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

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

Do you have any expertise in that area?

James Jaeger

 

 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

James Jaeger

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

James Jaeger


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

John Cones

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

So Mel gets an independent distributor.

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

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


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

Pope to See Mel Gibson's Movie on Christ


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

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

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

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

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

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

richard Mauro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Mel gets an independent distributor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Anami

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

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

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

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

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

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

So go jump in a lake your damn self!

 

 

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

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

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

John Cones

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

James Jaeger

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anami

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anami

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

>Is anybody else sick of Barbara Walters?

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

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

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

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

I don't know what you mean by this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Jaeger

>Anami

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anami

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

Only kidding Mitch! :)

But it is interresting to note the following from NEWSMAX:

"Pope Loves Mel Gibson Film

"It is as it was."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah to you Mitchell.

James

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

Season's greetings to you too, Jim!

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you didn’t have the time or money to do this experiment, you could probably do an experiment where you simply asked each executive at the top of each MPAA studio WHO hired them. Then follow the chain down asking WHO hired them, etc. I will bet you will find that a significant portion of the nodes on the chains are Jewish. I would then repeat this same experiment starting with the few Gentile executives that are in the industry and follow the chain of nodes down as to who hired them. The key questions would be: What percentage of time does a Jewish executive (node) hire a Gentile executive (node) vs. the percentage of time a Gentile executive (node) hires a Jewish executive (node)? Obviously it would take money and time to do this experiment, but I feel it would yield some very interesting sociological results.(2) Of course, it would also be interesting to extend this same experiment to all other industries as well as all other combinations of people. And eventually, with the advent of AI database mining, all this WILL be done.(3)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

If I were to be envious of anything it would be of Jews uncanny ability to network. Being an ex-Scientologist I have a great appreciation of how this is done and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to learn that L. Ron Hubbard took much of what he incorporated into Scientology from Judaism and that Jews in Hollywood take Scientology policies, such as the one entitled "How to Handle Black Propaganda," very seriously indeed.

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

James Jaeger

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Jaeger

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

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

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

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

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

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

James

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

Okay, let’s examine this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, not naturally, criminally.

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

Here’s your bigoted elitism showing again. Since Gentiles started the movie industry, Gentiles have more experience than Jews who came later and didn’t even have the brains to invent the movie camera. You gonna tell me that Jews are more able then Gentiles when they didn’t even invent the primary instrument that made it all possible. The more I think about it, the less I am agreeing with this idea that Jewish studio executives are justified in hiring other Jewish studio executives because they have more "experience" than Gentile studio executives. This is a crock of horse.

>Simply because you're paranoid about their religion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>are so successful and it makes them jealous.

Hey, if I were to be jealous of anything it would be of Jews ability to network. Being an ex-Scientologist I have a great appreciation of how this is done and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to learn that L. Ron Hubbard took much of what he incorporated into Scientology from Judaism.

>That's not what democracy is all about.

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

James Jaeger

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

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

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

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

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

- Blaming the victim: another bad sign.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, not naturally, criminally.

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

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

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

Here’s your bigoted elitism showing again. Since Gentiles started the movie industry, Gentiles have more experience than Jews who came later and didn’t even have the brains to invent the movie camera.

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

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

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

You gonna tell me that Jews are more able then Gentiles when they didn’t even invent the primary instrument that made it all possible. The more I think about it, the less I am agreeing with this idea that Jewish studio executives are justified in hiring other Jewish studio executives because they have more "experience" than Gentile studio executives. This is a crock of horse.

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

>Simply because you're paranoid about their religion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no question that Hollywood is dominated by Jews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Wrong - I'm dramatizing YOUR consciousness!

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

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

>That's not what democracy is all about.

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

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

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

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

James Jaeger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post it again so I can read it George.

James Jaeger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Jaeger

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

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

_____Do your homework! The Edison Trust
was ruled an illegal restraint of trade
under the