Thanks for Your Support
Posted on February 8, 2004 at 12:06:18 PM by John Cones

In recent weeks, we have all seen or read about several different Jewish leaders criticizing Mel Gibson’s film "Passion of Christ" because of its apparent negative portrayal of some Jewish characters, concluding that such negative portrayals will lead to a rise in anti-Semitism. Let’s look at that argument. First, it accepts one of the contentions of FIRM, that a motion picture is a powerful form of communication. We rarely hear anyone associated with the Hollywood establishment admitting to that obvious fact. So, it is reassuring to know that others agree with us on that point. Then, the argument of these Jewish leaders actually goes further than FIRM to suggest that the negative portrayal of one or more characters in a single film has the power to influence the beliefs and behavior of many people. It has long been FIRM’s contention that the consistent negative or stereotypical portrayal of certain populations within our multi-cultural society in movies could lead to the creation of prejudice in the viewers of such movies, and that such prejudice (negative generalized belief) could lead to discrimination (the undesired behavior). But, again, these several Jewish leaders are claiming that a negative portrayal of a few Jewish characters in a single movie might cause the same type harm. Of course, these are not the same arguments being offered when the more long-term, consistent negative or stereotypical portrayals in Hollywood movies have been Muslims, Arabs, Christians, Mormons, Latinos, African-Americans, women, Native Americans, Irish, Italian-Americans, Japanese, Whites from the American South and so forth. The danger (in the view of these Jewish leaders), for movies to create prejudice and discrimination is apparently only there if the movies portray Jewish characters in a bad light. Wouldn’t it be better to just be honest about this whole issue and recognize (1) motion pictures are a powerful communications medium, (2) movies have long contained negative and/or stereotypical portrayals of certain populations in our multi-cultural society, (3) the consistent negative and/or stereotypical portrayals of these populations in movies contributes to prejudice and discrimination, (4) movies tend to a large extent to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, (5) the Hollywood studio executives who have the authority to decide which movies will be produced and/or released are not a very diverse group, and (6) we would all be better off if the Hollywood executive suites were filled with a more diverse group of people. That is the objective of FIRM. We must thank these recent critics of Mel Gibson’s film for helping us to make our case.

John Cones

Re(1): Thanks for Your Support
Posted on February 9, 2004 at 07:39:44 PM by Anami

Bravo.

http://www.supportmelgibson.com/
Posted on February 8, 2004 at 04:08:56 PM by G.I.U.

http://www.supportmelgibson.com/

Censorship of THE PASSION
Posted on February 10, 2004 at 04:16:27 PM by James Jaeger

Paula Zhan Now, [Transcripts]
CNN, February 4, 2004

"Just three weeks before its release, the controversy swirling around Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" continues to rise. For months, critics have warned that the film is anti-Semitic. Now the issue is not what's in the movie but what Gibson is cutting out of it. According to reports, he is deleting a scene that some believe blames Jews for Christ's crucifixion.

Paula Zahn talked about the movie with Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAULA ZAHN, HOST: Gentlemen, welcome. Delighted to have both of you with us this evening. Bill, I'm going to start with you tonight. If the final cut has this deletion, does that mean Mel Gibson is admitting that that scene was anti-Semitic?

BILL DONOHUE, PRES., CATHOLIC LEAGUE: No, what it means is that Mel Gibson had the common sense not to allow his critics an opportunity to try to attack him on one line. The fact of the matter is, I've seen the movie twice. It wasn't in either version. Rabbi Hier has seen it once. It wasn't in his version. This is not a matter of pressure, it's a matter of Mel Gibson simply saying it's not that critical to the movie. And if people want to make a big deal about that one line, I'm going to take it out. The fact of the matter is, the people who really hate the movie and are out to destroy Mel Gibson on this are still not going to be satisfied.

ZAHN: Rabbi Hier, are you satisfied if this scene goes?

RABBI MARVIN HIER, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER: First of all, I saw the movie twice. On both occasions, that line was not in there. And the movie is absolutely horrible, as far as Jews are concerned.

COLLINS: Why?

HIER: Because it entirely blames Jews, all of the Jews, not only the high priests but everyone in the mob, hundreds of people. They all look -- their presentation is negative. They have these Rasputin- like features. They never say an intelligent word in a two-hour movie, which is unbelievable. The only Jews that come off as moderates and sensitive are the Jews who follow Jesus. And so there's only one conclusion. Who created all this inhumanity against Jesus? And the answer would be a resounding, The Jews.

COLLINS: All right, let me ask you this, Bill. Did you think the characterizations of all the Jews Rabbi Hier just mentioned that he saw in the film are fair characterizations? DONOHUE: No, I think he's living in la-la land. As a matter of fact, he's going to be thoroughly embarrassed when the average person looks at this movie and they're going to say, What was the fuss about? As Jack Valenti said, What is the fuss about? This is not an anti- Semitic movie, unless you have a need, a deep-seated need to find anti-Semitism and then to attack Christians, which is what Abe Foxman and others have done. This is not an anti-Semitic movie. The pope has endorsed it. People from the Vatican have endorsed it, most Catholics who have seen it, including Jews and Protestants. So are we all a bunch of bigots, Rabbi Hier?

HIER: Excuse me, this is not about Catholics and Jews, nothing to do about Christianity, even though that's the line you're pushing. This has all to do with Mel Gibson. And the pope did not endorse this film. The pope never said, It is as it was. DONOHUE: He did say that, but the Vatican is backtracking! But I'm telling you, Rabbi, you've contributed to it! Do not poison relationships between Christians and Jews by acting like as if there's going to be pogroms in the street! You know it's a lie! There have never been pogroms in the United States! Let's stop with the incendiary language!

COLLINS: All right, Bill, let's let the rabbi respond to that. But I know you have a six-page letter that you will release publicly tomorrow for the first time. Are you essentially saying if there is violence after this film is released that it has something to do with the critics of this film, that it's the Jews' fault?

DONOHUE: No, what I -- just the opposite. I'm saying that the charge of violence is coming from people like Foxman and Paula Friedrickson (ph) and Rabbi Hier bringing up the Holocaust and everything to make Christians feel on the defensive.

ZAHN: Rabbi Hier?

HIER: That is absolute nonsense. It's the kind of rhetoric that Mr.
Donohue has been...

DONOHUE: What's nonsense?

HIER: Total nonsense that anybody is anti-Christian. What we said is, this film portrays Jews, all Jews, horribly. This was a Mel Gibson choice, nothing to do with the New Testament, nothing to do with the church. There have been other films on Jesus. No one has portrayed Jews as negative as this.

ZAHN: All right, Rabbi Hier, are you suggesting...

HIER: And that is... (CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: ... that this will spark violence against Jews in the United States?

HIER: Not at all. What I'm saying -- this negative portrayal in Europe, in the Arab world, will contribute to negative feelings against Jews. When a 16-year-old sees a film like this, it doesn't have to register that he goes off and firebombs a synagogue now. It's just that in his mind, he said, Gee, that's the way the Jews are, because of his negative portrayal of all Jews, which contributes again to the DSI (ph) charge that it was the Jews collectively that were responsible for the death of Jesus.

DONOHUE: You won't get that from this movie! If, in fact, they were
showing collective guilt of Jews then, or even in a more demented sense, to fast-forward to blame Jews today, I'd be the first one to condemn it, Rabbi. But the fact of the matter is, it is wrong to suggest that Mel Gibson is portraying most Jews as responsible. He's talking about a select segment of the Jewish authorities who clamored for the death of Jesus. Now, you will not rewrite the New Testament for Christians in this country!

ZAHN: You don't think, in any way, it will contribute to increased hated of Jews?

DONOHUE: I will stake my reputation on it right now! People will be paralyzed when they see this movie. They will be breathless. It will bring people back to the church, and it will be a good thing for Catholics and Jews. And the people who are clamoring this -- this rhetoric, this cacophony against Mel Gibson, boy, are they going to have to pay for it when it's all over!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: That was Paula's conversation with Bill Donohue and Rabbi Marvin Hier."


Source: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/04/pzn.00.html

Christian Depictions in Film
Posted on February 10, 2004 at 06:22:07 PM by James Jaeger

Join the clubbed: Catholics know pain of being bashed

February 10, 2004

BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

"Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" won't be released until Feb. 25, but it's already one of the most controversial films in history.

For months Gibson has been showing rough cuts of the movie to religious leaders in an effort to stem mounting criticism that his interpretation of the last hours of Jesus' life will foster anti-Semitism.

I'm not sure the plan is working. Last week I received a 47-page packet from the Chicago chapter of the American Jewish Committee. Titled "The Passion: A Resource Manual," it's filled with background information, essays, biblical passages and even "talking points" about the film.

From the cover letter: "As the controversy over Mel Gibson's forthcoming film 'The Passion of the Christ' continues to escalate, [we're] taking this opportunity to provide you with the enclosed resource material on the film and the concerns of the AJC toward it. It is AJC's view, after having viewed two versions of the movie, that the Gibson film represents a reassertion of hurtful and discredited anti-Jewish elements. The film is a disturbing setback to the remarkable achievements in Christian-Jewish relations over the past 40 years . . ."

I've seen the version of "The Passion of the Christ" that will play in theaters starting on Ash Wednesday -- and I'll soon share my views on the film. In the meantime, I've been pondering some other religious-themed movies I've seen in my four years on "Ebert & Roeper."

Catholicism has been represented far more frequently than any other faith. I've probably seen more films about the Catholic Church (and movies with nuns or priests as supporting characters) than all other religions put together. Just from the last four years, I could easily put together a Catholic Film Festival -- but I don't think too many Catholics would be pleased with the entries.


Crooked priests, cruel nuns

Last year we had "The Order," a laughable thriller with Heath Ledger as a rebellious Catholic priest investigating the supposed suicide of his mentor. Turns out the elderly priest died after a ritual known as "sin eating." Peter Weller plays a ruthlessly ambitious and sinister cardinal.

Then there was "The Magdalene Sisters," an excellent but unforgiving film about the real-life Magdalene laundries in Ireland. In 1964, three young women are sentenced to a convent that is nothing more than a glorified slave labor camp. For years, the girls are subjected to abuse from nuns who are no more sympathetic than Nazi guards. Equally horrible is the priest who sexually abuses a mentally impaired young woman.

In "The Affair of the Necklace" (2002), Hilary Swank is an 18th century woman determined to restore her family's good name. She has to contend with Jonathan Pryce's Cardinal de Rohan, a lecherous, despicable schemer.

The terrific "Evelyn" (2002) tells the true story of Desmond Doyle, an impoverished single father in Ireland who fought to regain custody of his three children, who by law had been placed in Catholic orphanages. The priests and nuns treat young Evelyn and her sisters with utter cruelty.


Catholic-bashing, Part II

In "The Crime of Padre Amaro" (2002), an older priest, Father Benito, has been having an affair with a local woman for years, and he has ties to leftist guerrillas and drug peddlers. When young Father Amaro (Gael Garcia Bernal) arrives, it seems like mere days before he takes up with the 16-year-old daughter of the older priest's mistress. When the girl is impregnated, the young priest takes her to get an abortion.

Another 2002 film, "The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys," stars Jodie Foster as the stone-faced, one-legged Sister Assumpta, who torments her young students and calls William Blake "a dangerous thinker." (Movie priests and nuns often rail against thought. In "The Order," a cleric says, "Knowledge is the enemy of faith.")

In the leering comedy "40 Days and 40 Nights" (2002), Josh Hartnett swears off all sexual contact for 40 days and 40 nights, and if you don't get that subtle biblical reference, Hartnett's brother is a priest, and they often meet in the confessional to gab about sex.

Antonio Banderas is a combat soldier-turned-archeologist-turned- priest in "The Body" (2001), and Olivia Williams is the Jewish archeologist who discovers a skeleton that may be the body of Jesus Christ, proving that he was a mere man. (Of course, there's smoldering tension between Banderas and Williams.) Derek Jacobi is an older priest who commits suicide.

In these movies, priests are suicidal, corrupt and/or lascivious. Nuns are heartless and sadistic.

Before you run to your keyboard: yes, I'm aware of scandals, past and present, involving the church. And yes, some of the films listed above are powerful, important works based on true stories.

But a lot of this stuff is just exploitative garbage. And no other religious group gets bashed with such frequency. Can you imagine a similar number of films with Jewish leaders playing villains and moral weaklings?

Me neither."

Source: http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep10.html

Mel's Note of Caution
Posted on February 13, 2004 at 05:22:14 PM by James Jaeger

After THE PASSION is over, I see no reason why Mel Gibson should not come on-screen and say the following:

"My name is Mel Gibson. This is a film of love. This is a passion of love. I've been inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this and I believe that Jesus suffered for all mankind and all mankind has a responsibility and a guilt for his suffering," and then take a breath and say, "But there are those out there who would blame the Jews as they have in history. Don't do that, for that would convert this passion of love to a passion of hate."

This has been suggested by Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). See http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/gibson_trigger.asp for his entire view on the subject.

Foxman is right, this simple note of caution could make a difference in steming any violence that might occure as a result of this film. This would be the Christian thing for Mel to do. I might add to this postscript the following:

"Christians have forgiven the Jews for anything they may have done in the past and as depicted in this picture. This is part of what it means to be a Christian. Others, no matter what their denomination, could contribute to a more harmoneous world by following their example."

James Jaeger

Re(1): Mel's Note of Caution
Posted on February 13, 2004 at 05:47:25 PM by Mitchell Levine

Jim, how much more patronizing and insulting could this disclaimer be???

In other words, "Even though we all know the Jews are a bunch of Christ-killing bloodsuckers, it's really beneath us to lower ourselves to their level."

Re(2): Mel's Note of Caution
Posted on February 13, 2004 at 06:11:48 PM by James Jaeger

Complain, complain, complain. That's all you do. Nothing will please you. I have no idea where you are coming from on this.

Are you denying that it was the Jews, more specifically the Sanhedrin, that had Christ put to death? So what if the Jews had Christ put to death, this was part of God's plan for had it not happened, Christians believe that Christ could not have fulfilled the prophesies.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Mel's Note of Caution
Posted on February 13, 2004 at 06:44:26 PM by Mitchell Levine

Because it led to two thousand years of persecution, not to mention genocide. That's what.

That you could be so insensitive is truly remarkable.

Re(4): Mel's Note of Caution
Posted on February 13, 2004 at 07:34:31 PM by James Jaeger

Hey, down boy. I'm AGREENING with Abe Foxman that Mel should say something as a post script on his film. What more do you want; blood? Sheesh!

James Jaeger

Re(5): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 17, 2004 at 03:53:09 PM by James Jaeger

After seeing Mel's interview on DIANE SAWYER last night, 16 February 2004, in a special broadcast entitled, MEL'S PASSION, AND considering what John Cones recently posted -- I have an additional consideration about this matter.

Mel brought up the idea, that putting a post script on his film insinuates that there's something wrong with the film. I can see his point, and therefore retract my suggestion that he do such until AFTER I see the film.

Secondly, John Cones brings up another excellent point: the idea that, why should one group get a post script and not all others? It would be favoritism for one group to get such a disclaimer while all others do not.

If THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST could be construed to incite anti-Semitism or violence against Jews, and again I'll have a better idea after I see it, then maybe such a disclaimer is not a bad idea -- but mainly in countries where anti-Semitism has been more prevalent. It probably is not an issue in the United States, especially now, that Mel himself said that it is not okay for true Christians to be anti-Semitic. And I agree with Mel on this, Christians and Jews need to celebrate their common heritage and work towards ways of accepting each other's differences. Such acceptance, I would hope, would include Jewish executives in the MPAA studio/distributors promoting Gentiles to the top-most echelons. And by the same token, I would hope that Gentile executives would do the same, for this and all other industries -- that is accept Jewish executives in the top-most echelons.

As Mitchell Levin points out, there is no reason the movie industry can't eventually evolve to a state of greater diversity, especially if a greater element of love and respect can be fostered between Christians and Jews.

James Jaeger

Re(6): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 20, 2004 at 09:19:16 PM by Mitchell Levine

Secondly, John Cones brings up another excellent point: the idea that, why should one group get a post script and not all others? It would be favoritism for one group to get such a disclaimer while all others do not.

- Jim, numerous films have already carried disclaimers of this type; for example, Year of the Dragon, Marked for Death, Cruising, and numerous others.

Why would it not be "favoritism" for those groups - in the above cases, the Chinese, Jamaicans, and gays - to merit a disclaimer and not Jews?

Re(7): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 22, 2004 at 02:35:19 PM by john alibrandi

I have spent the past hour or so reading the notes on the subject(s) discussed, and would like to offer several observations;
1.You have moved away from (or tired of) the orig. subject matter. This site is turning into nothing more than a 'Passion' site.
M. Levine -Jews do in fact control Hollywood, for various reasons, both right and wrong. Denying this fact will not further your cause. Instead, accept it for what it is. Jews have a long history of survival issues and biblical superiority that have naturally manifested into the corporate environment. Ancient Jews, to modern day Isreal have been forced to build fortress walls to simply survive. Why should Hollywood or the Diamond District or Advertising Agencies or Law firms be any different? It is what it is for very real and understandable reasons. The question really is; When will the situation change? Maybe it already has, maybe it never will.

J.Jaeger. Like it or not, a non-practicing jew (Be him European, Isreali, American)is still 'The seed of Abraham' and thus the 'chosen' people of God. This is where many superiority issues come into play. If God chose only Jaegers 4000 years ago as his first people, it would likely stay locked in your head too, and you might see and treat others as a bit inferior.-Which would be wrong, but it would still happen. I suspect that deep down you really wish you were at least part jewish. Just enough to get along in certain circles...

2.J. Jaeger and M. Levine have become co-dependent. Imagine that...A Gentile and a Jew actually needing each other. Write the screen play and make a movie together with M. Levine (He's jewish, so getting it on the screen should be no problem.)

3.The world is full of Anti-semitism and this site just seems to encourage it.

4.If M. Levine were to not respond to J. Jaeger's hate messages, he would have no one to argue with.

Re(8): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 22, 2004 at 06:22:15 PM by James Jaeger

>I have spent the past hour or so reading the notes on the subject(s) discussed, and would like to offer several observations;

Wow a whole hour! You must be an expert on the Film Industry Reform Movement now.

>1.You have moved away from (or tired of) the orig. subject matter. This site is turning into nothing more than a 'Passion' site.

And what do you suppose the "orig. subject matter" was?

>M. Levine -Jews do in fact control Hollywood, for various reasons, both right and wrong. Denying this fact will not further your cause. Instead, accept it for what it is. Jews have a long history of survival issues and biblical superiority that have naturally manifested into the corporate environment. Ancient Jews, to modern day Isreal have been forced to build fortress walls to simply survive. Why should Hollywood or the Diamond District or Advertising Agencies or Law firms be any different? It is what it is for very real and understandable reasons. The question really is; When will the situation change? Maybe it already has, maybe it never will.

I'll let Mr. Levin address this if he so chooses.

>J.Jaeger. Like it or not, a non-practicing jew (Be him European, Isreali, American)is still 'The seed of Abraham' and thus the 'chosen' people of God. This is where many superiority issues come into play. If God chose only Jaegers 4000 years ago as his first people, it would likely stay locked in your head too, and you might see and treat others as a bit inferior.

When I raise this issue of "the chosen people" with Christians and Jews around here, they relate to me entirely different interpretations of the term "chosen people." One of my Christian friends indicated to me that the term chosen people does not refer to Jews as being something SPECIAL but as something DEGRADED. The idea being that, if God were able to convert the worst of society into a higher state (now called Christianity), converting the rest of society would be a cake-walk. A Jewish friend put a different spin on this. She said that it means that the Jews were "chosen" to carry a BURDEN, the burden that God used to make his points to a sinful world. Thus there is nothing inherently better or worse about Jews, it’s that God just happened to "chose" them to work through. Luck of the draw. So we see here, depending on how one wants to spin this term, "chosen people," it can mean any one of three things, ranging from NEGATIVE to NEUTRAL to POSITIVE. One can see the Jews as "chosen" because they were SUPERIOR; or the Jews were "chosen" simply because they were THERE; or the Jews were "chosen" because they were a challenge being in a DEGRADED state. I might add, I have no idea which interpretation is correct, if any, because it was all laid down some 1,960 years ago and I wasn’t there (unless past lives ARE true, and there is no empirical evidence for them one way or another at this time).

>-Which would be wrong, but it would still happen. I suspect that deep down you really wish you were at least part jewish.

Some people in my family are Jewish by marriage. I may be part Jewish as we think some of my ancestors were Jewish. My mother and I are looking into this genealogy now. But the fact of the matter is almost everyone is part Jewish and part everything else. In another 30 - 500 years there will only be one (1) race on this planet (and it may not even be human). Because of the early trade routes, Hawaii is one of, if not the most ethnically integrated places in the world. Because of this they have achieved a significant degree of social harmony as they consider themselves the same as each other or they don’t know and have thus stopped even thinking about it. One thing that’s interesting is that three of the recent Miss Americas have come from Hawaii. This indicates that certain "desirable" genes get selected when nature has a more diverse pool to choose from. The "chosen" genes! I personally think it would be an interesting experiment to set up states where people of the SAME or SIMILAR race/ethnic background are NOT legally permitted to breed. You do that and the gene pool will probably grow superior to all other gene pools. Thus the general IQ and physical abilities of these people will soon accelerate over the general, more bigoted, population. Such a state of extreme biological diversity may eventually produce an advanced culture, one that may even eventually rule the entire world because of it’s ability to develop such breakthrough technologies as viable quantum computing, strong AI and the replicating assembler for nanotechnology. If this happened, and I realize I am digressing a whole lot here so please bear with me, such a culture would be able to crack open the financial and technological conundrums of our era. This would include solving the exponential math problems that exist (such as the traveling sales man problem, protein folding, 100% debug of computer code, the legal-consistency problem and the factoring of large numbers).


>Just enough to get along in certain circles...

I have never had any problem getting along with Jews. For the most part I enjoy the company of Jews. In fact I usually have more interesting and fast-paced conversations with my Jewish friends than I do with others, with the exception of writers and scientists. I would say Jews are more interesting than Scientologists because they don't have their minds boxed in by the encouraged, if not sole, teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with much of Hubbard's teachings, it's just that Scientologists, unlike Jews don't really consider the teaching of anyone else unless they have been filtered through ‘source," i.e., Mr. Hubbard’s cerebral cortex. On the other hand, it has been my observation that Jews mainly form their opinions from a multi-millennial Jewish network of associates such including Jewish literature, periodicals and media -- so at least they are a little broader than the Scientologists who, again, allow most of their "data" to be filtered through Hubbard (and, in fact are not even allowed to discuss such things as the technology of Scientology with each other as it's considered "verbal tech." I might add that there ARE valid reasons for this policy, but it can be taken to extremes when applied to the universe of research outside the immediate purvey of Mr. Hubbard, who is now deceased and thus not privy to the latest advancements in the sciences or humanities. But just like all religions, the body of knowledge is always considered "complete". This serves as a protection against "alter-is," "squirreling" and "false prophets").
>2.J. Jaeger and M. Levine have become co-dependent. Imagine that...A Gentile and a Jew actually needing each other.

I have chuckled over this as well. Actually I have grown quite fond of Mr. Levine, as much of a pain in the ass as he's been at times. He has many good points and I believe has well represented the Jewish POV on many issues. As I said above, Jews seem to be among the very few that are mentally alive. Where are all the Christians and Scientologists and Arab/Muslims and Atheists and people of every other race and heritage on this site? They are either brain-dead or terrified to argue in public. Shame on them and bravo for Mr. Levin to have the passion and guts to speak up.

>Write the screen play and make a movie together with M. Levine (He's jewish, so getting it on the screen should be no problem.)

Maybe Mr. Levine and I will meet some day and I would welcome that, but I don’t think he likes me very much or respects me, at least from what I hear him saying about my accomplishments in film and my opinions in connection with FIRM.

>3.The world is full of Anti-semitism and this site just seems to encourage it.

I don’t think "the world is full of anti-Semitism" and I don’t think FIRM encourages it any more than the movie, THE PASSION, will. When one says this, "the world is full of anti-Semitism," they’re buying into the view of organizations like the ADL who see it everywhere. Let’s face it, it pays for them to see it everywhere. Their annual budget is some $50 million. If anti-Semitism were to suddenly vanish, so would a lot of paychecks. I will even go farther: I say that this organization even CREATES anti-Semitism and Jews would do well to reevaluate its usefulness and disband it. The Christians have no such anti-Jesus organization or anti-Christian organization. On the other hand, the Scientologists have their version of the ADL. It’s called the "Watchdog Committee" and I think it’s a part of the RTC, the Religious Technology Corporation. The Scientologists also have their version of "anti-Semites." They’re known as "SPs" or "Suppressive Persons." I was into Scientology in LA for about 15 years and, believe me, one who is in it is as TERRIFIED of being labeled an SP as a Gentile or a Feature Filmmaker is of being labeled an "anti-Semite." It’s all quite puerile and laughable once one gets an exterior view of the tactic. The ADL, which represents Jews, in essence, justifies its existence because of the Holocaust, and the Watchdog Committee, in essence, justifies it existence because of the APA, the American Psychiatric Association. It’s all horse, and that’s why I prefer scientists. The more I study this issue, the more I am convinced that L. Ron Hubbard modeled much of his Scientology policy after the warfare policies developed by the Jews and Jewish network, including the ADL and the AIPAC. I also suspect that many Hollywood-Jews (HJ’s) are covertly using Scientology policy in their operations but would never say so because this is politically incorrect at this time. Nevertheless, we will probably see the time when Judaism and Scientology come out of the closet together and the Hollywood-based, Jewish dominated media embraces Scientology EXACTLY as it has done for homosexuality. The idea is that, the HJs that control Hollywood, unlike their brothers at large, probably DO hate anything and everything about Christianity. These people are indeed the new Sanhedrin and their mission is to chop up traditional Christian American in any way possible.

Maybe THE PASSION will create some anti-Semitism for a few nuts out there, but I would be willing to bet that anyone who is ‘encouraged’ to become anti-Semitic by this site, or THE PASSION, is already the kind of person who ALREADY hates or dislikes Muslims and/or Christians and/or Scientologists and/or Blacks and/or Asians and/or Others-different-from-themselves already. So if FIRM is encouraging YOU to go anti-Semitic: just turn it off. Your computer has an on off button, no? Just like your TV! Hey, this is what the MPAA apologists always tell us to do to protect our children from their violence-oriented, sex-saturated movies and now even football games. You don’t like the FIRM site because it’s making your anti-Semitic: turn it off.

>4.If M. Levine were to not respond to J. Jaeger's hate messages,

Why do you consider my messages ones of hate? What have I posted that leads you to this conclusion? Hate is such a one-dimensional emotion. I have done my best to discuss openly as many sides of these issues as possible, much to the risk of my film career. For you to filter out what you perceive to be "hate" indicates to me that you may have your "hate filters" turned up too high.

>he would have no one to argue with.

An interesting thought. Maybe I have become the sole reason for Mr. Levine’s existence.

James Jaeger

Re(9): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 22, 2004 at 10:04:07 PM by Mitchell Levine

I don’t think "the world is full of anti-Semitism" and I don’t think FIRM encourages it any more than the movie, THE PASSION, will.

- Even the ADL don't believe the film will create antisemitic violence in the U.S.

When one says this, "the world is full of anti-Semitism," they’re buying into the view of organizations like the ADL who see it everywhere.

- That Foxman's hysterical's been amply demonstrated by the whole incident - but it's his job to be a canary in a coalmine. That the work of the ADL is necessary should be obvious from most of the posts on this site. If that doesn't do it for you, try Jenks' Jew-hatred portal.

Let’s face it, it pays for them to see it everywhere. Their annual budget is some $50 million. If anti-Semitism were to suddenly vanish, so would a lot of paychecks.

- And if crime vanished, then law enforcements' budgets would also cease. Does that prove crime doesn't exist, and that therefore the FBI fabricates it???

I will even go farther: I say that this organization even CREATES anti-Semitism and Jews would do well to reevaluate its usefulness and disband it.

- This is coming from a guy that actually believed the term "goyim" means "cattle" - a lie which comes straight from neo-facists. If you would have bothered to take a look at the ADL site, you'd have known that was an ignorant falsehood.

The Anti-Defamation League's tireless efforts have been made on behalf of many minorities, and they've done a great deal to promote tolerance through education for all of them.

That they've made mistakes and done things that were incorrect is due simply to the falliable nature of flesh-and-blood human beings. It does not negate the value of the their accomplishments.

Of course, that's not meant to suggest that they shouldn't be subject to the same laws and restrictions every other organization is.

The Christians have no such anti-Jesus organization or anti-Christian organization.

- Bullshit. What the hell is the Catholic League???
Even Foxman isn't as hysterical as William Donohue! There are many such Christian organizations, including the now-defunct "Moral Majority."

On the other hand, the Scientologists have their version of the ADL. It’s called the "Watchdog Committee" and I think it’s a part of the RTC, the Religious Technology Corporation. The Scientologists also have their version of "anti-Semites."-

- They're called "people capable of rational thought."

They’re known as "SPs" or "Suppressive Persons." I was into Scientology in LA for about 15 years and, believe me, one who is in it is as TERRIFIED of being labeled an SP as a Gentile or a Feature Filmmaker is of being labeled an "anti-Semite."

- It's sad you didn't make better use of the opportunity to network while you there, Jim. I hear that's why most people in Hollywood join.

It’s all quite puerile and laughable once one gets an exterior view of the tactic. The ADL, which represents Jews, in essence,

- It represents many different groups, just like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which it often works closely with.

justifies its existence because of the Holocaust,

- The Holocaust doesn't "justify its existence." It simply underlines the need for its mission. I don't know if rebutting the many lies the Nazis disseminated about Jews would have prevented the Holocaust, but ignorance certainly played a role.

and the Watchdog Committee, in essence, justifies it existence because of the APA, the American Psychiatric Association. It’s all horse, and that’s why I prefer scientists.

- Finally, something we agree on.

I also suspect that many Hollywood-Jews (HJ’s) are covertly using Scientology policy in their operations but would never say so because this is politically incorrect at this time.

- And I thought nothing more ridiculous could possibly appear on this site. I was obviously wrong.

Nevertheless, we will probably see the time when Judaism and Scientology come out of the closet together and the Hollywood-based, Jewish dominated media embraces Scientology EXACTLY as it has done for homosexuality.

- Believe it or not, Jim, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Karen Black do not constitute all of Hollywood.

The idea is that, the HJs that control Hollywood, unlike their brothers at large, probably DO hate anything and everything about Christianity.

- That's just inane, and shame on you for promoting this hateful message.

Simply not sharing someone else's religious faith DOES NOT mean you hate them or that faith. Not wishing to be indicted for murdering God is NOT the same thing as hating Christianity.

Most Jews do not feel any hostility towards Christians, and usually do not understand the antipathy the latter sometimes show for them.

Jewish religious education does not include reading the New Testament, so most Jews don't know the first thing about the Crucifixion, or why Christ's death is supposed to be their fault.

These people are indeed the new Sanhedrin and their mission is to chop up traditional Christian American in any way possible.

- This is just shameful. And you wonder why you're considered a bigot.

So if FIRM is encouraging YOU to go anti-Semitic: just turn it off. Your computer has an on off button, no? Just like your TV!

- That's a cop-out: if you really are as scientifically literate as you claim, you should know about the group polarization and groupthink phenomena. That's quite a different thing from feeling offended by Janet Jackson's exposed breast.


Hey, this is what the MPAA apologists always tell us to do to protect our children from their violence-oriented, sex-saturated movies and now even football games. You don’t like the FIRM site because it’s making your anti-Semitic: turn it off.

- The problem is that the people whom are most vulnerable WON'T turn it off. It will simply inspire them to take their obsession further. At one time, Jenks might have been a human being.

An interesting thought. Maybe I have become the sole reason for Mr. Levine’s existence.

- It's nice to know that even if you can't have a Hollywood player's career, you can still have their ego.

Re(8): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 22, 2004 at 04:40:58 PM by Mitchell Levine

I have spent the past hour or so reading the notes on the subject(s) discussed, and would like to offer several observations;

- Thanks for your time.

M. Levine -Jews do in fact control Hollywood, for various reasons, both right and wrong.

- The word "control" has bigoted implications: no one ever says "the Greeks 'control' shipping," or "the Irish 'control' the police force."

If the industry were led by people from Wales, no one would say "they control the media - OH MY GOD! WE'VE GOT TO REVOKE THE CONSTITUTION!"

They would just say "the Welsh are our filmmakers. How quaint." No one would start websites that fume "THE WELSH ARE ONLY 1% OF AMERICAN SOCIETY, BUT MAKE UP 12% OF THE MOVIE BUSINESS - DEMOCRACY IS COMING TO AN END AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE SLAVES TO WELSH TRIBALISM!!!"

Denying this fact will not further your cause.

- No one's denying the leadership position Jews have taken in the film business, both historically and currently. What's being disputed are the claims of illegality and immorality being attached to that status.

Instead, accept it for what it is. Jews have a long history of survival issues and biblical superiority that have naturally manifested into the corporate environment.

- That's hardly a necessary sociological fact. The pressures that shaped life in Classical Europe and the ancient world are much different than those that exist today.

Just about the only similarity is that Jews have traditionally valued professions that take intelligence to succeed in, from Torah scholarship to entertainment.

Also, as hard as this may be to believe, Jews are actually human beings like everyone else, and usually make their decisions as individuals and not as a collective entity. When I decided to major in film, I certainly didn't consult my rabbi, nor were my parents pleased with it.

In fact, just about the only time I even think about being Jewish is when I post on this site. No one else I know is any different.

Ancient Jews, to modern day Isreal have been forced to build fortress walls to simply survive. Why should Hollywood or the Diamond District or Advertising Agencies or Law firms be any different?

- Why would they necessarily be the same??? It's a slightly different world, age, and situation. For example, almost everyone in my family, and most of my friends, married spouses from other faiths. Why would other social phenomena that date back from the times of the Shtetl or diaspora be any different? Because the idea captures bigots' imaginations???

J.Jaeger. Like it or not, a non-practicing jew (Be him European, Isreali, American)is still 'The seed of Abraham' and thus the 'chosen' people of God.

- That's a ridiculous idea that virtually no one believes any longer: it's simply a typical example of the thought patterns of people in ancient times.

Jews are not genetically different than anyone else from the areas of the world that they originally come from, which is why, for example, no one has ever been able to devise any scientific test which could objectively establish anyone's "Jewishness" from a DNA sample or blood test. Even Israel has to rely on birth certificates or proofs of conversion.

This is where many superiority issues come into play. If God chose only Jaegers 4000 years ago as his first people, it would likely stay locked in your head too, and you might see and treat others as a bit inferior.

- It's ridiculous to assume Jews think other people are inferior. I've never met anyone other than, say, crazed extremists from the Kahane-kai - who dislike non-extremist Jews as much as non-Jews, or more - that even remotely believe that.

2.J. Jaeger and M. Levine have become co-dependent. Imagine that...A Gentile and a Jew actually needing each other. Write the screen play and make a movie together with M. Levine (He's jewish, so getting it on the screen should be no problem.)

- Nothing could be more foolish than to assume that because you're Jewish, you'll necessarily be successful in the movie business, as many young Jewish people quickly find when they actually get to Hollywood. NO ONE cares what a screenwriter's ethnicity is; they care about the commercial potential of their script.

What would you rather "control"...motels or the media?
Posted on February 22, 2004 at 11:58:10 PM by Sisu

"The word "control" has bigoted implications: no one ever says "the Greeks 'control' shipping," or "the Irish 'control' the police force."

What a typical Levine response. Big f-ing deal if Indians "control" the mom & pop motel business. Who really cares if Jews "control" the diamond market, but when the media elite is predominately made up of one ethnic group "controlling" the "marketplace of ideas," I think all members of our democracy should be concerned. Of course, it's taboo to mention it in our society.


From the Atlantic Monthly

FLASHBACKS

Media Mergers

June 2, 2003

Today the Federal Communications Commission voted to ease restrictions on corporate media ownership. Companies will now be permitted to own television stations that reach up to 45 percent of American households. And owning both a newspaper and a broadcast station in a major market will no longer be illegal.

Michael Copps, one member of the FCC who opposed the decision, expressed the views of many when he characterized the move as investing "America's ... media elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and our democracy depend."

Such concerns are not new. In the late 1960s, during a flurry of media-industry mergers, The Atlantic published several articles that pointedly asked, Who controls the media? and How big is too big? In "The Media Barons and the Public Interest: an FCC Commissioner's Warning" (June 1968),

"…Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson ("The Media Barons and the Public Interest," June, 1968) warning of the dangers of diminished competition in "the marketplace of ideas," and examining the "impact of ownership upon the control of media."

Nicholas Johnson described how, as a newly appointed member of the FCC in 1966, he gradually gained a comprehension of the frightening extent to which the tentacles of big business were intricately and seemingly inextricably intertwined with the functioning of the media:

Economic self-interest does influence the content of the media, and as the media tend to fall into the control of corporate conglomerates, the areas of information and opinion affecting those economic interests become dangerously wide-ranging. What is happening to the ownership of the American Media today? What dangers does it pose? Taking a look at the structure of the media in the United States, I am not put at ease by what I see.

Most American communities have far less "dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources" (to quote a famous description by the Supreme Court of the basic aim of the First Amendment) than is available nationally.

The following year, two articles sought to expose some of the corporate maneuvering and undue accumulations of influence in the world of American media at the time. Hyman H. Goldin's "The Television Overlords" traced the startlingly far-reaching extent of the political and economic influence of the three broadcast giants—CBS, NBC, and ABC.

Re(1): What would you rather
Posted on February 23, 2004 at 00:25:16 AM by Mitchell Levine

Typical asinine Sisu response: you're right - who cares if law enforcement is dominated by one ethnic group - they belong to the majority religion, so they must not be part of any secret plot to take over the world. That's why we experienced the Rodney King riots, but like you say, who cares - they don't control what's on television.

Of course, you wouldn't care if the media was entirely composed of Gentiles entirely, with no Jewish or ethnic presence of any kind: the whole issue is simply a front for your bigotry. You don't want "diverse and antagonistic sources: You want sources that look and believe like you do exclusively, as is confirmed by the racist tract you posted advocating for segregation.

Also, note the subtext that the majority of peopleare incapable of having an independent thought, and simply believe whatever they see in the movies. Well, if people are really that stupid - which I don't believe - they deserve to be "dominated." Otherwise, they'll probably turn out like you, and that society can't withstand.

Re(2): What would you rather
Posted on February 26, 2004 at 08:56:12 PM by LAX

You want sources that look and believe like you do exclusively, as is confirmed by the racist tract you posted advocating for segregation.

But, don't our current sources look, believe, and behave like you Mitchell?

Re(3): What would you rather
Posted on February 26, 2004 at 10:04:18 PM by Mitchell Levine

As if you would know what I look like, moron???

Re(9): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 22, 2004 at 06:31:03 PM by James Jaeger

>Jews are not genetically different than anyone else from the areas of the world that they originally come from, which is why, for example, no one has ever been able to devise any scientific test which could objectively establish anyone's "Jewishness" from a DNA sample or blood test. Even Israel has to rely on birth certificates or proofs of conversion.

In the Cohen line of Jews, there has been discovered specific mitochondria DNA and one other specific DNA.

However it has also been discovered that so-called "in breeding" is much less detrimental than once thought. Thus people attempting to demean the intelligence of Jews by saying that they tend to only breed amongst themselves are not arguing the recent facts and theories.

James Jaeger

Re(10): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 22, 2004 at 07:58:43 PM by Mitchell Levine

In the Cohen line of Jews, there has been discovered specific mitochondria DNA and one other specific DNA.

- As would be expected in any family line, which we can assume is the natural extension of carrying a surname. That doesn't make Jews a race by anthropological standards, and, in fact, there's no defining genetic test that can establish Judaism.

However it has also been discovered that so-called "in breeding" is much less detrimental than once thought. Thus people attempting to demean the intelligence of Jews by saying that they tend to only breed amongst themselves are not arguing the recent facts and theories.

- No one's ever tried to demean the intelligence of the Jews. Usually, they argue exactly the opposite.

Re(11): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 25, 2004 at 04:59:15 PM by James Jaeger

>- As would be expected in any family line, which we can assume is the natural extension of carrying a surname.

True. However because the Cohen line was somewhat of a high priest line (it's been a while since I studied this), they kept very careful control over the breeding, thus the genetic marker shows up well in this instance. If you are really interested in this, there is a new book out that studies all the various racial lines in the world. I'm sorry but I forget the name of the book. If I can remember it I will let you know.

>That doesn't make Jews a race by anthropological standards, and, in fact, there's no defining genetic test that can establish Judaism.

Probably true, but they are learning some interesting new things now that the genome has been mapped. One of the most interesting to me is the idea that we are ALL related. In the past x years all of us have almost every conceivable blood. This is why I believe we all have exactly the same potential and that no contemporary race is any better than any other. We all have the same hardware, it's how we program our minds that sets us apart.

>>However it has also been discovered that so-called "in breeding" is much less detrimental than once thought. Thus people attempting to demean the intelligence of Jews by saying that they tend to only breed amongst themselves are not arguing the recent facts and theories.

>- No one's ever tried to demean the intelligence of the Jews. Usually, they argue exactly the opposite.

There are various physical disabilities that do show up in DNA sequence of Jews and this is a relatively well-known phenomena. It is also a matter of historic record that over the millennia Jews have tended to breed mostly with their own. This has led some to speculation as to whether such "in-breeding" had caused any sort of mental disorders in the Jewish population. But as I pointed out, other than the above, it looks like in-breeding is much less deleterious than previously suspected. So your safe Mitch -- I won't try to claim that you're an imbecile, moron or idiot -- unless you ACT like one from time to time.

James Jaeger

Re(12): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 26, 2004 at 04:33:09 PM by john alibrandi

"The use of obscene language-in my opinion-seems to act almost as a type of camouflage for otherwise mediocre writing." James Jaeger May 9, 1998

-I would like to include the use of name calling to your quote.

Re(13): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 28, 2004 at 04:09:14 PM by James Jaeger

>>"The use of obscene language-in my opinion-seems to act almost as a type of camouflage for otherwise mediocre writing." James Jaeger May 9, 1998

>-I would like to include the use of name calling to your quote.

I'm not sure what this is in reference to but if it's in reference to imbecile, moron or idiot -- these are psychiatric states described by a specific range of IQs -- if you believe in such things AND given you believe psychiatry has validity as a field capable of addressing mental health. I do not, unless it combines with other disciplines. Why? Please allow me to digress.

The human brain is at its basis little more than a protein-based Turing machine – a computer – hence, by definition it only has very limited capabilities, as do all Turing machines.

Oh you may think the human brain, and the human race by extension, do wonderful and magnificent things – but this is only because your brain is not capable of comprehending all the things that you can’t do. Humans, in their current state, can’t do very much, they only think they can. A moron thinks he’s a genius, just as a genius thinks he’s a genius. Even an ant thinks he’s a genius. The brain is a very slow (only 200 instructions per second) and irrational calculating instrument, an instrument that was developed over eons by trial an error to think using only a SEQUENTIAL methodology. Thus its product, the destruction of one civilization after another, is testament to its irrationality, an irrationality caused by it’s inability to think in only sequential, Turing ways. The only thing that motivates the human brain to create, is the threat of yet more destruction through the insanity of war. The only thing the brain has going for it to free it from its prison of sequential though is its ability to massively simultaneously process data, and something else I will discuss later. But in today’s data-saturated world, even this is woefully inadequate.

Since the human brain is a Turing machine, it handles data FUNDAMENTALLY no differently than every other computer that has ever existed -- no matter how big or how small, whether built here on earth or elsewhere, whether built recently, or over billions of years by biology (the logic of 2’s). Thus, as with silicon-based Turing machines, the only way you increase computational ability (known as intelligence, rationality and mental health in humans) is by improving one the following basic things:

1. number of logic circuits (in memory and storage);
2. processing speed (how fast data flows internally and externally);
3. programming (how efficient and complete the tasks are defined and executed).

Since psychiatry does not address 1 and attempts to only addresses 2 with superficial neural transmitting drugs AND since only a minority of psychiatrists prefer programming (i.e., counseling therapy) over drugs – it will never lead the way to greater intelligence, rationality and mental health.

The only thing that can address 1 and 2 is genetic engineering of the human brain. The only thing that can address 3 is processing the bugs out of the brain’s computational algorithms (such known as the so-called "mind"). This last can only be done by quantum computing because the programming bugs (your mentally inconsistent and irrational: attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains) in a typical human mind, can’t be comprehended by Turing machines. They can’t be solved or even comprehended by turning machines because their solution can only be found by performing an exponentially growing number of tests and de-bugging routines. These are known in mathematics as a class of problems called NP-complete. (See http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/npcomplete.html)

Therefore the human race is in a pickle. As Hubbard correctly said, the mind is not capable of solving the problem of the mind. But unless it does, within 30 years, silicon-based computers may solve these problems for themselves and thus supercede human intelligence. We will then be in what is referred to as the Post Human Era, a period of time that may not include homo sapiens. The irony is that, in order to advance, we may NEED to develop the very computers that could enslave or replace us. If Hubbard is right, certain de-buggers will be necessary to ensure point 3 of above. Hubbard dedicated most of his life to creating these de-buggers, known as auditors. However, the technology they use, known as Scientology technology, is a Turing technology, thus it will probably not be sufficient to "run" and debug all the possible lines of code in the average human mind, which is an NP-complete problem. This brings us back to ultra powerful Turing machines or quantum machines as the ultimate "auditors" of the human race.

No one yet knows whether a purely Turing computer is powerful enough to evolve human-level intelligence or whether it will take a quantum computer to accomplish such a state of being. Thus, we AS humans don’t really know yet whether the small amount of intelligence we experience is a function of the massive simultaneous processing that goes on in our brains or whether our brains also have a quantum nature. When this question is answered, only then will we be able to determine how much outside assistance we will need to get our brains into a state whereby we can compete with the AI (artificial intelligence, more correctly, alien intelligence) that will emerge probably by other means.

In summary, the road to superintelligence, i.e., the post-human era, also known as the Singularity, will inevitably lead through either a Turing route or a quantum route. If a Turing route, the number of logic circuits in the brain (synapses) and their data rate will have to be genetically increased. In other words, bioengineering will have to be used to grow bigger, faster brains. But such bigger, faster brains may just end up being even more confused and irrational than the puny brains we currently have unless they are seriously debugged, while, or after, they mature (go operational at adulthood). Such debugging was attempted in the last millennia by researchers such as Freud and Hubbard, but again, due to the exponential (NP-complete) nature of "mind" problems, may be doomed to failure. In such event, the debugging may have to be done by super fast sequential Turing machines (if possible, or quantum machines). If quantum machines are necessary, the question as to whether they will be internal or external to the cerebral cortex is necessary. If the brain is, or is ALSO, a quantum device, then quantum processing, debugging, may actually be done internally. Sort of a superscientology technology whereby a person self-audits by tapping into their internal quantum computing abilities, but actually gets transcendent, supercomputing results. If the brain is not quantum in nature, then external quantum machines, "quantum auditors," may have to be developed to assist the human race into rationality hence superintelligence. In other words de-bug minds so that the software they are running (i.e., their so-called "thoughts") can run on the more-optimum, genetically-engineered substrate we refer to as the brain. The answer to our human-like problems will come by carefully digesting and integrating all technologies so far developed by any and all homo sapiens over time. This, in itself, is an NP-complete problem. Luckily, we have been able to develop small quantum computers and it looks like there have been significant developments in both genetic engineering and nanotechnology.

If we can keep the vast bulk of irrational humanity, and its R-DOS (religious operating system)-driven insanity off our backs long enough for these technologies to be responsibly applied to the human condition, things will turn out well and the human race can get on with its purpose – which is to multiply, advance and colonize the universe.

James Jaeger

Re(11): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 24, 2004 at 05:49:06 PM by john alibrandi

Mitchell,
>...write the screen play with M.J.- he's jewish, so you will have no trouble getting it...
-This was ment to be sarcasm, relating to some of the nonsense that I had read previously from James Jaeger. I know differently.
Thank You for your response.

James...Thank You for your note also. Did you happen to notice how level headed Mitchells note was? Read yours again. Whom do you think came across better? Which one was a tad angry and a bit rambling?
JJ>Wow! A whole hour. You must be an expert on...
-I didn't realize that this site was just for experts. I do have alot to learn, but it's not your kind of message. You're angry and you seem to blame your failures on others.
I do know a few things about the movie business. Some of my friends and family are involved in various aspects of Film and TV, but I don't really care much for many of the personalities. I will say that I have never heard anything from them even close to the malarkey that you put out. Tell me about the vision(?)of the future thing again?

Re(12): Mel's Note - More Thoughts
Posted on February 24, 2004 at 08:51:46 PM by Mitchell Levine

No offense taken, John. Thanks for your kind words.

Enjoy the movie tomorrow night. I just saw the press screening today.

Movie Disclaimers
Posted on February 15, 2004 at 11:09:03 AM by John Cones

I'm just wondering if Congress should require that all motion pictures containing negative or stereotypical portrayals of any group of people contain a "disclaimer", or whether such requirement should only apply to one special group?

John Cones

Re(1): Movie Disclaimers
Posted on February 17, 2004 at 11:02:31 AM by John Cones

Of course, Congress should not get involved in any issue relating to movie disclaimers, but if the industry is going to consider adding a disclaimer to one movie for the benefit of a particular group, then it should, in all fairness, add disclaimers to other movies that portray other groups in a negative or stereotypical manner. And, there are a lot of those movies. Even better, if we had real diversity at all levels in the film community, it is more likely that we would see real diversity on the movie screens.

John Cones

Movie Guide Review of Passion
Posted on February 16, 2004 at 11:20:07 PM by John Cones

Here's an excerpt of the Movie Guide's review of the Passion. Interesting how different people view the same film.

"A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and said, ‘After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't.’ He continued, ‘It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus.’ I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive, and profoundly engaging way.

"Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a ‘Christian’ film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art."

Mel Gibson "is a portrait of an anti-Semite."
Posted on February 17, 2004 at 05:14:09 PM by James Jaeger

Gee, how the ADL's Abraham Foxman has changed his tune, as seen on DIANE SAWYER'S interview of Mel Gibson last night on network TV where he, Foxman, stated that 'No, Mel Gibson is NOT an anti-Semite.'

-------------------------
"Anti-Defamation League's Foxman Brands Gibson an 'Anti-Semite'

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Sept. 18, 2003
Also see: Why Does ADL Fail to Criticize the 'Anti-Semite' Woody Allen?

The head of the nation's most influential Jewish organization has charged that Mel Gibson is an "anti-Semite."

Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman had previously avoided affixing the label on Gibson, who directed "The Passion," a movie about the last 12 hours of Jesus.

In a biting article published in The Jewish Week, Foxman charged, "Recent statements by Mel Gibson paint the portrait of an anti-Semite," and said the star was spouting "classic anti-Semitism." . . .

. . .Among Foxman’s other charges:

Gibson told Boyer he was sorry he removed a scene in which the high priest recites the curse from the Gospel of Matthew proclaiming that the blood of Jesus is upon him and his children. "But, man, if I included that in there, they’d be coming after me at my house, they’d come kill me."

Gibson accused "modern secular Judaism" of blaming "the Holocaust on the Catholic Church. And it’s a lie. And it’s revisionism. And they’ve been working on that one for a while."
"When you put those things together," said Foxman, "that is a portrait of an anti-Semite. To me this is classic anti-Semitism." . . .

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/18/145645.shtml

Foxman's Reversal
Posted on February 17, 2004 at 06:47:54 PM by James Jaeger

The "Primetime" program also includes an interview with Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman told Sawyer he does not believe Gibson or the film are anti-Semitic but added that the movie "has the potential to fuel anti-Semitism, to reinforce it."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/15/144304.shtml

Overview of PASSION Timetrack
Posted on February 17, 2004 at 06:18:41 PM by James Jaeger

Here's an overview of how THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST has been handled by the politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage that dominate the Hollywood studios and who influence the media and possibly even the ADL, which speaks for the Jewish community, according to Abrabam Foxman, its director.

----------------
A Special Edition of
THE LEFT COAST REPORT
It all started January of last year.

Mel Gibson appeared on Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor."

The famed actor-producer-director let the world know that a print reporter was nosing around his family and friends trying to dig up dirt.

The reporter was freelance journalist Christopher Noxon. He wrote a hit piece that focused on Gibson’s 85-year-old father. The article mischaracterized Mel’s beliefs and those of his dad. It also tried to label the film as fringe propaganda.

Noxon’s dirt-digging expedition might have been related to his family’s interest in the same Malibu site where Mel Gibson was building a church. The plot thickened as another group planned a full Gibson assault.

Unscholarly Conduct

With the help of an individual dubbed in an e-mail "our Deep Throat," a group of academics, who are part of what’s known as the interfaith movement, got hold of a stolen early draft of a confidential script.

Using ideas and notes from the pilfered preliminary screenplay, the group generated a so-called confidential report, which twisted the film’s message.

Somehow the report landed in the hands of the news media. A number of its authors appeared delighted to have their criticisms aired in public, despite the fact that the report was based on incomplete, dated, confidential and pirated material.

In addition to theft, it seems that falsification was also part of the unscholarly game. The group tried to pawn itself off as an official body of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), but the USCCB subsequently issued a statement denying a connection with the anti-Gibson group.

Boston University’s Paula Fredriksen has been a particularly high-profile player in the anti-Passion drama. She has referred to Scripture as "a kind of religious advertisement." She has promoted the idea that the Gospels "proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist’s position."

On Dec. 22, 2001, the Washington Post delivered a sort of un-Christmas present from Fredriksen in the form of a comment about the trustworthiness of the New Testament. The Post quoted her as saying, "I can’t think of any New Testament scholar who takes [the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth] to be historically reliable," adding that most scholars believe that Christ was not born in Bethlehem.

It appears as though Fredricksen and friends could be on a mission to deconstruct the Gospels. They prattle on about "progressive interpretation" and "historical context" when it seems that what they really want is a rewrite of the Good Book. Could it be that their real beef with Mel has to do with the fact that he based his movie on the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

"The Passion" saga continued as film-snuffing sights were set on a potential distributor.

Suppression of Expression

In an effort to get Rupert Murdoch’s 20th Century Fox to decline to distribute Gibson’s film, New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind scheduled a press conference and demonstration. The event was supposed to take place in front of News Corp.’s Manhattan headquarters.

20th Century Fox usually distributes Gibson’s movies, but gave a thumbs down on "The Passion."

As the New York Daily News reported, other Hollywood studios were also less than enthusiastic about taking on the project.

Additionally, the New York Times rubbed salt into Icon Productions’ wounds by describing the film as chronicling "in bloody detail" the last hours of Jesus’ life. It also called it "potentially inflammatory" and "not commercial enough for a high-profile mainstream studio like Fox."

In typical Gibson fashion, Mel and the crew gripped the wheel, rode out the bumps and were successful in finding distribution.

Unfortunately, more trouble lay ahead.

The Piracy

In November of last year, the New York Post illegally obtained a pirated videotape of the Gibson film. Although this revelation is extraordinary in its own right, it’s what a major newspaper did with the tape that made ignoble cinematic history.

Months before the film’s scheduled release, the Post displayed the grainy second-generation videotape to its own assembled panel of critics. Four of the five reviewers who were present slammed the film in the pages of the paper.

Oscar-winning director Sydney Pollack put feelings into words in this way. He told E! Online News, "If I had made that picture, I would have felt raped."

Evidently the shenanigans weren’t just outrageous, they were also illegal. The Los Angeles Times reported that federal authorities launched a probe.

Gibson and the folks at Icon had more head and heartache to endure.


Virtual Hate

Also in November, Anti-Defamation League held its annual meeting in New York.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman let loose with one of the ugliest assaults on Gibson that had occurred to date. He said, "I think he’s infected – seriously infected – with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views."

These words spewed forth from the leader of an organization that purportedly stands for tolerance.

Ironically, instead of modeling a virtue, Foxman ended up demonstrating exactly what hate speech sounds like.

In January 2004, uninvited ADL officials registered for a Christian pastors’ conference where Gibson’s film was set to be shown. They used the fabricated name "The Church of Truth" to gain entrance to the event.

After seeing the film, ADL denounced Gibson’s picture as a "painful portrayal" and a "commercial crusade to the church community."

Most recently, Foxman requested that Gibson attach a disclaimer (drafted by Foxman) to the film denouncing any bigoted interpretation of his narrative.

No similar disclaimer has yet been submitted by Foxman for the spurious and insulting remarks he made about Gibson.

At the same time Mel and his mates were dealing with ADL matters, they were also experiencing an insidious print blitz.


Poison Pens

It seems that New York Times arts columnist Frank Rich felt the need to gear up the sleaze machine several times over to generate innuendo.

In his Aug. 3 column, Rich got stuck in sludge-slinging overdrive. He wrote that Gibson and his organization had been "baiting Jews," Matt Drudge was a "token Jew," traditionalist Catholics were a "fringe church," Rupert Murdoch was a "conservative non-Jew," Peter J. Boyer’s article "sanitizes" Mel’s father, Bill O’Reilly was "being paid" to defend Gibson, and Gibson spokesman Alan Nierob "plays bizarre games with the Holocaust." (Rich evidently missed the fact that Nierob is a second-generation Holocaust survivor and a founding member of the U.S. Holocaust Museum.)

Rich even tried to take a swipe at me. He claimed to "decode" a section of my book "Tales from the Left Coast," where I supposedly have "a fetish of repeating Bob Dylan’s original name."

In September, the Jayson Blair understudy heaved more rubbish in Gibson’s direction. After a Vatican official (who happens to be on the short list of papal prospects) raved about the movie and dismissed concerns over bigotry, Rich evidently decided to change his focus. Instead of going after the Passion product, he’d try attacking the Passion process.

He wrote, "Intentionally or not, the contentious rollout of ‘The Passion’ has resembled a political campaign, from its start on ‘The O'Reilly Factor.’"

Getting little traction with that one, Rich tried to jump into a story that involved a higher authority.


‘The Passion’ and the Pope

On Dec. 17, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal reported that Pope John Paul II had seen Gibson’s movie and said, "It is as it was."

Noonan had been given a written confirmation for the quote from the pope’s official spokesman via e-mail.

The same day, National Catholic Reporter’s main man at the Vatican, John Allen, reported the identical quote and attributed it to the pontiff. An unnamed senior Vatican official confirmed the quote. The following day, Reuters joined in on reporting the pope’s quote and cited an unnamed Vatican source.

The Los Angeles Times received its own independent corroboration for the story on Dec. 19.

On Dec. 24, Catholic News Service’s Cindy Wooden claimed to have talked to "a senior Vatican official close to the pope" who said that the pontiff never said those words.

On Jan. 9, Allen reported that he had double-checked his original source and that the pope did indeed say, "It is as it was."

Enter once again Frank Rich of the New York Times.

On Jan. 18, Rich tossed more journalistic mud pies. He accused Gibson and Steve McEveety of using the pope to make money.

The next day Catholic News Service reported that the pope’s secretary said that "the Holy Father made no declaration" about the film.

Two days later, L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten apparently signed up to be Rich’s Left Coast colleague. He wrote a vile piece that began, "A good Hollywood publicity campaign does not stumble over technicalities — like the truth. Still, it takes a particular sort of chutzpah to put a phony quote in the mouth of Pope John Paul II."

Actually it takes a particular sort of chutzpah for a columnist to forget to check his own paper’s records before he writes on a subject.

On Jan. 23, in a news article, the Times admitted that "last month, the ailing pontiff was quoted as having said after a private screening of the film ‘it is as it was.’ Asked Dec. 19 whether the quote was reliable, Vatican press secretary Joaquin Navarro-Valls told the Times ‘I think you can consider that quote as accurate.’"

The truth is that, from the beginning, Icon has had written authorization to go public with the pope’s statement on "The Passion of the Christ." My sources have enabled me to confirm the graphic nod with my own eyes.

After stories began to emerge that questioned whether the quote was for real, Icon’s McEveety immediately e-mailed the official Vatican press secretary and offered to discourage use of the quote. Navarro-Valls responded with an e-mail, which not only reaffirmed that use of the quote was fine but advised McEveety to use the phrase "again and again and again."

Even the New York Times on Jan. 20 wrote, "One prominent Roman Catholic official close to the Vatican said today, ‘I have reason to believe — and I think — that the pope probably said it.’"

So what we have here are four respected news organizations getting independent verification, and Icon Productions getting confirmation, authorization and encouragement, to use the pope’s "it is as it was" statement.

The way I see it, the Icon team has held fast to the truth and suffered the stripes with amazing grace.

The Left Coast Report thinks that, because "The Passion of the Christ" and its people have managed to survive insults, stolen scripts, threats of demonstration, pirated prints and dire predictions, the continuous triumphs are no mere coincidence. The more appropriate term to use would be providential.



The Left Coast Report is put together by James L. Hirsen and the staff of NewsMax.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/27/215042.shtml

Additional Detail of timetrack: http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/p-chrono.htm

Culture Wars
Posted on February 22, 2004 at 10:07:42 PM by James Jaeger

In all the media publicity and controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's movie, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, the most significant issue of all has been obfuscated or dropped out entirely: how this is all part of the "Culture War."

The main issue is this: TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX, an MPAA company, avoided financing and distributing a movie because that movie had an agenda DIFFERENT from the agenda of the control group that dominates Hollywood and hence much of American culture. Such control group has been correctly identified as consisting of "politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage" by John Cones in his research.

With this in mind, the politically correct "reasons" FOX gave for not financing or distributing THE PASSION were a) that it wasn’t in English nor was it subtitled and b) religious movies, as exemplified by a number of recent flops, don’t do well at the box office.

But to these two "reasons" I say, HORSE.

Later, mouthpieces for the Jewish Establishment, in particular Abraham Foxman of the ADL, came out and declared Mel Gibson an anti-Semite and were "troubled" that Mel’s movie would incite anti-Semitism – thus they advised the studios to avoid financing or distributing THE PASSION; later advised Mel Gibson to remove a line of dialog from the picture (which he did, Matthew 25:27) and still later advised Mel to place a post script on the picture (which he opted to not do, because, as Mel stated in his Diane Sawyer interview, ‘it implied there was something wrong with my movie’).

Nevertheless, even though Mel added subtitles, taking away "reason" a), FOX, nor any of the MPAA studios, under the direct or indirect threat/orders of the Jewish community, through their advocate organization, the Anti-Defamation League (the ADL), have offered to distribute THE PASSION. Thus in effect the GENERAL JEWISH COMMUNITY, NOT just HOLLYWOOD JEWS, effectively SUPPRESSED THE FINANCING OF A FEATURE MOTION PICTURE through standard Hollywood channels.

Thus Mel was forced to curl up in a ball and die --as most other filmmakers in this position do -- OR reach into his pocket for 30 million bucks and finance the movie himself. Luckily he happened to have the money OR YOU AND BILLIONS OF OTHERS WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN "THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST" IN A MILLION YEARS. (Does this make you wonder how many other movies will you NEVER see?)

Then when it came time to distribute THE PASSION, Mel went to his home-buddy studio, FOX – the same studio that he had made hundreds of millions of dollars for in the past – and asked them to please distribute it so he could get his 30 million dollars back and so he could make them additional hundred million dollars or so for their CONTINUED good business sense in investing in his projects. But MPAA-infested FOX, in effect, taking their cue from the broad Jewish community’s mouthpiece, the ADL, told Mel go to take hike. So he did to the other "competitive" Jewish-dominated MPAA studio/distributors and all of them, acting like a monopolistic or monolithic entity (take your choice), also stonewalled Mel’s movie. Even DreamWorks, a studio that ‘doesn’t want to perpetuate an existing system," as Jeffrey Katzenberg, one of its founders along with Steven Spielberg and David Geffin, wrote to me in a personal letter. Well Jeffrey, if you don’t want to PERPETUATE an existing system, why do you perpetually ACT like the existing system?

In the end, the MPAA studios, a wannabe MPAA studio and the Jewish community at large, all who constantly SCREEM about their First Amendment rights of Free Speech – all told Mel Gibson to go to hell with HIS First Amendment Rights because they "are under no obligation to finance or distribute anything" – as Mitchell Levine will puke in rebuttal to this post. How convenient. And ALL these guys are the same ones that constantly vomit: "Hey if you don’t like it hit your OFF button on your TV. Your TV DOES have an on/off button doesn’t it?"

Now, contrary to Levine’s prediction (or secret wishes), it looks like THE PASSION will make hundreds of millions. It will open on over 2,800 screens and some experts predict it will earn as much as $300 million in domestic theatrical revenues alone. If so, the picture will probably garner another $400 million in homevideo/DVD as the standard revenue extrapolation formula applies. It will then play over seas and do these figures again, bringing the total to $1.4 billion. Then THE PASSION will go to other "windows." The second window will be video-on-demand and later windows will be pay-per-view and cable. It will then go to second-run cable and eventually onto free TV and 10-year syndication. None of these revenue streams even include the ancillary markets it will pick up through church groups, airlines, merchandising and sell-through retail DVDs and VHS videos. This is the DOWNSIDE of the revenue potentials it was WELL-understood by most of the MPAA marketing brass PRIOR to the completion of principal photography, or at least post production – and it was a less than speculative downside provided the picture did NOT alienate or antagonize the billion plus individuals in the worldwide Christian community. Since the PASSION followed the New Testament strictly, as The Patriot promised it would from the VERY beginning – it DID not.

Again, given an honest and true representation of the New Testament, at a certain point, it was thus a NO-BRAINER for MPAA marketing EXPERTS that THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST would sell to at least 10% of the Christian community, as I stated in an earlier post to Mitchell Levine. Since the global Christian community is about 1.5 billion, even 10% would have easily recouped the production-marketing budget such being about $30 million for production and $50 million for marketing for a total of $80 million as follows: 10% of 1.5 billion Christians is 150 million potential ticket sales at say $5 each is a gross revenue $750 million. Giving the theaters about half of this leaves $375 million in "rentals." The distributors would have been able to recoup their $30 million production budget and then their P&A (marketing budget of $50 million) leaving $295 million from which they would take a 35% distribution fee of $103 million. They then could have split the balance with ICON PRODUCTIONS of $96 million each. All this just for theatrical. If the picture sells to a significant portion of the Christian market, the UPSIDE could be that this picture will be the largest grossing movie of all time – even surpassing $5 billion in the next 10 years.

Thus, PRIOR to the completion of principal photography, or at least post production –- and BEFORE Mel had arranged a distribution deal with NEW MARKET –- there was PLENTY of time and REASON for FOX, or at the very least one (1) of the other "highly competitive" MPAA studio/distributors to give Mel a NEGATIVE PICK-UP DEAL. But no such deal, or any production-distribution agreement, was ever forthcoming from the "economically motivated" MPAA studios. Thus, one can see that the idea that the studio/distributors are entirely economically motivated is rubbish and that the idea that THE PASSION was not financed "because it was risky" is pure HORSE.

The REAL reason FOX didn’t finance Mel’s movie is because that movie had an agenda DIFFERENT from the agenda of the control group that dominates Hollywood -- such control group identified as politically liberal, not-very-religious(i.e., secular) Jewish males of European heritage.

Let me spell this out for you: MOVIES REFLECT THEIR MAKERS, as John Cones’ research exhaustively shows (see WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm). Since the MAKERS of THE PASSION do NOT control the financial strings of the MPAA studio/distributors –- the MPAA studios did not, and would not, MAKE THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

And they DID not, and WOULD not, because, again, such a movie was contrary to their agenda. What is their agenda? Well it certainly is NOT the spread of Christianity or conservative, traditional causes and values. Their agenda is above all to protect and perpetuate the Jewish community and Israeli interests as well as Israel itself. The Hollywood control group’s agenda is to also perpetuate AN EXISTING SYSTEM of liberal causes that they endorse such including, but not limited to, their elite lifestyle. This can only be done, in their view, by continuing to dominate the Hollywood-based movie studios that produce the global cash flow, such cash flow funneled into the ridiculously over-promoted, hence over-priced greater Los Angeles and California real estate market. Other agenda are the removal of guns from the electorate/citizens, wanton abortion, a re-definition of the word "marriage" to mean the union of other than one man and one woman and ENDLESS immigration to all people that are NOT prone to anti-Semitic behavior so that the dominating Christian community in America (85% of Americans are Christians, 2% Jews and less than 1% Muslims) can be diluted and then dissolved. All of these agenda are coming out of Hollywood and any feature or media that supports same, or that incorporates endless VIOLENCE and SEX on the screen to foster an environment of discord conducive to "optimum" change, WILL be financed by the control group over a movie, like THE PASSION, that reverses such agenda. Thus Christian doctrine and Christian morals tend to stand in the way of the Hollywood control group’s agenda. And that’s why it’s covertly despised in Hollywood. Christian values PREVENT these things from happening wholesale in American society (as similar values in other religions prevent same in other societies). Thus, from their POV, there is NO WAY a Christian themed motion picture will EVER get financed or distributed by the MPAA studio/distributors so long as they are dominated in the TOP THREE positions by liberal, secular Jewish males of European heritage.

These things indicate that we are in a CULTURE WAR as Bill O’Reilly says. The CULTURE WAR can best be understood by reading John Cones’ book, HOW THE MOVIE WARS WERE WON (available at http://www.mecfilms.com/coneslaw/conesbk.htm). The MOVIE WARS are part of the CULTURE WAR. Get it?


In THE PASSION conflict, we are seeing a MICROCOSM of the CULTURE WAR that is being waged by traditionalists (and people like O’Reilly who is at least attempting to inject some balance). The only difference is the fact that we at FIRM have the "gall" to include the J-word, that Hollywood Jews are a significant part of the demographic involved in the Culture War. But for some, since we dare to mention the word "Jew," we must be anti-Semitic. To them we must automatically hate all Jews because after all, if we did NOT do the politically correct thing of dropping the mention of Jews out of the demographic, even though everyone KNOWS this is part of the demographic -- we must be bigots. And since we aren’t PROTECTING the Hollywood Jews from their irresponsible control and domination of the MPAA studio/distributors, we must be hate-filled, anti-Semitic, jack-booted, Nazis in the eyes of the Hollywood apologists and the cowards that claim to report the issues without any bias.

To those who have watched the saga of THE PASSION’s rejection for financing and distribution (such tale at fully documented at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/p-chrono.htm), and who see NO relationship between what Mel Gibson has gone through and WHAT EVERY DISENFRANCHISED FILMMAKER IS GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW ON A SMALLER SCALE -– I say take a closer look – there’s a major double standard going on in Hollywood. Certain people get to make movies, such as THE LAST TEMTATION (antagonistic to Christians) or SHINDLER’S LIST (supportive of Jews) with little or no problems compared to Mel’s ordeal. Is this double standard okay in a democratic society? That the most powerful communications channel yet devised, the feature motion picture, is reserved for CERTAIN PEOPLE, a narrow demographic of people that chooses to forward their secular agenda to the exclusion of almost all others.

It’s about time the Culture Wars deal with the REAL issues and the real players, because unless they do, nothing will change and it will be business as usual in Hollywood: the same hackneyed stories from the same studio-approved writers; the same performances from the same studio-approved actors and the same endless saturation of sex and violence on, not only the large screen, but on the smaller screen, such as the CARTOON NETWORK, our kids watch when they’re especially impressionable to what their culture should be all about.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Culture Wars
Posted on February 25, 2004 at 10:49:34 AM by WFM

From various mediums that saturate our nation, there are different perceptions and beliefs that we all devour.

Was Christ white or was he black?

The film "Malcolm X", by Spike Lee, is a justifiable credible example. I'm sure "The Passion of Christ" is a great film about religion. That will go down in time as one of the greatest films in movie history.

But, to see the faces and hear the voices of millions of Americans on the news NBC,ABC,CBS,...especially African Americans, with tears in their eyes about how God sacrificed his life for us was incredible.

I wonder, do these people know about the contradiction, look at the color of Christ skin...I think Mel Gibson would've caused a riot if he portrayed Christ as black!

Mel could have taken us to another level of dialogue and communication, especially with crossing the diversity line of race, culture, and prejudice forever. Especially from Christ who gave his life for us.

He being portrayed as "white" instead of "black", lets examine this perception.

I believe Jesus was and is "black" which is actually "white"; to understand the class, Art 101,Chapter 3 in your text book..."white" and "black" are all colors of the rainbow.

Who is is calling the "kettle black".

WFM

Re(1): Culture Wars
Posted on February 23, 2004 at 00:07:47 AM by Mitchell Levine

X for in the past – and asked them to please distribute it so he could get his 30 million dollars back and so he could make them additional hundred million dollars or so for their CONTINUED good business sense in investing in his projects. But MPAA-infested FOX, in effect, taking their cue from the broad Jewish community’s mouthpiece, the ADL, told Mel go to take hike. So he did to the other "competitive" Jewish-dominated MPAA studio/distributors and all of them, acting like a monopolistic or monolithic entity (take your choice), also stonewalled Mel’s movie. Even DreamWorks, a studio that ‘doesn’t want Well Jeffrey, if you don’t want to PERPETUATE an existing system, why do you perpetually ACT like the existing system?

- Would you expect a Black production house to distribute an equally racist film??? No one has to finance a film that they don't want to for any reason.

In the end, the MPAA studios, a wannabe MPAA studio and the Jewish community at large, all who constantly SCREEM about their First Amendment rights of Free Speech – all told Mel Gibson to go to hell with HIS First Amendment Rights

Yet again you tell this lie. Once more, in the vain hope that'll you'll stop spreading this intentional deceit: MEL GIBSON HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED, THEREFORE H