believe that The Protocols of Elders of Zion is a "classic Jewish text," which you probably do.

Democracy is "majority rules." You apparently have forgotten that in the wake of Jewry 2.5% of America's population and corresponding dominance in so many fields. No one votes about Jewish dominance. It is concealed. The way you try to conceal it.

- Democracy is certainly NOT majority rules, and the Framers explicitly said so: a democracy is a state in which laws are made by representatives duly elected by the people UNDER the rule of the Constitution. Anyone who wants to can pursue making their dreams a reality absolutely without regard to their race, religion, or ethnicity, within the bounds of the law. In a constitutional democracy like America -without question the express intent of the Founding Fathers - the desires of the many DO NOT outweigh the rights of the few, or even the one. That's what equal protection is about, which is why the Bill of Rights begins with "Congress shall establish no religion, nor prohibit free excercise thereof." The law of a capitalist democracy is "to each according to their talents." Whether you happen to be prejudiced against them or not is completely irrelevant, as is the percentage they make up of the population. That's why quota systems for college admissions were ruled unconstitutional. That goes for all other spheres of endeavor as well, which is one of the reasons why no one tries to divest the Irish from law enforcement, nor the Greeks from shipping. If you don't like it, move to Europe.

Traditional Christianity condemned usury as immoral. Islam condemns "loaning for interest" as immoral. And Judaism condemns it also, BUT ONLY IF THE USURY IS AIMED AT FELLOW JEWS.

- I see. Very logical. So home ownership is a national sacrament, but the banks that mortgage them are sinners. Well, apparently it doesn't bother the Catholic Church too much when they mortgage their property, because they're the largest landowner in the world.


another Jewish producer
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 10:14:59 AM by moishe the goyim

So let's see. Insofar is Mel Brooks is Jewish, the fraudsters in "The Producers" are Jewish, the people who play the shysters are Jewish, and this story is based upon a "real-life" producer, what are the chances the real-life fraudster who bilked old ladies out of their money was Jewish?


http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=0&aid=D7RBJOEG0_story

'The Producers' Premieres in L.A., Earthlink (from Associated PRess), May
30, 2003

"Mel Brooks brought his singing Broadway bandits West as
a new production of his show-business satire 'The Producers' premiered with Jason Alexander and Martin Short starring as the conniving theater impresarios. Alexander took over Thursday night as Max Bialystock, a lowlife theater producer who convinces the meek accountant Leo Bloom, played by Short, to help him cheat elderly investors by creating a surefire flop called 'Springtime for Hitler.' 'We had
a great time tonight, we really did,' Alexander said after the show. 'Sometimes it's like climbing a mountain but tonight it was walking
on air.'

The story started as a 1968 movie with Zero Mostel as Bialystock and Gene Wilder as Bloom, but is perhaps
best known as the Broadway stage show that won a record 12 Tony Awards
in 2001 with former stars Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. ...

The story, Brooks has said, was inspired by a real-life experience he had working for a producer who would sleep with elderly women as a pretext for talking them out of their wealth."

Re(1): another Jewish producer
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 11:18:01 AM by George Shelps

So let's see. Insofar is Mel Brooks is Jewish, the fraudsters in "The Producers" are Jewish, the people who play the shysters are Jewish, and this story is based upon a "real-life" producer, what are the chances the real-life fraudster who bilked old ladies out of their money was Jewish?

___Jenks, I have to say that you've gone
from being an evil slandering troll to
laughable with this quote. You take
a comedy-satire about a Jewish producer
written and directed (on film) by
a Jewish comedian, and try to pervert
it into more evidence supporting your
bigoted line against the Jews.

Pathetic.


Re(2): another Jewish producer
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 01:34:35 AM by Mitchell Levine

And The X-Men 2 is proof that Jewish mutants are trying to take over the world as revenge for the Holocaust!





Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 12:49:32 AM by John Cones

Getting Back to Basics

While the discussion here often ranges far and wide, sometimes it is important for us to be reminded of the basic problem that prompted the discussion in the first place. Based on the research posted at the FIRM site, it has become clear that Hollywood movies over the years have contained consistent patterns of bias. Whole populations of people have been consistently portrayed in a negative and/or stereotypical manner (e.g., Arabs), liberal political positions are favored and an anti-religious tone prevails. This same research has also demonstrated that these consistent patterns of bias are caused by two factors: (1) movies tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers and (2) there is an extreme lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood, that is, the people in the positions of power with respect to greenlighting Hollywood movies tend to share a similar background. From a sociological point of view, that background can best be described as politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. Third and fourth generation individuals representing those characteristics occupied most of those positions at the time of the FIRM research (early 1990s) and no persuasive evidence has been presented here or elsewhere that suggests any significant change in the makeup of that Hollywood insiders’ group to date. The FIRM research (excerpts also posted here at the FIRM site) demonstrates further that this narrowly-defined group gained and has maintained its power in Hollywood through the consistent use of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices (see "337 Reported Business Practices of the Major/Studio Distributors"). Thus, Hollywood is hardly a free marketplace of ideas or a merit system. It is a sophisticated system controlled by insiders for the purpose of exploiting outsiders and keeping most of the money generated by such activities for the benefit and use of this insider group. This unfortunate situation is detrimental for a democracy since as our U.S. Supreme Court has stated: "the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas." And, as we all know, ideas are often powerful motivators of human conduct. In addition, in a democracy based on the ideal of a free marketplace of ideas, any significant medium for the communication of ideas controlled by any narrowly-defined group can only diminish the strength of such a democracy. So, let’s all work together to bring about real and meaningful diversity at all levels in Hollywood. That’s the ultimate goal of FIRM.

John Cones



Re(1): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 02:39:05 PM by George Shelps


Getting Back to Basics

While the discussion here often ranges far and wide, sometimes it is important for us to be reminded of the basic problem that prompted the discussion in the first place. Based on the research posted at the FIRM site, it has become clear that Hollywood movies over the years have contained consistent patterns of bias. Whole populations of people have been consistently portrayed in a negative and/or stereotypical manner (e.g., Arabs), liberal political positions are favored and an anti-religious tone prevails. This same research has also demonstrated that these consistent patterns of bias are caused by two factors: (1) movies tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers

___Executives don't make movies, film-makers do. Are you going to tell
me that Mel Gibson or Arnold Schwarzenegger are controlled by the
studios? George Lucas, maker of the
biggest Hollywood hits, is an independent who releases through Murdoch's Fox.

and (2) there is an extreme lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood, that is, the people in the positions of power with respect to greenlighting Hollywood movies tend to share a similar background. From a sociological point of view, that background can best be described as politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. Third and fourth generation individuals representing those characteristics occupied most of those positions at the time of the FIRM research (early 1990s) and no persuasive evidence has been presented here or elsewhere that suggests any significant change in the makeup of that Hollywood insiders' group to date.

___Are you kidding? Only Paramount
can be said to have significant Jewish
ownership. The largest shareholders
of Disney are the Disney family members.
Roy E. Disney was the one who brought
Michael Eisner in to run the company
and save it for the family investors.


The FIRM research (excerpts also posted here at the FIRM site) demonstrates further that this narrowly-defined group gained and has maintained its power in Hollywood through the consistent use of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices (see "337 Reported Business Practices of the Major/Studio Distributors"). Thus, Hollywood is hardly a free marketplace of ideas or a merit system. It is a sophisticated system controlled by insiders for the purpose of exploiting outsiders and keeping most of the money generated by such activities for the benefit and use of this insider group.

__Then how do you explain most of the
movie studios are public companies?


This unfortunate situation is detrimental for a democracy since as our U.S. Supreme Court has stated: "the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas." And, as we all know, ideas are often powerful motivators of human conduct. In addition, in a democracy based on the ideal of a free marketplace of ideas, any significant medium for the communication of ideas controlled by any narrowly-defined group can only diminish the strength of such a democracy.

___Business and art are not part of
the system of democracy. If business
becomes monopolistic, you have anti-trust laws, but otherwise you can't
require changes at the top on the
grounds that the top managers of the
movie business are democratically
unrepresentative.


So, let's all work together to bring about real and meaningful diversity at all levels in Hollywood. That's the ultimate goal of FIRM.

___Then you should openly repudiate
JJ/Jenk's attacks on Jews. That's not
an example of "working together."







Re(2): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 02:57:11 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Executives don't make movies, film-makers do. Are you going to tell
me that Mel Gibson or Arnold Schwarzenegger are controlled by the
studios?

RESPONSE: Shelps, stop kissing Jewish Butt. And get up off your knees, like a man. Shame!

Mel Gibson is currently risking his film career (read: alienating Jews) by doing a self-financed film about Jesus which includes the traditional Christian notion that "Jews killed Christ." Gibson's father has been trashed already as a fundamentalist Catholic and "Holocaust denier" by the Jewish Lobby. (Note the New York Times' trashing of Gibson and his upcoming movie -- we've got links to articles about all this at Jewish Tribal Review).

Schwartzenegger? "Even those who might not like Jews," says Barry Rubin, "have to accept their power and win their favor. In June 1991, the Simon Wiesenthal Center held a fifty-thousand-dollar-a-table dinner to honor movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, who reportedly contributed five million dollars to build its Museum of Tolerance. Present were Jewish
executives heading virtually every movie studio including Disney, whose late founder refused even to hire Jews. The Austrian-born actor's father may have been a Nazi Party member and the actor himself was a friend of Kurt Waldheim, Austria's ex-Nazi President, but Schwarzenegger also needed the favor of these powerful men."

In 1996 Schwarzenegger learned a bit about Jewish censorial power when he dared to consider to make a film about a real life character, a Nazi captain named Osterman who refused to kill a group of British prisoners during World War II. His interest came in the wake of Jewish director Steven Spielberg's colossal hit Schindlers List, where a Nazi saves Jews. Scheduled to begin shooting in ten weeks, the director of Schwarzenegger's project backed out of the film. "Other directors,"noted the London Sunday Times, "have privately admitted they are avoiding a film that might offend the powerful Jewish lobby in Hollywood ... According to Hollywood reports, Joel Schumacher, who is directing the latest Batman film, offered Schwarzenegger a short word of advice about making the film, 'Don't.'" [HARLOW]




Re(3): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 30, 2003 at 08:00:04 PM by George Shelps



YOU SAY: Executives don't make movies, film-makers do. Are you going to tell
me that Mel Gibson or Arnold Schwarzenegger are controlled by the
studios?

RESPONSE: Shelps, stop kissing Jewish Butt. And get up off your knees, like a man. Shame!

___Stop kissing your own ass first. Get
a life apart from running a hate site.

Mel Gibson is currently risking his film career (read: alienating Jews) by doing a self-financed film about Jesus which includes the traditional Christian notion that "Jews killed Christ."

__Wrong. He is following the Gospels
as written, which show that Jews and
Romans were both involved in the crucifixion. And he is risking his career because the movie is not going
to be in English but reportedly in
Latin and Aramaic (the language of
Jesus), with subtitles. A movie
like that is an "art" film and is always
risky

Besides, you're too obsessed with hate
to respond to the point I was making.

Indeed, you made the point for me, that is, that film-makers as well as movie
executives influence the point of view
of a movie...Gibson is making the movie
from HIS point of view.

Gibson's father has been trashed already as a fundamentalist Catholic and "Holocaust denier" by the Jewish Lobby. (Note the New York Times' trashing of Gibson and his upcoming movie -- we've got links to articles about all this at Jewish Tribal Review).

__I read all that, don't need to go view your moronic site. Journalists have
been attacking Gibson for years because of his conservatism. You might remember he was attacked for his views on gays.

But they're not able to prevent him
from making the film.

Schwartzenegger? "Even those who might not like Jews," says Barry Rubin, "have to accept their power and win their favor. In June 1991, the Simon Wiesenthal Center held a fifty-thousand-dollar-a-table dinner to honor movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, who reportedly contributed five million dollars to build its Museum of Tolerance. Present were Jewish
executives heading virtually every movie studio including Disney, whose late founder refused even to hire Jews.

__This is untrue. He even had a Jewish
chief financial officer.

The Austrian-born actor's father may have been a Nazi Party member and the actor himself was a friend of Kurt Waldheim, Austria's ex-Nazi President, but Schwarzenegger also needed the favor of these powerful men."

___Giving to Jewish causes is standard in Hollywood...what does that prove
about the content of movies?



In 1996 Schwarzenegger learned a bit about Jewish censorial power when he dared to consider to make a film about a real life character, a Nazi captain named Osterman who refused to kill a group of British prisoners during World War II. His interest came in the wake of Jewish director Steven Spielberg's colossal hit Schindlers List, where a Nazi saves Jews.

___No, wrong. Oskar Schindler pretended
to be pro-Nazi.

Scheduled to begin shooting in ten weeks, the director of Schwarzenegger's project backed out of the film.

___Oh, and what about Wolfgang Peterson,
German born director of THE PERFECT STORM and AIR FORCE ONE...he made a movie called DAS BOOT, which presented
German submariners sympathetically...how come he is a top Hollywood director now?

And who was the director who quit
the project?

"Other directors,"noted the London Sunday Times, "have privately admitted they are avoiding a film that might offend the powerful Jewish lobby in Hollywood ... According to Hollywood reports, Joel Schumacher, who is directing the latest Batman film, offered Schwarzenegger a short word of advice about making the film, 'Don't.'" [HARLOW]

___Yeah, I'm sure Arnold is going to
listen to a minor player like Schumacher
who made a lousy Batman film.






Re(4): Getting Back to Basics
Posted on May 31, 2003 at 00:05:36 AM by mg

YOU SAY: Stop kissing your own ass first. Get a life apart from running a hate site.

RESPONSE: Mr. Shelps, I'm not a contortionist like yourself. How you manage to wear Jewish Butt like a pair of horse blinders I haven't yet figured out.

YOU SAY: Wrong. He is following the Gospels as written, which show that Jews and Romans were both involved in the crucifixion.

RESPONSE: Here's where you can pick another fight with Levine. Jews forbid the notion that Jews had anything to do with "killing Christ." In case you haven't heard, that's a manifestation of Christian "anti-Semitism." So, Shelps, YOU are an anti-Semite, it appears. Shame!

YOU SAY: And he is risking his career because the movie is not going
to be in English but reportedly in
Latin and Aramaic (the language of
Jesus), with subtitles. A movie
like that is an "art" film and is always risky

RESPONSE: True, but Gibson flirts with alienating Jews for depicting anything about "Jews killing Christ."

Gibson walks on thin ice because his film is in Aramaic? Hmmmm. I don't think that's all. Here's a nice case of Jewry telling (warning) Gibson what he CAN'T portray in his film:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20030307_754.html

LA Rabbi Asks Mel Gibson to Reconsider Jesus Film, ABC News, March 7, 2003

"A prominent Jewish leader on Friday asked actor Mel Gibson to make
certain that his new film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ does
not portray the Jews as collectively responsible for the crucifixion. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he was concerned because an article to be published in the New York Times Magazine portrays Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic opposed
to the reforms of Vatican II. Heir said, 'Obviously, no one has seen 'The
Passion' and I certainly have no problem with Mel Gibson's right to believe as he sees fit or make any movie he wants to. What concerns me, however is when I read that the film's purpose is to undo the changes made by
Vatican II.' He said that Vatican conclave was convened to deal with several critical issues, including the rejection of the notion that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. 'If the new film seeks
to undo Vatican II ... it would unleash more of the scurrilous charges of deicide directed against the Jewish people, which took the Catholic Church 20 centuries to finally repudiate,' he said ... Discussing his film in a recent TV interview, Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. He said, "It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth.'"

YOU SAY: Besides, you're too obsessed with hate to respond to the point I was making.

RESPONSE: True, I "hate" your stupidity but that's about it. Well, I also "hate" to see anyone (like yourself) grovel before the Jewish Lobby and squeak like a puppet with a Jewish hand up his behind, but hey, it's your life.

YOU SAY: Indeed, you made the point for me, that is, that film-makers as well as movie executives influence the point of view of a movie...

RESPONSE: Not quite. Gibson's efforts to branch out on his own to do a film that Jews would never finance threatens his career.

YOU SAY: Gibson is making the movie from HIS point of view.

RESPONSE: Yes, and you make MY point: in order to make HIS "point of view" he has to leave the Jewish Hollywood network and pay for this film out of his own pocket.

YOU SAY: I read all that, don't need to go view your moronic site. Journalists have been attacking Gibson for years because of his conservatism. You might remember he was attacked for his views on gays.

RESPONSE: So?

YOU SAY: But they're not able to prevent him from making the film.

RESPONSE: No, but depending upon what the film depicts, "they're" able to ruin his career. If Gibson is perceived as an "anti-Semite," he's finished. That's the problem FIRM faces. People in the film business can't publicly state their support for it: it would mean the ends of their Hollywood careers.

YOU SAY: This is untrue. He even had a Jewish chief financial officer.

RESPONSE: If Disney had a Jewish "chief financial officer," you AGAIN make MY point. They're as populous in Hollywood as grass on a lawn.

YOU SAY: Giving to Jewish causes is standard in Hollywood...

RESPONSE: No kidding! Been to any Armenian, Dutch, Kenyan, or Vietnamese "causes" in Hollywood lately?

YOU SAY: what does that prove about the content of movies?

RESPONSE: Hmmmm. Put on your thinking cap and try not to pop any blood veins. Your question is sort of like: "Who's buried in Grant's tomb?"

YOU SAY: No, wrong. Oskar Schindler pretended to be pro-Nazi.

RESPONSE: Is this the best you can conjure in your struggle towards negation?

YOU SAY: Oh, and what about Wolfgang Peterson, German born director of THE PERFECT STORM and AIR FORCE ONE...he made a movie called DAS BOOT, which presented German submariners sympathetically...how come he is a top Hollywood director now?

RESPONSE: I don't know the films, nor the circumstances. Maybe his wife is Jewish?




Re(4): Ge