Why Capital Will Flood into Indie Productions
Posted on January 8, 2005 at 11:08:55 PM by James Jaeger

Question:
How do you get somebody to choose your movie to stream/download, when tens of millions of advertising dollars are going to major studio releases? I have no doubt that somebody will occasionally stumble across an individual independent film, but does it still require a theatrical release to build recognition?

Answer:
The kids don't want to recognize anything put out by "the man" or "the suits" if they have alternatives. And their alternatives are always presented most forcefully by word of mouth. Thus, word of mouth is the most powerful form of advertising for the youth audience. It's a trust factor. A reality factor. Add to this the fact that the kids HATE commercialization. They hate everything about the commercial establishment that "studies them" like bugs and then "targets" advertisements and "high concepts" at them so that it can "exploit" them for money and control. Just as we did when we were kids. Remember?

The kids also hate the studios even more because they are now suing them for downloading movies. Why do you think they do these downloads? Again, it's not because they are thieves, it's mostly because they hate the studios who represent the Establishment. The Man. The Suits. At least this is what kids regularly tell me when I discuss these things with them at every opportunity when I'm out in public (at such places as BlockBuster, and private parties, concerts and hangouts, etc). The kids hate the movie industry just as they hate the music industry for charging so much for CDs when the money doesn't even go to the artists, as is the case in the movie industry where the money only goes to a handful of over-paid stars and their fiduciaries, while everyone else starves.

Thus, the old "brick and mortar," shelf-space dependant industry is dead. The body is in free-fall. When a feature comes alone that is a must-see, word of it will go through hundreds of millions of kids via email, cell phones, instant messaging, the NGs, chat forums, and other kid-comm channels instantly. Just as it did with BLAIR WITCH. Add to this the factor that ALL the hackneyed, formulaic crap Hollywood puts out will be completely SCREENED-OUT within the next 2 years because places like BlockBuster are emptying their inventories for some $19 per month, all you can watch a la Netflix: which is forcing the issue. As soon as the MPAA studio inventories are SCREENED-OUT, the only place kids will be able to get new stuff will be over the BitTorrent-driven Broadband Net. And the stuff, although less polished and slick, will be ORIGINAL and sell for less than 50 cents a download (which can be retained). Thus, no one will risk stealing this product (some thanks to Dan MPAA Glickman who is suing the kids, an act that is sure to engender mass migration of his customers away from the over commercialized, banal studio product. Thanks Dan.). The long tail (and if you don't know what this is you need to read all about it in WIRED mag), will generate revenues equal to, AND EVENTUALLY GREATER THAN, hits -- even without that revenue stream having to be hit-driven (as admittedly it is now) and theatrical-release advertised (as it is admittedly now).

But remember, as new, must-see Indie product hits the net in increasing amounts for cheap, new portals will automatically be created each time and these new portals will overwhelm and eventually demolish the rest of the existing established industry distribution system emanating from Hollywood.

Plus the 9 factories that are currently being built in China will, by the end of 2006, flood so many cheap LCD, HDTVs into living rooms across America and the world, people will not go to the theaters and pay 6 to 8 dollars as easily to see a feature that looks and sounds better in their living room. Thus Hollywood's theatrical advertising machine will dry up as its revenues already have because of the homevideo market. In short, Hollywood is history because it no longer controls the distribution paradigm. This has NEVER BEFORE HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD.

As the private capital markets get hip to the fact that an ORIGINAL feature can be produced by an Indie company, such as ours at http://www.mecfilms.com, for less than $1,000,000 and REGULARLY sell to AT LEAST 1 percent of a 500-million person Broadband audience for 50 cents per download (with no other costs of distribution) and generate a $2.5 million gross with a payback of $1 million production costs netting out a cool $1.5 million, EASY, profit -- or a 66% return on investment over the 12 - 18 months -- money will FLOOD into the Indie production scene and the quality of pictures will rise to that of the studios. It will also rise because of the relentless availability of better and cheaper computerization for post and special fxs, the use of TAPE rather than outrageously expensive 35mm film stock (which will be indiscernible and cost-effective by December 2007), and the ultimate digitization of name talents whereby everybody will be able to afford a Tom Cruise in their picture if they want him (which they will increasingly will not). Investors, as slow-minded as they are when it comes to technology-driven paradigm shifts, will eventually realize they can't get anywhere NEAR a 66% return on investment in the stock market or the real estate market with a commensurate risk and capitalization entry requirement.

This is the best time possible to be an independent producer and a private investor of independent product. Just as the major networks have seen their market share dwindle, the MPAA studios that now dominate 85% of the market will also see their market share dwindle. Thus, over the next decades, hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue will be freed up for the independents and their investors. New acting, writing and directing talent will be employed as independent production companies increasingly have the money to hire.

The future also looks bright for the independent distributors that seize upon these opportunities and muster private capital to invest in productions. Since the costs of distribution will be almost nothing in the new paradigm, there will be more risk capital and more profit available for Internet-savvy distributors and their investors.

So bye bye market dominating studios with their productions that cost $150 million to produce and distribute and hello new era where capital will flood into Indie productions and the talent that makes them possible.


----------------------------
For additional information see Why Invest in a Movie? at http://www.mecfilms.com/whyinves.htm as well as books by James Jaeger at MOVIE PUBS at http://www.moviepubs.net

Commentary on "Do Jews Run Hollywood?"
Posted on January 19, 2005 at 07:14:54 PM by James Jaeger

Do Jews Run Hollywood?
You bet they do--and what of it?
by Ben Stein

E-ONLINE of 19 January 2005
http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Jews/


BEN STEIN QUOTES BRANDO:
"Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews--and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering. Because...we have seen...the greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the [line]."
--Brando on Larry King Live

JAEGER WROTE:
Yes, this is the famous truth Marlon Brando had the "gall" to speak for which he was blacklisted by Hollywood until he came crawling back on his hands and knees.

STEIN WROTE:
>A few days after Marlon Brando scandalized the airwaves by referring to the Jews who worked in Hollywood as "kikes,"

Brando isn't "referring to the Jews who worked in Hollywood as "kikes" -- he's simply trying to make the point that Hollywood feels free to demonize all others BUT Jews. Perhaps he made a bad choice of words, but his use of the word "kike" is in the same context as the other derogatories mentioned, i.e., greaseball, Chink, Jap and wily Filipino. Thus, right off the bat, Stein is misrepresenting the tenor of Brando's comment and trying to make it into a victim thing, a misrepresentation which typifies his entire commentary on Jewish domination of Hollywood.

>I got a call from an editor at 60 Minutes. The woman wanted to know how I felt about Brando's use of words and his allegation that Hollywood is "run by Jews." She suggested the desired answer by noting that her researchers had conclusively proven that Jews do not run Hollywood.

Jews do not run Hollywood, Hollywood is run by Jews.

>Crafty 60 Minutes had studied the top slots in town. Their research showed that "only" about 60 percent of the most important positions in Hollywood were run by Jews. What did I think?

The actual truth is closer to 70% or 80% of the top positions in the MPAA studio/distributors are dominated by Jews. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm

>I managed to disqualify myself by saying that while Hollywood was not really "run" by anyone (it's far too chaotic for that),

"Run" and "control" are red herrings. The technical term is DOMINATED.

>if Jews were about 2.5 percent of the population and were about 60 percent of Hollywood, they might well be said to be extremely predominant in that sector.

Note the use of the word PREdominant. This is a mini-whitewash here because the term, again, is DOMINATED.

>That was far too logical and un-PC an answer, and I never heard from her again.

She was probably Jewish.

>But Jews are a big part of my thoughts (as they are of every Jew's thoughts).

I have posted often that Jews network better than everyone else. Thus they are always thinking of each other.

>Plus, I live and struggle in Hollywood, so the combination intrigues me. What exactly is the role of the Jew in Hollywood? More to the point, what does it signify, if anything, if Jews have a big role? And, most interesting of all, why do we care?

I can't tell you how many times I have heard this one: Why do we care? Here is the reason we care: Read THE GREAT AMERICAN MOVIE DEBATE by John Cones at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/amdebate.htm.

>First, it is extremely clear to anyone in Hollywood that Jews are, so to speak, "in charge" in Hollywood in a way that is not duplicated in any other large business, except maybe garments or scrap metal or folding boxes.

See, even Jews admit this . . . finally, in public. Neal Gabler admitted this many years ago in a book, AN EMPIRE OF THEIR OWN, but I guess the masses are simply unaware and thus still scared to mention this fact for fear of being branded anti-Semitic.

>At mighty Paramount, the controlling stockholder is Sumner Redstone. Head of the studio is Jon Dolgen. Head of production is Sherry Lansing--all members of the tribe.

All members of the tribe. Read a book that will NEVER get published (because Jews dominate the publishing industry as well) called WHEN VICTIMS RULE found on-line at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org Then you will get a picture of the "members of the tribe" -- largely from Jewish scholars too.

>At titanic Disney, the CEO is Michael Eisner, the world's most assimilated Jew, who might as well be a Presbyterian. Deputy head is Michael Ovitz, karate champ but also a Jew. Head of the studio is Joe Roth.

Ovitz is long gone to my knowledge.

>At newly energized ICM, the top dogs are Jeff Berg and Jim Wiatt. At still overwhelming CAA, Jack Rapke and other members of my faith predominate. At William Morris, Jon Burnham and other Jews are, by and large, in the power positions.

But he forgot to mention the Jewish domination and control of the top positions of the MPAA studio/distributors over the past 90-some years. Here they all are again, by name, at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>This has always been true in Hollywood. The ex-furriers who created Hollywood were Eastern European Jewish immigrants, and all of the great edifice of fantasy-making in Hollywood is their handiwork. Names like Zukor and Lasky and Goldwyn and Cohn are the foundation of mass culture in America and the world.
There is a much quoted note that it took all these Eastern European Yiddish-speaking Jews to create the lasting, worldwide image of America and what America is--the mass culture mirror that America likes to hold up to its face.

Blah, blah, blah. Gabler covers all this in his book.

>This thought is made concrete by the simple line at the beginning of Gone with the Wind that it is "A David O. Selznick Production." It took a Selznick, married to the daughter of a Louis B. Mayer, working with a Thalberg, to create the ultimate vision of romantic America--the antebellum South.

This is a bigoted statement when you consider it because it implies that a non-Jew couldn't come up with a GONE WITH THE WIND.

>It took a Jew--Leslie Howard--to play Ashley Wilkes, the bedrock image of what a perfect American gentleman is supposed to be.

Another bigoted statement. Why does it take a Jew? Are Gentiles inferior to Jews? Elitist, at the very least!

>Thus, the fact of Hollywood's being very largely Jewish is not exactly news. The news is that Hollywood is rapidly becoming ethnically far more diverse than it was only a couple of decades ago, when I first arrived here.

Not true. All this diversity is window dressing. The executives that manage the MPAA studio/distributors are still dominated by liberal, secular, Jewish makes of European heritage, as I, and John Cones, have been saying for years. Hollywood apologists like Stein like to point to all the actors and technical people that are paraded in the Oscar ceremonies to "substantiate" their claim that Hollywood is really a very diverse place. But the truth is, the ones that cut the pay checks and allocate the production budgets to the producers are still predominantly Jewish executives.

>You can take it from the studio level, where probably the most powerful man in town is of the Australian faith--one Rupert Murdoch by name. Murdoch, no one's idea of a Jew, controls a major studio, a major broadcast network and the largest aggregation of TV stations in America.

Note how delicately Stein puts this. He said "one Rupert Murdoch by name. Murdoch, no one's idea of a Jew, controls a major studio" Fact is Murdoch IS Jewish, because his mother is Jewish. Murdoch's "no one's idea of a Jew" because Stein obfuscates the fact that he's Jewish by saying that he's of "Australian faith." Another ridiculous spin on the truth because there is no such thing as "Australian faith." But by using the word "faith" in juxtaposition with the word "Australian," Stein has drawn your attention away from the idea that Murdoch could be of Jewish faith. Thus, if he's of "Australian faith," he's certainly NOT of Jewish faith. This twist further substantiates the idea that he's "no ones IDEA of a Jew, when again, the fact is: MURDOCH IS A JEW.

If you follow me here, you can see how the Hollywood machinery manipulates the data. Are we surprised that E-ONLINE is part of the Hollywood-MPAA propaganda machine that dominates the media and the movie industry, hence American culture for the benefit of the Jewish lobby?

>The head of programming at ABC is a full-on gentile, Ted Harbert. The owner and head of production of what has become the Tiffany studio, MGM, are Kirk Kerkorian and Frank Mancuso, also not members of Temple Israel. And on and on.

Whoopee. A few exceptions to the general rule don't change the general rule: Hollywood is and continues to be dominated by liberal, secular Jewish males of European heritage, as we have been saying at FIRM since 1998. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm

>It is certainly true that there have always been goyim in Hollywood.

Since this term "goyim" means "cattle," yet it's used to refer to all Gentiles, or non-Jews, isn't Stein being as disrespectful to non-Jews as he imagined Brando was being disrespectful to Jews when Stein made the straw calm that Brando was calling them kikes? Talk about a double standard here. But typical for Hollywood apologists. It's okay for Jews to be bigots, but it's not okay when anyone else is a bigot.

>But there are more gentiles in the Industry now, and there has formed a whole new route to Hollywood.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. What a crock! Show me what new appointments there have been in the 3 top positions of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors, Stein, and how the ratio of Jewish executives to Non-Jewish executives has changed. If you could, you would have.

>No longer do young men and women work their way up solely by being mailroom clerks or nephews of producers or offspring of men in the linen-supply business.

What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Is this statement supposed to make us think Hollywood has changed? Pah-leeze!

>The standard route to Hollywood now is through Harvard and Yale.

Oh come on, what an obfuscation.

>Sitcom writers and producers, movie scriptwriters and producers now come from the Ivy League far more than from the streets of Brooklyn. Most of the writing staff of the powerhouse Seinfeld is from the Harvard Lampoon.

Yeah, you mentioned writers twice and producers twice, but mentioned STUDIO EXECUTIVES zero times. The writers and the producers get HIRED and PAID by the studio executives and the studio executives continue to be predominantly JEWISH. So Stein, you're just obfuscating the facts and lying some more.

>So are many of the writers on Married...with Children, Friends and other stalwarts of the box. The route from Harvard Square to Hollywood is now hallowed by success and money. In fact, the agencies now beg and plead for Harvard Lampoon grads the way they once cried for the writers of The Jack Benny Radio Program.

All this rhetoric is about WRITERS. Writers have no power in Hollywood. Writers don't make the decisions which $150 million pictures will be developed and greenlit for millions to see all over the world. More obfuscation on part of Stein.

>This change from borscht-belt origins to the halls of Harvard as a prime source of writing talent in Hollywood is a quantum shift. Many of the Harvard and Yale alums are, to be sure, Jews, but many are not.

All horse.

>Now, this is interesting to those of us who work here. But it is of no significance at all to the 99.9 percent of Americans who do not.

No, this is of great significance to the 99.9 percent who do NOT work in Hollywood because movies tend to influence cultural values and right now we have a nation with values in the toilet. See GREAT AMERICAN MOVIE DEBATE above cited.

>The only possible significance of whether Hollywood is run by Jews or not must have to do with whether or not the product comes out "Jewish," or in some way different from the way it would if it were made solely by gentiles.

And yes, it does. Who do you think is spearheading the assault on Christian values right now? It's secular Jews that dominate Hollywood and the media hiding behind Judaism. Duh. Who do you is behind the ACLU? Duh. Nativity scenes out of the public square. Duh! The culture war against Mel Gibson. Duh!!! Endless billions for Israel? Duh. The war in Iraq? The neo-cons, predominantly Jewish. Duh! The Jews that dominate Hollywood are definitely pushing an agenda that favors and supports the Jewish lobby's agenda and the agenda of the AIPAC and the agenda of the Neo-Cons. Duh!! And much of this is all about uncritical support of Israel. Any surprise Murdoch is one of the biggest Zionists around. It doesn't matter if Murdoch doesn't SEEM like a Jew so long as he supports Israel and the hundreds of billions American citizens have pissed over there. You will NEVER see O'Reilly, who is a Murdoch mouth-piece into the Gentile Establishment, bad mouth Israel. Murdoch would fire him instantly. Thus this is evidence that Murdoch is not only Jewish, but pushes the Jewish agenda.

>Really, the point is even a little uglier than that. The only real reason why the question of whether Jews "run" Hollywood is at all interesting is because there is some residual thought--apparently as was in the mind of Marlon Brando--that Jews are sinister and alien.

This straw argument is ALWAYS used by apologists. It's a variation of the VICTIM ploy used so much by Jews. It goes like this: Critics of Hollywood don't like Jews running the place because Jews are evil and thus they are unfit to run Hollywood. This argument is totally off point. For the 100th time, people such as myself, are calling for more diversity in Hollywood's control group because we feel that NO NARROWLY DEFINED GROUP should dominate one of the most powerful communication channels ever devised. This has NOTHING to do with Jews. And it certainly has NOTHING to do with anyone being evil. Jews are no better or worse than anyone else. They are just people. But to have them dominating Hollywood is as bad as it would be if Christians dominated Hollywood. The idea is NO ONE should dominate Hollywood. But Jews, such as Stein, bring this straw argument up to try to make you think that people like myself have something against Jews. We don't. We just want diversity. It has nothing to do with Jews or whoever would be running Hollywood. So again, this argument is ALWAYS brought up to obfuscate the real issues. It's almost as if all the Hollywood apologists are plugged into the same Borg cube.

>Kike is a low Polish word meaning the nastiest, most alien connotation of Jew. That would mean that the Jewish product of Jewish Hollywood would be somehow subversive in some way. This would be akin to Wagner's notion that Jews had polluted and ruined German music with their innately subversive sensibility.

Again, all this is obfuscation and a misrepresentation of what Brando said.

>This is a thought so bizarre and even comical to anyone familiar with Hollywood that it merits laughter more than fear. Yes, of course, the Hollywood product is made mostly by Jews. But these Jews are in love with America.

Yack, yack, yack. More of the same obfuscation and straw argument. See what I said above.

>These are Jews who want to play polo, not davvinn in shul. These are Jews whose children play soccer and learn horseback riding in Malibu.

Give me a break Stein, Gabler already said all this a hundred times. Did you just get finished reading his book or something?!

>These Jews, as soon as they have two million to rub together, buy farms in South Carolina (Joel Silver) or vast spreads in Colorado (Peter Guber).

Wow, they must NOT be very Jewish if they buy farms!

>It was the Jews of the '30s and '40s who gave us the vision of America the Good, where money did not count--only goodness. Think of the works of William Wyler (maker of the ultimate pro-American heartstrings movie, The Best Years of Our Lives), or of MGM and its celebration of the swinging good life of Ginger and Fred.

Ah, I think there were FAR fewer Jews in Hollywood around the 1930's and 1940's. Remember Walt Disney? How come you didn't mention that when Eisner took over Disney, he brought hundreds of Jewish executives and staff members in to the organization?

>Where does the idea come from of the perfect American family, occasionally quarreling mildly but ultimately working it all out in love and affection? From Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to Beaver and I Love Lucy, with their largely Jewish writers and producers.

Again he mentions only writers and producers. Standard ploy: ignore the Jewish studio executives that really call the shots. And don't bother to mention that Lucille Ball was NOT Jewish and she, through DESILU, was one of the most powerful production companies in the business. More obfuscation on behalf of Stein.

>Where does the idea come from that parents and children, as polarized as they might be, will ultimately love each other? From Norman Lear and his factory for grinding out funny and touching affirmations of domestic life in America.

Norman Lear, producer of Archie Bunker, made endless fun of bigots in no small part to benefit the Jewish agenda of crushing bigotry in a post-Holocaust world.

>Where does the idea that blacks can be funny and endearing as millionaires and not just as servants and wide-eyed fools fleeing ghosts? Again, from Norman Lear and The Jeffersons.

No one is saying that Jews don't come up with some heartwarming and valid programming. But let's give others the same chance.

>Hollywood's current product occasionally repels and even sickens me. I am truly disgusted with its language, its violence, its endless attacks on businessmen and military officers. (On the other hand, it never can attack the CIA enough for me.) But these are eddies and ripples in the vast tide of Hollywood messages that encourage and hearten us in our daily struggle.

Oh brother. What a crock! I suppose Stein also feels there is no global warming.

>Many Americans get this message far more from Hollywood than from worship, and these are by no means subversive messages.

No not at all, just another assault on people of faith -- Hollywood's stock n' trade, and apparently yours as well, Stein.

>So now, as the shrinks say, we may perhaps to begin.

My father is a shrink and I never heard him, or any of the hundreds of his colleagues over the last 30 years, say THAT.

>If any overall view of the Hollywood product shows it has been a wholesome influence on American life, why is Hollywood itself still so not trusted?

Hollywood was a wholesome influence on American life because it was more influenced by Christian values. Over the past 2 or 3 decades, Hollywood's secular values have managed to erode Christian values and thus we have the endless carnage and mindless vanilla product all over, product that seeks only to sell other products in an orgy of commercialism that is now destroying America and its money supply.

>Why can a Marlon Brando attack it so explicitly for its Jewishness and a Dan Quayle and even a Bob Dole and even a Bill Clinton attack it on an ongoing basis for its alleged sinister quality?

If only 2.5% of the executives in Hollywood studios were Jews, the movie industry would probably be very similar to the way it is today. There would be fewer Holocaust films and you would hear the word kike about as much as you hear the word greaseball, chink, jap and nigger. This is not nice language, but it's less nice to see any particular group or groups getting endlessly singled out as the bad guys when one group gets to remain forever off bounds. The point is: everyone deserves to tell their unique stories and that can't happen when ANY one group dominates the financial strings at the top of the studios.

>I marvel that when people criticize the auto industry for making trucks that catch fire when they are struck and cars that turn over on a turn, no one ever says "the gentile auto industry."

That's because the very word "gentile" is a bigoted word made up by Jews. ANYONE that is NOT a Jew is a gentile. It's an us-and-them thing. A manifestation of mass paranoia. What word do Christians have for all other people other then themselves. And don't tell me "Non-Christians" because that's a cop out.

Re(1): Commentary on
Posted on January 22, 2005 at 05:00:51 PM by Stan Pierce

BUT THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME:
"... if one of our important communications media, like feature film, is dominated by a single, narrowly-defined interest group, to the arbitrary and substantial exclusion of all others in our society who may have differing views, then the important motion picture segment of our market place of ideas is not free. It is dominated by a more narrow range of voices, that crowds out diversity. And, without diversity of ideas, we are less likely to arrive at the truth".

The avoidance of TRUTH is precisely the reason it is so controlled. It has
been especially so since the end of the second world war. Only one view of
the causes of that war is ever shown on celluloid. One demon and one demon
only...Adolph. Never a contrary point of view shown. No sympathy for a
country that was shit on and broken to the point of despair and so caused a
man of humble origins with some go in him to pull it out of the mess while
clever America was in Depression. Hollywood has never forgiven that funny
looking man with a mustache. It's a shocking history of demonisation.

Re(1): Commentary on
Posted on January 20, 2005 at 01:17:58 PM by Mitchell Levine

Jaeger - and you wonder why people think you're an antisemite?

Note that even when your ridiculous misinformation is corrected, you still persist with myths like "goyim means cattle."

Even when you're proven wrong - the word is Hebrew for "nation" - you still continue to spit out such tripe because it's a useful tool in your quest to rid Hollywood of the Jewish influence.

And you're still promoting Jenk's antisemitic manifesto?

By the way, even Jenks admits that no one's provided evidence to back the allegation that Murdoch's mother was Jewish.

Murdoch's Mother
Posted on January 22, 2005 at 04:41:34 PM by James Jaeger

>Jaeger - and you wonder why people think you're an antisemite?

You know Mitchell, I could care less who considers me a so-called anti-Semite. As far as I'm concerned, this is just puerile name calling.

>Note that even when your ridiculous misinformation is corrected, you still persist with myths like "goyim means cattle."

Goyim means cattle. I will get my references and if I am wrong retract my statement.

>Even when you're proven wrong - the word is Hebrew for "nation" - you still continue to spit out such tripe because it's a useful tool in your quest to rid Hollywood of the Jewish influence.

For the record, I admire the many works Jewish filmmakers have made and the many terrific projects Jewish studio executives have greenlit over the years. My only call is for more diversity, not to "rid Hollywood of the Jewish influence." That's preposterous.

>And you're still promoting Jenk's antisemitic manifesto?

You can call it promotion, I call it giving everyone the right to speak his or her piece. Since Jim Jenks has not been able to get published in a publishing world that's dominated by Jews, I would call THAT censorship.

>By the way, even Jenks admits that no one's provided evidence to back the allegation that Murdoch's mother was Jewish.

Jeffrey Blankfort, who is Jewish, lists Murdoch in his list entitled, "Stunning Jewish Success Dominates American Media." Further, he specifically states that Murdoch's mother is Jewish. The list is at http://rense.com/general60/stun.htm

James Jaeger

Re(1): Murdoch's Mother
Posted on January 24, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM by Mitchell Levine

You know Mitchell, I could care less who considers me a so-called anti-Semite.

- That's strange - you seem to complain about that perception an awful lot for someone who doesn't care.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just puerile name calling.

- It's only name-calling if it's untrue. Otherwise, it's simply an accurate observation.

Goyim means cattle.

- No, it doesn't. One more time, from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

"goi'-yim (goyim): This word, rendered in the King James Version "nations," "heathen," "Gentiles," is commonly translated simply "nations" in the Revised Version (British and American). In Ge 14:1 where the King James Version has "Tidal, king of nations," the Revised Version (British and American) retains in the text the Hebrew "Goiim" as a proper name. Some identify with Gutium. The Hebrew word is similarly retained in Jos 12:23."

I will get my references and if I am wrong retract my statement.

- You only need one reference: the Old Testament, where the word is used to describe nations many times.

My only call is for more diversity, not to "rid Hollywood of the Jewish influence." That's preposterous.

- Jim, you accuse Hollywood Jews of leading a conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

You can call it promotion, I call it giving everyone the right to speak his or her piece.

- Giving him his "right to speak his piece" doesn't mean you have to promote him. You don't see Noam Chomsky recommending Faurrison's books.

Since Jim Jenks has not been able to get published in a publishing world that's dominated by Jews, I would call THAT censorship.

- The reason it hasn't gotten published is that it's a deceitful, bigoted piece of crap. That's hardly "censorship." It's responsible management.

Censorship refers to a denial of rights, and he has no "right" to have his book published.

Jeffrey Blankfort, who is Jewish, lists Murdoch in his list entitled, "Stunning Jewish Success Dominates American Media." Further, he specifically states that Murdoch's mother is Jewish. The list is at http://rense.com/general60/stun.htm

- I'd hardly call either Jeffrey Blankfort or Rense.com unbiased, but after a quick Google search, it looks like there's a lot of controversy over this point.

On Goyim
Posted on January 27, 2005 at 05:36:43 PM by James Jaeger

>>Goyim means cattle.

>- No, it doesn't. One more time, from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: "goi'-yim (goyim): This word, rendered in the King James Version "nations," "heathen," "Gentiles," is commonly translated simply "nations" in the Revised Version (British and American). In Ge 14:1 where the King James Version has "Tidal, king of nations," the Revised Version (British and American) retains in the text the Hebrew "Goiim" as a proper name. Some identify with Gutium. The Hebrew word is similarly retained in Jos 12:23."

I cannot remember who it was that told me the the word "goyim" means cattle and you are correct that it does mean "nation/s" but the important thing to understand is that "goyim" traditionally means "nations" the same way "nigger" means Black. It is an extremely pejorative term. It is the Jewish name for the terrible "other."

Here's what Jenks says and an example of how the ideology behind "goyim" worked:

"Even in the Yiddish language ... popular usage distinguished between Jews
and non-Jews by employing different verbs to describe their behavior.
Reserved for gentiles are words otherwise used in reference to animals:
e.g.l, Jews eat (essen), but goyim eat like pigs (fressen); Jews dies
(starben), but goyim die like dogs (pagern); Jews take a drink (trinken),
but goyim drink like sots (soifen)." [KRAMER, p. 107]

So, although "goyim" doesn't literally mean "cattle," it does contain the
same kind of dehumanized slur inferred by your use of "cattle."

Re(1): On Goyim
Posted on January 28, 2005 at 05:21:16 PM by Mitchell Levine

Well, it's nice to see you can admit you're wrong (sort of), but you're still mistaken.

While those perjorative instances of usage might exist (I've never heard anyone say anything like that in Yiddish, but I didn't learn it from recent immigrants), the word itself has no inherent derogatory implications.

Even in the Bible, although "nations" carries the connotation of referring to the nations other than Israel, it's still not intrinsically derisive. In fact, the Israelites themselves are even sometimes referred to as "goyim."

The word in and of itself is just as neutral as the word "Gentile." It's simply the word that describes a non-Jew in Yiddish the same way we use "African American" to refer to black people in English.

While it's sometimes used in a negative sense, so is the word "Jew." The word Jew isn't therefore an epithet.

Re(2): On Goyim
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 08:09:38 PM by James Jaeger

Okay. I will stand more fully advised on this word. Thanks.

James

Re(2): On Goyim
Posted on February 1, 2005 at 00:17:42 AM by Soyim Goyim

As usual, Levine's comment is a complete and total lie. "Goyim" is pejorative. As is "shaygetz" and a range of terms referring to non-Jews. Shvartzeh is also the Yiddish degrading slur for blacks. As Levine knows. And hides.

Re(3): On Goyim
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 02:17:19 AM by Mitchell Levine


Sorry, but your knowledge of Yiddish etymology and semantics is inadequate.

"Goyim" is not only not "derogatory" in Israel; it's the only word that exists to describe non-Jews. The word just means "Gentile." "Shaygetz" IS derogatory.

Like "Negro," the word isn't inherently derogatory, it's just perjorative by occasional contemptuous usage.

The word "Jew" is sometimes used derogatorily, but that doesn't mean the word "Jew" is a slur.

And "Svartzeh" isn't an inherent "slur" at all - it's the Yiddish term for "black person," with no derogation implied at all. The slur is "shvug."

The word may be used contemptuously by bigots, but it isn't inherently derisive any more than "black person" is.

Re(4): On Goyim
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 00:20:58 AM by Moshe the Goyim

Sorry, but your knowledge of Yiddish etymology and semantics is inadequate.

"Goyim" is not only not "derogatory" in Israel; it's the only word that exists to describe non-Jews. The word just means "Gentile." "Shaygetz" IS derogatory.

Like "Negro," the word isn't inherently derogatory, it's just perjorative by occasional contemptuous usage.

The word "Jew" is sometimes used derogatorily, but that doesn't mean the word "Jew" is a slur.

And "Svartzeh" isn't an inherent "slur" at all - it's the Yiddish term for "black person," with no derogation implied at all. The slur is "shvug."

The word may be used contemptuously by bigots, but it isn't inherently derisive any more than "black person" is.

Reply to Levine: This is a complete and total lie. Anyone may peruse the Internet and examine the evidence for themselves. On one hand you'll find lying, "hasbarah" apologists/propagandists like Levine, and on the other you'll find the truth. It is instructive that the PEJORATIVE term "goyim" is declared by Mr. Hasbarah to be the ONLY term for non-Jews. It is a slur. Smear. Insult. It is a line of delineation between the sacred "Chosen People" and everyone else on the planet that innately - by birth - doesn't make the "Chosen People" grade.

Re(3): On Goyim
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 08:20:50 PM by James Jaeger

Okay, now I'm back to being confused.

James

Re(2): Murdoch's Mother
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 02:50:19 PM by James Jaeger

>- That's strange - you seem to complain about that perception an awful lot for someone who doesn't care.

Maybe I cared once upon a time because of the word's association with people I abhor, such as Nazis, but given the frivolity with which people such as yourself toss this word around these days, I am forced to re-classify its use.

>- It's only name-calling if it's untrue. Otherwise, it's simply an accurate observation.

So calling a man from China a "chink" isn't name-calling because "chinks" come from China?

>- You only need one reference: the Old Testament, where the word is used to describe nations many times.

That doesn't mean it doesn't also have derogatory connotations.

>- Jim, you accuse Hollywood Jews of leading a conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

Are you prepared to state that their is no Jewish influence in any of the major studios that is anti-Christian?

>- Giving him his "right to speak his piece" doesn't mean you have to promote him. You don't see Noam Chomsky recommending Faurrison's books.

I don't promote or refer to him any more or less than anyone else, with the possible exception of the work of G. Edward Griffin and Robert Zubrin, who I DO tend to promote.

>- The reason it hasn't gotten published is that it's a deceitful, bigoted piece of crap.

I don't see how you can say that when you haven't even read his book, WHEN VICTIMS RULE. I have looked it over and noted that he has quite a number of quotes from Jewish scholars. Are they also full of "crap?" Actually, the mere fact that you use the word "crap" indicates you are clouded by emotion when referring to Jenk's work. If this is true of other Jews in the publishing business to whom Jenks has offered the book, it would seem to me that there is far too much emotion tied up in this whole thing for any sound evaluation of the book to be made. Thus, instead of doing the rational thing -- publish the book and allow others to opine upon it in future books and/or media -- the book is just swept under the carpet.

>That's hardly "censorship." It's responsible management.

Not at all. Responsible management's job isn't to pass on a work just because it's highly controversial, or some feel it's a bunch of "crap," its job is to make public especially those works that ARE controversial so that a maximum number of minds can thus adjudicate its value or lack thereof. When something is controversial it is popular, ipso facto. But when a narrowly defined group dominates a communication channel -- whether it be the motion picture industry or the publishing industry -- the public is certain to suffer omissions of data and viewpoint as a result of the prejudice and bias of those in power.

>Censorship refers to a denial of rights, and he has no "right" to have his book published.

He does to have a "right" to have his book published. You like to tie this word censorship down to the limited definition connected with state power, so you can invoke the idea of rights -- but the fact is, there is a broader usage of the word which has its applications, especially when domination, oligopoly or monopoly enter the picture. As I argued in my article on Mel Gibson, HOLLYWOOD's TRUE AGENDA, at http://www.homevideo.net/agenda.htm, the act of passing on a viable and relevant work of art just because such does not conform to the agenda of a control group, has the effect of censorship, especially when there are little or no alternatives.

>>Jeffrey Blankfort, who is Jewish, lists Murdoch in his list entitled, "Stunning Jewish Success Dominates American Media." Further, he specifically states that Murdoch's mother is Jewish. The list is at http://rense.com/general60/stun.htm

>- I'd hardly call either Jeffrey Blankfort or Rense.com unbiased, but after a quick Google search, it looks like there's a lot of controversy over this point.

True.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Murdoch's Mother
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 02:22:05 AM by Mitchell Levine

Sorry, but after a more through research of the point, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch is NOT Jewish - she's of purely Anglo-Scotch descent.

Blankfort based his entire theory on the fact that her maiden name was Green - which is not an exclusively Jewish surname, as the case of Tom Green points out.

In her family's case, it wasn't Jewish, and she is not.

Re(2): Commentary on
Posted on January 21, 2005 at 01:06:29 AM by Moshe the Goyim

YOU SAY: By the way, even Jenks admits that no one's provided evidence to back the allegation that Murdoch's mother was Jewish.

RESPONSE: Not exactly so. The only legitimate assertation I've seen that Murdoch's mother is Jewish comes from Richard Curtiss, editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. It's an excellent magazine and he (a former U.S. foreign service officer) is an excellent source. But it's true that I've read two biographies of Murdoch and no Jewishness is mentioned. Curtiss insinuates that this omission is intentional.

Murdoch, whatever he is, is an active Zionist and was aided in his rise to power by Leonard Goldenson of ABC, and other Jewish media moguls. One of his biographies underscores this.

Jewish Double Standard in Hollywood
Posted on January 19, 2005 at 07:45:29 PM by psyclops

Let us not deal with what Marlon Brando said, but the reaction to it. In a completely non offensive way, he used the ugly slur "kike", and the next day he is apologizing to some organization. Why? When Howard Stern uses the word kike or nigger, he does not have to apologize to anybody. Is it because he is half-Jewish? Do we have a double standard? Yes. Why are people afraid to comment on issues involving people who happen to be Jewish? Because they fear they will be labeled Anti-Semetic. In this country Anti-Semetic means anti-Jew. Noone bothers to mentions that Arabs are Semetic people when negative stereotypes are consistently portrayed. I don't think Hollywood should may be taking too much blame, though. It did produce the film Homicide which was written by David Mamet and showed and ugly side to political fervor while not being racist. But you won't see any films be made in Hollywood about the 20 million Chinese that were killed in WWII by the Japanese. Apparently, that percentage of the population is not great enough to be qualified as a holocaust. Not to mention the 10,000 raped women or unknown dead in Bosnia. Many of whom were tortured the same way the Jews were tortured in WWII. I guess when people say "Never Again!" in reference to the Holocaust, that only applies to people of the Jewish persuasion. I know that every Jewish person reading this is appalled by this last statement. But most of the people who will read this are not in a position to show the type of public sympathy to other ethnic groups that would quell the tone of that statement. Many non Jewish people probably resent that those who publicly defend Israel's actions in Palestine are not publicly standing up for other ethnic groups who have suffered equally. Maybe it is not the job of Hollywood to do this, for it's Hollywood's job is to entertain. But couldn't a film about Bosnia or China send the same message as Schindler's List or Shoah? Of course, Schindler's List would not have been made if it were not a compelling story. Yet I have heard compelling first-hand accounts of torture in Bosnia that has never made it to the evening news, not to mention Hollywood. And these stories aren't 50 years old. Well maybe it is cultural nepotism. A large percentage of great Hollywood producers are Jewish. They produce films that they feel close to and can't cover all of the topics. But shouldn't they be obligated to try cover these stories? If not, isn't it fair that they face scrutiny from an ethnically diverse audience or even Marlon Brando? Why do people assume that just because someone criticizes Jews as a group, that the person is a racist who endorses extermination. I think it is unbrotherly, and insulting to millions of Non-Jewish Americans who love Howard Stern, Jerry Seinfeld, Steven Spielberg or their next door neighbor.

Let's go back to Brando's point
Posted on January 19, 2005 at 08:02:17 PM by mfleisch

Many of these responses are spiralling out of control, which is no wonder, since Ben's article failed to address Brando's key point, too. Let me summarize the key points quickly: 1.) Marlon Brando originally tries to make the point that Jews, who we can all agree occupy most of the power positions in Hollywood, have not been sensitive enough to the plight of other minorities, depicting them stereotypically much of the time. Jews of all people, he reasons, should be more empathetic and fair. 2.) Unfortunately, to make these points he uses racially charged terms that upsets people and obscures his reasoning. He apologizes later. 3.) Ben basically delves into the question the media raises, namely, "Do Jews run Hollywood or not?" He thus describes the history of Jews in Hollywood, the current power structure, and makes the case that gentiles and Harvardites (who invited them?) have been gaining power recently. 4.) Ben wonders in the end whether people are jealous of Hollywood success (money, power, sex, etc.) or are just plain old anti-semitic. 5.) His conclusion: "So what if Jews do control Hollywood?" Sorry, Ben, but that's a cop-out. In the end, you really haven't said anything of substance.

The issue of anti-semitism is more serious than the ignorance shown in your waitress example; like the worst racism it boils down to parentally- or culturally-taught hatred for a whole group of people (under that definition, your little Korean joke doesn't count either). I'm not sure why people seem to like having scapegoats, but that's a topic greater minds than ours have examined at length. No, lets really talk about Brando's point: why have Jews (and like many of the other respondents, I'm one also) in Hollywood helped perpetuate so many awful stereotypes of other races and nationalities? I have not heard anyone else give a straight answer to this, but I can offer my hypothesis: because it's what the public perceived as the truth, and they wanted it in their entertainment. Hollywood collaborated and pandered to it over the years because it sells, pure and simple. I originally thought to blame the studio heads myself, but in the end, they're just businessmen, no better or worse than executives in the drug or tobacco companies like you say. They can point to the product and say "Hey, it's just entertainment" or "We just mirror society" in much the same way that otherwise rational people can defend smoking as not a proven carcinogen.

But we all know the truth - money is the great motivator. And that ain't changing anytime soon. And were you in their position, do you think you would have the guts or ability to change the whole industry, or would you rationalize it away and go for power and glory? As we are too-well aware, the only place starry-eyed do-gooders ever prevail with certainty is in the movies.

Re(1): Let's go back to Brando's point
Posted on January 21, 2005 at 01:02:00 AM by Moshe the Goyim

YOU SAY THIS: why have Jews (and like many of the other respondents, I'm one also) in Hollywood helped perpetuate so many awful stereotypes of other races and nationalities? I have not heard anyone else give a straight answer to this, but I can offer my hypothesis: because it's what the public perceived as the truth, and they wanted it in their entertainment. Hollywood collaborated and pandered to it over the years because it sells, pure and simple. I originally thought to blame the studio heads myself, but in the end, they're just businessmen, no better or worse than executives.

MY RESPONSE:

This nonsense about Jews accommodating mass demand is bullshit. When Jews got together as a Jew Klux Klan in Hollywood 80 years ago to agree they wouldn't portray Jews onscreen in a negative light, this pact has lasted to the present day. On the other hand, all other peoples' are subject to Jewish Hollywood defamation. Following your logic, defamatory "Jew movies" would have continued because it was the norm of the day and there was money in it.

From http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

In the earliest years of the movie and entertainment industry, Jewish filmmakers often popularized negative images of the Jewish community. "Some of the worst offenders," says Nathan Belth, "were themselves Jews." [BELTH, p. 46] The "so-called 'Jew movies' were produced at the rate of one every two week." [BELTH, p. 50] These centered on highly unflattering Jewish characters -- smugglers, robbers, lustful "Yiddish sports," and miserly swindlers. In 1916, the Anti-Defamation League convinced Carl Laemmle (the Jewish head of Universal film studios) to avoid making any movie that "held Jews up to ridicule or contempt ... By 1920 the policy enunciated by Laemmle became the general practice among movie makers." [BELTH, p. 50]

Re(1): Commentary on .... Cont
Posted on January 20, 2005 at 01:22:52 PM by Mitchell Levine

"And yes, it does. Who do you think is spearheading the assault on Christian values right now? It's secular Jews that dominate Hollywood and the media hiding behind Judaism. Duh. Who do you is behind the ACLU? Duh. Nativity scenes out of the public square. Duh! The culture war against Mel Gibson. Duh!!! Endless billions for Israel? Duh. The war in Iraq? The neo-cons, predominantly Jewish. Duh! The Jews that dominate Hollywood are definitely pushing an agenda that favors and supports the Jewish lobby's agenda and the agenda of the AIPAC and the agenda of the Neo-Cons. Duh!! And much of this is all about uncritical support of Israel. Any surprise Murdoch is one of the biggest Zionists around. It doesn't matter if Murdoch doesn't SEEM like a Jew so long as he supports Israel and the hundreds of billions American citizens have pissed over there. You will NEVER see O'Reilly, who is a Murdoch mouth-piece into the Gentile Establishment, bad mouth Israel. Murdoch would fire him instantly. Thus this is evidence that Murdoch is not only Jewish, but pushes the Jewish agenda. "

- Jim, this paragraph is the most antisemitic thing I've seen since Mein Kampf, and you might have well just have pulled it directly from Jenks' site.

You should really get some help before you end up shaving your head and moving to Coeur D'Alaine, Idaho.

Anti-German Levine?
Posted on January 22, 2005 at 04:52:55 PM by James Jaeger

>- Jim, this paragraph is the most antisemitic thing I've seen since Mein Kampf, and you might have well just have pulled it directly from Jenks' site.

I have no idea what you mean by "anti-Semitic." So if one critisizes the Republicans, are they anti-Republican? If one critisizes the French are they anti-French? Again, sounds like puerile name-calling to me.

Also, sounds like you are anti-German, given how much you attack me for my opinions.

>You should really get some help before you end up shaving your head and moving to Coeur D'Alaine, Idaho.

Maybe you need to be a little more tolerant of other's opinions, otherwise you may turn into a bigot and we wouldn't want that.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on January 24, 2005 at 11:05:31 AM by Mitchell Levine

"I have no idea what you mean by "anti-Semitic." So if one critisizes the Republicans, are they anti-Republican? If one critisizes the French are they anti-French? Again, sounds like puerile name-calling to me. "

- Sorry, Jim, but no one uses expressions like "the Jewsh agenda" except bigots.

Your choice of words reflects the fact that you crossed over the border of "legitimate criticism" and into antisemitism a while ago.

If you were hysterically raving about a big French conspiracy to destroy Christianity and force people to say "happy holidays," then you could be described as "anti-French."

Re(2): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 02:02:04 PM by James Jaeger

>- Sorry, Jim, but no one uses expressions like "the Jewsh agenda" except bigots.

So you deny that there is a group of people that calls itself Jews? You deny that the AIPAC exists? You deny that more than 50% of Jews are liberal, democrats. You assert that no rules can be made to identify the majority of Jewish positions on issues? If so, why bother perpetuating the group identity?

>Your choice of words reflects the fact that you crossed over the border of "legitimate criticism" and into antisemitism a while ago.

Oh, so it's not legitimate to criticize Jews as a group unless I use prescribed language suitable to people such as yourself?

>If you were hysterically raving about a big French conspiracy to destroy Christianity and force people to say "happy holidays," then you could be described as "anti-French."

The term, "hysterically raving," is your characterization of my agreement with John Cones' research and the various questions connected with Jewish hegemony that I have raised. All legitimate as far as I, and a growing number in the media, are concerned.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on January 28, 2005 at 05:47:41 PM by Mitchell Levine

So you deny that there is a group of people that calls itself Jews? You deny that the AIPAC exists? You deny that more than 50% of Jews are liberal, democrats. You assert that no rules can be made to identify the majority of Jewish positions on issues? If so, why bother perpetuating the group identity?

- None of that means that there's a sinister "Jewish agenda" collectively pursued by the "Jewish lobby," which, like the perennial "homosexual agenda" to force children into a life of pederasty, is a concept exclusive to paranoid bigots.

It's just a ridiculous as claiming that the presence of the Chistian Coalition in American politics demonstrates the existence of the evil "Christian agenda" aiming to take over Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and force them to convert to Protestantism, like Anne Coulter says, would be.

"Group identity" isn't synonymous with "conspiratorial plot," and certainly doesn't prove that a group has harmful objectives for non-members.

Oh, so it's not legitimate to criticize Jews as a group unless I use prescribed language suitable to people such as yourself?
- You say whatever you wish, but you shouldn't be suprised if people consider you an antisemite.

If Jews criticized Christians as a group, you'd be up in arms about their anti-Christian bigotry, so you should really do unto others...

Like Christians, Jews can't do anything as a group; only individual people can, and they aren't collectively responsible for what other people of their ethnicity do, any more than you are.

So your "group criticism" can't possibly be based on anything but stereotypes.

If a Jewish pundit said that Christians everywhere were genetically predisposed to be antisemites, you'd be frothing about it.

The term, "hysterically raving," is your characterization of my agreement with John Cones' research and the various questions connected with Jewish hegemony that I have raised.
- Yet another phrase taken directly from Jenks, "Jewish hegemony"; i.e., the belief that overrepresentation of Jews - and as far as I can tell, because you've never claimed that statistical overrepresentation of any other group is harmful - is "bad" for everyone else, because Jews obviously discriminate against non-Jews as part of their "Jewish agenda," despite your inability to prove it with a single example of some discriminated against.

So you're in favor of re-enatcting the provisions of the Nuremburg Laws that labelled any industry which has more than 10% Jewish tenure "dominated by the Jews," and close any further Jewish presence in it?

It's noticeable that Asians are overrepresented in many fields. How do you feel about that, and what steps do you think we should take to end it?

There's also an awful lot of Irish police officers. Should we also set up quotas for them? Wouldn't Irish criminal justice hegemony be harmful for everyone else?

At what point are ethnic quotas bigotry?

All legitimate as far as I, and a growing number in the media, are concerned.
- I don't think they're are too many forms of discrimination against Jews that you don't consider "legitimate," Jim.

Re(4): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 07:53:18 PM by James Jaeger

>- None of that means that there's a sinister "Jewish agenda" collectively pursued by the "Jewish lobby," which, like the perennial "homosexual agenda" to force children into a life of pederasty, is a concept exclusive to paranoid bigots.

Mitchell, every identifiable group has a spectrum of behaviors ranging from one extreme to the other, and usually these behaviors form a bell-shaped curve whereby the majority-behavior is manifest. By the same token, history has shown that usually only a modest or small percentage of those in any identifiable group are activists. There's a book out there, I think the title is ON MASS MOVEMENTS, that gives endless examples. Thus my point is this: nefarious behavior, in the name of a group, can emanate from ANY group even if only 5% of the members of that group are activist. It's the same way with corporate control. Most people are under the misunderstanding that it takes a 51% ownership of a corporation to control it. Well maybe this is true for small corporations, but not true for big public corporations. Big corporations can be controlled, for good or for bad, by as little as 5% of the stockholders. I have other examples below.

Thus, out of the 6 million or so Jews in the U.S., it only takes a small number who are intense on an agenda to accomplish goals, whether nefarious or patriotic. If the vast majority of Jews in general take no action against the minority of Jews that influence the studios to discriminate in their hiring practices, for instance, or Jews in general benefit from an agenda that sacrifices the interests of the majority of non-Jewish U.S. citizens (such as endless and uncritical support of Israel as a result of the lobbying power of the AIPAC), then they are, in essence, giving consent to those who operate under the banner of Judaism. I feel that if anyone, in any group, is to allow another to claim that they are also in the group, it's the responsibility of group members to speak up when they disagree with another group member's actions, or if those actions are not fair to the greater whole. The fact that so much of the Jewish community hasn't spoken up about the lack of diversity in the studios, indicates that they condone it. The fact that Jews in general assault me and John Cones for bringing this to everyone's attention, is proof that such Jews in general condone the lack of diversity in Hollywood and attempt to "justify" it with all the tired arguments, ones I have heard endlessly out of your mouth and others.

>It's just a ridiculous as claiming that the presence of the Christian Coalition in American politics demonstrates the existence of the evil "Christian agenda" aiming to take over Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and force them to convert to Protestantism, like Anne Coulter says, would be.

There are always factions of any group that do things that others will label "sinister." Remember, what you call "sinister" is your consideration. Besides, the Christian Church has formed many splinter groups over the millennia (from Protestants to Quakers to Mormons then Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and Born-Agains. . . etc., etc.). This shows that every time a faction of the Christian Church went off and did their own thing, perhaps considered "sinister" by the remainder, they were forced to splinter off from some part of the body of the Christian Church and become a different group, with a different name. But I don't think you can say the same thing about Judaism as, to my knowledge, there are only three basic flavors of it and no splinter groups. Maybe I'm wrong on this as I'm no expert on Judaism.



>"Group identity" isn't synonymous with "conspiratorial plot," and certainly doesn't prove that a group has harmful objectives for non-members.

No, it's not "synonymous" with "conspiratorial plot," but as I have pointed out above: a) it doesn't take the entire group, but only a small percentage to direct the group and have the benefits of it's identity and assets; b) most members of a group are inert, especially in major causes; and c) the inaction of group members to neither protest certain anti-social behavior or bow out of the group and form a splinter group, if no reform, is indication, or even substantiation, of a condoning of the anti-social behavior. In this case, when Jews in general don't protest (or bow out or splinter in reaction to) the anti-social, predatory, unethical and illegal activities of fellow Jews in positions of power in the top echelons of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors, they are in effect condoning it.

>>Oh, so it's not legitimate to criticize Jews as a group unless I use prescribed language suitable to people such as yourself?

>- You say whatever you wish, but you shouldn't be suprised if people consider you an antisemite.

What people? Jews or Gentiles? If Jews consider me an anti-Semite just because I criticize the anti-social behavior of the Jews in the control group, then those Jews are hypocritical bigots. They are bigots because they can't tolerate an alternate, or dissenting, point of view and they are hypocrites because they expect me to do just that for them which they have criticized others for not doing for themselves. If Gentiles consider me an anti-Semite, they are simply indicating, or proving, that they are apologists or sycophants to Jewish hegemony, because the criticism isn't even ABOUT them. So yes, I am quite surprised, because I had always held my fellows in higher esteem prior to my involvement with FIRM.

>If Jews criticized Christians as a group, you'd be up in arms about their anti-Christian bigotry, so you should really do unto others...

Green-lighting Jewish studio heads and apologists for same criticize and invalidate Christians as a group all the time by releasing endless assaults to their beliefs and doctrine in the movies as well as on cable TV. People like Bill Donahue have a full time job policing this.

>Like Christians, Jews can't do anything as a group; only individual people can, and they aren't collectively responsible for what other people of their ethnicity do, any more than you are.

Well I disagree. When I was in Scientology you were TOTALLY responsible for how you acted as a member of that group. In fact, Scientologists in the OT levels take (group and individual) responsibility so seriously, they consider that when ANYTHING contra survival happens, even anywhere in the world, they are to some degree responsible, responsible for acts of omission more so than acts of commission. Maybe this is the extreme level of responsibility, and few can live up to this ideal without going through certain training, but when you are committed to almost ANY group -- whether it be a company, a family or a religious group -- you are, to some degree, held responsible for how you behave, otherwise the group fires you, divorces you or excommunicates. Come on, where have you been your entire life Mitchell?! From what I get from you, this isn't the way it is in Judaism? Anything goes it seems. Is this correct? Does ANYTHING go in Judaism? If so, I would say it's a group that operates in total discord, chaos or anarchy and I hope that's not the case. Hey, maybe there is no DELIBERATING BODY in Judaism per se, just like in the Counsel on Foreign Relations, but is simply a TACTIC? If a group has no formal board meetings or congresses and it keeps no minutes so there is no paper trail, it can make like a chameleon and alter policy or its agenda in an ad hoc manner and thus avoid being held accountable for almost everything. Not even the Nazis did this as they kept lists and paper trails obsessively. And no, I'm not saying that Jews are as bad as the Nazis, but I AM saying they, like ANY group, have the POTENTIAL to be AS BAD as the Nazis because they are human; but also because a) they have a motivation due to the holocaust; b) they dominate the U.S. propaganda machine (movies and media); c) they are the wealthiest group, PER CAPITA, of any ethnic group in the U.S.; and d) the AIPAC is, by far, the best funded political committee in the U.S. political scene.(1)

>So your "group criticism" can't possibly be based on anything but stereotypes.

Stereotypes? What do you mean by this canard? My views are based upon data and situation analysis.

>If a Jewish pundit said that Christians everywhere were genetically predisposed to be antisemites, you'd be frothing about it.

Some things you can generalize about and some things you cannot. As I have said, it takes very few members of a group to wield the assets of that group because many people are apathetic or ignorant. Less than 60% vote; only 30% wanted to declare independence from Britain; a 5% block of voting stock can alter the direction of a major corporation; 80% of your problems come from 20% of your customers; mass movements usually involve only a sliver of the involvement of any given population. Thus it is totally within reason that the entire Jewish community could be controlled and manipulated by a very small handful of Jewish opinion leaders, wealthy Jewish individuals or Jewish celebrities (and major studios execs ARE celebrities) -– even people that only pretend to be Jewish, and hold no Jewish values (most of which were adopted by Christianity and are mutually shared by the two religions to this very day) could accomplish this – AND, in such case, yes, they WOULD be "nefarious" Mitch old boy.

>>The term, "hysterically raving," is your characterization of my agreement with John Cones' research and the various questions connected with Jewish hegemony that I have raised.

>- Yet another phrase taken directly from Jenks, "Jewish hegemony";

If you put the term "Jewish hegemony" into your Google search engine, you will find this term comes up from many other people other than Jenks.

>i.e., the belief that overrepresentation of Jews - and as far as I can tell, because you've never claimed that statistical overrepresentation of any other group is harmful - is "bad" for everyone else,

Not true. John Cones and I have consistently maintained that a "statistical overrepresentation" of ANY other group in the top-positions of the studio/distributors would be JUST as undesirable as the current group. This is thus NOT all about Jews as you would like to promote (to the uninformed).

>because Jews obviously discriminate against non-Jews as part of their "Jewish agenda," despite your inability to prove it with a single example of some discriminated against.

In my personal life I have witnessed Jews hiring other Jews over my services when my services were every bit as qualified. Also my wife has recited to me her adventures getting hired at a Jewish-owned jewelry story whereby she was entirely MORE qualified than 99% of the other employees, 95% of which were "strangely" Jewish, BECAUSE she not only had extensive sales and design experience, but she was the ONLY GIA-certified Gemologist in the company: except for one (1) of the Jewish owners who only worked in one (1) of the three stores located over two (2) states. Thus my observations of Jewish discrimination when it comes to the workplace are NOT based on stereotypes but based on numerous personal experiences, eye-witness reports from family members, friends and business associates (in other words DATA) and my analysis of the situation.

>So you're in favor of re-enatcting the provisions of the Nuremburg Laws that labelled any industry which has more than 10% Jewish tenure "dominated by the Jews," and close any further Jewish presence in it?

No, I'm in favor of enforcing the laws that are already on the books that forbid any employer, including Jewish studio executives, from discriminating for race, religion, age and sex. When that is done, we won't see demographics like the one at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>It's noticeable that Asians are overrepresented in many fields. How do you feel about that, and what steps do you think we should take to end it?

Same steps that I ask be taken for the film industry.

>There's also an awful lot of Irish police officers. Should we also set up quotas for them? Wouldn't Irish criminal justice hegemony be harmful for everyone else?

Yes it would be and Bill O'Reilly is a perfect example of an over-sized Irish policeman.

>At what point are ethnic quotas bigotry?

I am NOT for quotas. I am for the cycle of employment -- WITHOUT discrimination in ANY of its forms (i.e., nepotism, cronyism, religious/racial/sexual/age bias) –- to be allowed to dictate the NATURAL quotas that happen solely as a result of MERIT.

>>All legitimate as far as I, and a growing number in the media, are concerned.

>- I don't think they're are too many forms of discrimination against Jews that you don't consider "legitimate," Jim.

I don't condone ANY form of discrimination, whether it be against a Jew or a Non-Jew.

James Jaeger


----------------------------
(1) See The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel by Richard H. Curtiss at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/truelies.htm

Re(5): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 02:07:46 AM by Mitchell Levine


-Mitchell, every identifiable group has a spectrum of behaviors ranging from one extreme to the other, and usually these behaviors form a bell-shaped curve whereby the majority-behavior is manifest. By the same token, history has shown that usually only a modest or small percentage of those in any identifiable group are activists. There's a book out there, I think the title is ON MASS MOVEMENTS, that gives endless examples. Thus my point is this: nefarious behavior, in the name of a group, can emanate from ANY group even if only 5% of the members of that group are activist. It's the same way with corporate control. Most people are under the misunderstanding that it takes a 51% ownership of a corporation to control it. Well maybe this is true for small corporations, but not true for big public corporations. Big corporations can be controlled, for good or for bad, by as little as 5% of the stockholders. I have other examples below.

Thus, out of the 6 million or so Jews in the U.S., it only takes a small number who are intense on an agenda to accomplish goals, whether nefarious or patriotic.
- Sorry, Jim, but that's total bullshit - that isn't a "Jewish agenda" That would be an agenda pursued by a small number of people. "The Jewish agenda" is an agenda pursued by Jews as an entire group.

That's why only bigots use the phrase.

If the vast majority of Jews in general take no action against the minority of Jews that influence the studios to discriminate in their hiring practices
- You've never provided even the slightest evidence that studios DO discriminate in their hiring practices, like, for example, the name of anyone that's ever been discriminated against for not being Jewish.


, for instance, or Jews in general benefit from an agenda that sacrifices the interests of the majority of non-Jewish U.S. citizens (such as endless and uncritical support of Israel as a result of the lobbying power of the AIPAC),
- That's not for the "benefit of Jews" - it's for the benefit of the politicians that want the votes of the 80% of the nation that identifies as Christian, the majority of which believe that Israel has to be controlled by Jews for Christ to return for the Final Judgement.

That's the Christian Agenda, Jim. Because of your religious group's ideology, the bloc of voters that determines the outcomes of elections demand that Israel be Jewish.

then they are, in essence, giving consent to those who operate under the banner of Judaism. I feel that if anyone, in any group, is to allow another to claim that they are also in the group, it's the responsibility of group members to speak up when they disagree with another group member's actions, or if those actions are not fair to the greater whole.
- It's just your opinion that they aren't "fair" to the greater whole, and they don't have any control over it either.

Your idea of "fair" is repealing the Civil Rights Act of '64, or putting a "Jewish exception." You think "fair" is ethnic quotas, and no one in the Jewish community agrees.

Hollywood is Jewish because it was created by Jews looking for an industry that wasn't blocked due to Gentile discrimination, AND gentiles didn't want in, based on snobbery.

It's only been about twenty five years or so that Gentiles have wished to get into the movie business, when today's group of execs were already in mid-career. They paid their dues, and mow the industry Gentiles will have to pay theirs.

The business is filled with successful non-Jewish producers and execs, as a quick reading of Variety proves. In time, they'll have their day. Eisner and Geffen get to have theirs now.

The only "discrimination" happened when Hollywood was formed, and the WASP establishment snubbed it. If they hadn't, there'd be more non-Jewish studio heads like Faye Vincent.


then they are, in essence, giving consent to those who operate under the banner of Judaism.
- No, they aren't - they have nothing to do with it, and don't believe Jews did anything wrong by creating Hollywood.

Since you've produced no evidence of "discrimination" other than the fact that an industry started by Jews has a lot of Jews in it, they unsurprisingly don't find your claims compelling.

Well I disagree. When I was in Scientology you were TOTALLY responsible for how you acted as a member of that group.
- Yes, Jim - that's why it's considered a creepy pseudoscientific cult started by a science fiction writer, and is currently under criminal investigation.

Ethnic groups don't work that way - just because a WASP was indicted for fraud at Arthur Andersen doesn't mean WASPs everywhere are responsible. Collective responsbility is bullshit. You're responsible for what you do.

From what I get from you, this isn't the way it is in Judaism? Anything goes it seems. Is this correct? Does ANYTHING go in Judaism?
- Jim, the overwhelming majority of Jews are secular, and just consider themselves an ethnic group like Italians. If the studios try to imply that all Italians are Mafioso, you'd say that's a stereotype.

In short, you aren't responsible for what other members of your ethnicity do.

Hey, maybe there is no DELIBERATING BODY in Judaism per se, just like in the Counsel on Foreign Relations, but is simply a TACTIC? If a group has no formal board meetings or congresses and it keeps no minutes so there is no paper trail, it can make like a chameleon and alter policy or its agenda in an ad hoc manner and thus avoid being held accountable for almost everything.
- Yes, Jim - Jews everywhere log into JewNet where we have a massive mindmeld to plot the Jewish agenda. Do you realize HOW ridiculous you sound?

And no, I'm not saying that Jews are as bad as the Nazis
- PHEW, that' s a real relief, Jim!!! For a second, I thought you meant that a fascist political party that plotted the extermination of millions for the cause of racial purity was a valid comparison to an ethnic group comprised primarily of doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, etc. that have the audacity to exist!

Thus it is totally within reason that the entire Jewish community could be controlled and manipulated by a very small handful of Jewish opinion leaders, wealthy Jewish individuals or Jewish celebrities (and major studios execs ARE celebrities) -– even people that only pretend to be Jewish, and hold no Jewish values (most of which were adopted by Christianity and are mutually shared by the two religions to this very day) could accomplish this – AND, in such case, yes, they WOULD be "nefarious" Mitch old boy.
- Sorry, but the most "nefarious" thing you've identified they might be responsible for is not hiring enough studio execs, and supporting Israel, which isn't a crime either.

Except for the premises you've adopted from white racist Kevin MacDonald about Jews "supporting immigration from nations that aren't antisemitic," etc, you've established no "Jewish agenda."

If you put the term "Jewish hegemony" into your Google search engine, you will find this term comes up from many other people other than Jenks.
- Yes, from neo-Nazi websites, like JewWatch and Stormfront.

Not true. John Cones and I have consistently maintained that a "statistical overrepresentation" of ANY other group in the top-positions of the studio/distributors would be JUST as undesirable as the current group. This is thus NOT all about Jews as you would like to promote (to the uninformed).
- Nope, for you, it's all about the Jews. If it were dominated by Italians, you wouldn't bat an eye - unless they also thumbs-downed your Stalin script.

No, I'm in favor of enforcing the laws that are already on the books that forbid any employer, including Jewish studio executives, from discriminating for race, religion, age and sex. When that is done, we won't see demographics like the one at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist
- Not necessarily - there's no evidence they're discriminating now, and whoever else ran the studies might decide that the Jewish individuals there now do the job the best. They did start the industry.

Overrepresentation doesn't equal discrimination no matter how hard you try to make the equation. The question is: are the individuals in question the best at what they do regardless of their ethnicity?

In my personal life I have witnessed Jews hiring other Jews over my services when my services were every bit as qualified.
- George Shelps certainly doesn't believe that, and he knows you pretty well.

He says you haven't made a film in twenty years, and you continue to hawk a poor script with low audience appeal.

Also my wife has recited to me her adventures getting hired at a Jewish-owned jewelry story whereby she was entirely MORE qualified than 99% of the other employees, 95% of which were "strangely" Jewish, BECAUSE she not only had extensive sales and design experience, but she was the ONLY GIA-certified Gemologist in the company: except for one (1) of the Jewish owners who only worked in one (1) of the three stores located over two (2) states.
- Jim, they HIRED her, and if I'm not mistaken, she works there now.

As you're aware, the reason 95% of her coworkers are Jewish is because 57 street was begun by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe that were diamond merchants abroad. Their families continue to go into the business, and it's not like scads of non-Jews want in to their operations there. They're working in an ethnic district of New York.

And when qualified non-Jews like your wife apply, they get hired like she did. Where is the "discrimination?"

Thus my observations of Jewish discrimination when it comes to the workplace are NOT based on stereotypes but based on numerous personal experiences, eye-witness reports from family members, friends and business associates (in other words DATA) and my analysis of the situation.
- That's not "data," those are ANECDOTES, and your interpretation is highly questionable, as in the fact that your wife works there now, if I recall correctly.

That's not to mention that the simple fact that ultra-orthodox Hasids on W. 57th street made your wife's life difficult, and that you can't get your script produced doesn't "prove" that "Jews discriminate, and the supposed lack of Gentile studio heads is therefore discrimination."

Same steps that I ask be taken for the film industry.
- Like what? Set up ethnic quotas for them at colleges despite the fact that they have provably higher test scores and grades, and the highest average IQs of any nations in the world?

Yes it would be and Bill O'Reilly is a perfect example of an over-sized Irish policeman.
- Bill O'Reilly isn't a policeman, Jim, nor is that analogy appropriate for the Jew-dominated media, is it?

I am NOT for quotas. I am for the cycle of employment -- WITHOUT discrimination in ANY of its forms (i.e., nepotism, cronyism, religious/racial/sexual/age bias) –- to be allowed to dictate the NATURAL quotas that happen solely as a result of MERIT.
- Bunk - you've already discussed your ideas for quota schemes, not only in Hollywood, but Congress too.

I don't condone ANY form of discrimination, whether it be against a Jew or a Non-Jew.
- Except your stated belief that only white Christians should interpret the Constitution.


If the vast majority of Jews in general take no action against the minority of Jews that influence the studios to discriminate in their hiring practices, for instance, or Jews in general benefit from an agenda that
sacrifices the interests of the majority of non-Jewish U.S. citizens

Re(6): Anti-German Levine? Cont
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 01:59:17 AM by James Jaeger

>If it were dominated by Italians, you wouldn't bat an eye - unless they also thumbs-downed your Stalin script.

No that's simply not true. If any group was discriminating, it would eventually concern me. Prior to my involvement with FIRM I never even thought about who or who did not dominate Hollywood. It was the FARTHEST thing from my mind. I have written 5 books, all prior to my involvement with FIRM, and these books are all over the movie industry. You cannot find one IOTA of mention of Jews or Jewish domination of the movie business in any of them. It was simply NOT on my radar.


>- Not necessarily - there's no evidence they're discriminating now,

Yes there is evidence. The evidence is at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>and whoever else ran the studies might decide that the Jewish individuals there now do the job the best. They did start the industry.

No they did not start the industry. They only started a branch of the industry on the West Coast so they could skip to Mexico if the law was coming after them for patent infringement. New York is still where all the West Coast studios and the industry is controlled from.

>Overrepresentation doesn't equal discrimination no matter how hard you try to make the equation. The question is: are the individuals in question the best at what they do regardless of their ethnicity?

We have had this argument over and over. We simply disagree. I maintain that the overrepresentation of over 60, some say 75% IS evidence of discrimination because Jews are not necessarily the best at running studios. To claim they are is elitist, if not bigoted. Studios are corporate entities, and corporate entities in most fields, by your own words, were dominated by Gentiles. Thus it would stand to reason that Gentiles were better qualified to run the corporate entities that are the studios, especially today. And they would, if such rampant and unbridled discrimination were not taking place, to this very day, amongst Jewish studio executives who push power to each other with abandon.

>-George Shelps certainly doesn't believe that, and he knows you pretty well.

I met George Shelps around 1994 and have gotten together with him a total of 4 times in 11 years. I have never met any of his family or friends and he has only met one of my family members in an hour meeting. Other than arguing on the Net and exchanging emails, it's a mischaracterization to say that he knows me "pretty well."

>He says you haven't made a film in twenty years, and you continue to hawk a poor script with low audience appeal.

That's simple not true. You can read what I have done over the past
year(s) at the MEC update page at http://www.mecfilms.com/update.htm


>- Jim, they HIRED her, and if I'm not mistaken, she works there now.

They only hired her after she repeatedly sought employment.

>As you're aware, the reason 95% of her coworkers are Jewish is because 57 street was begun by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe that were diamond merchants abroad. Their families continue to go into the business, and it's not like scads of non-Jews want in to their operations there. They're working in an ethnic district of New York.

While this may be true, my wife got a good view into the hiring and business practices of an establishment owned and run by Jews. As I stated, she was more qualified to work at the store because she was the only GIA gemologist other than one owner; she had sales experience in three stores on both coasts; and had an impeccable track record for designing AND building expensive pieces, which have never failed to sell. Given all this, she had to repeatedly call and apply to get accepted into the store. After she had worked at the store and everyone got to know her talents, they BEGGED her not to leave and offered her more money to stay. This proves that she was a good egg and they discriminated against her prior to knowing her capabilities. While employed at the store she saw things that were troubling, to use a Jewish expression. For instance, the charms that the store sold were stored in one of two boxes in the back. These boxes were labeled "Jewish Charms" and "Gentile Charms" indicating that they considered there to be a division between Jews and all other people.

>And when qualified non-Jews like your wife apply, they get hired like she did. Where is the "discrimination?"

As I stated above -- and I just checked this with her before writing this to make sure I am being fair and accurate -- she had to practically badger them to death to get employment. She knew she was qualified for the job, but their apparent bigotry was blinding them to this fact.

>- That's not "data," those are ANECDOTES,

Anecdotes ARE data. Anything of which one can become aware is a DATUM. Since one can become aware of anecdotes, anecdotes are data. Nice try Mitch.

>and your interpretation is highly questionable, as in the fact that your wife works there now, if I recall correctly.

No, she resigned after they broke an agreement and used about 75 of her designs without payment. She called them on this, invoiced them and, to their credit, they DID pay up. Bear in mind all this happened YEARS before I had met John Cones or had written a WORD about film reform.

>That's not to mention that the simple fact that ultra-orthodox Hasids on W. 57th street made your wife's life difficult,

No, these Jews were secular Jews. In fact, my wife says that one of the Jewish employees at the store said of the Jewish owners: "It's Jews like these that give us all a bad name." Ironically, this comment was spoken by the sister of one of the producer of DYNASTY and KNOTS LANDING indicating that often there is no problem with Jews in general and underscoring the fact that Jews in general don't run Hollywood. In fact this Jew was religious as my wife tells me she regularly went to temple. So Mitch, it was SECULAR Jews that my wife had trouble, the same kind of Jews that dominate Hollywood. I might add, all of the Jewish employees at the jewelry story like my wife and she liked them. When she left, all of the employees and one of the two managers -- who were ALL Jewish, except for one part-time cashier -- took her out to diner and bought her a goodbye present.

>and that you can't get your script produced doesn't "prove" that "Jews discriminate, and the supposed lack of Gentile studio heads is therefore discrimination."

My Stalin project and the studios composition are two separate issues. I have never said that failing to get my script produced proves that "Jews discriminate." I am still hopeful that this project will be made, just as my wife was hopeful that this jewelry store would hire her. If I am persistent, as she was, I can see the day my project will get financed. But I still feel it's unfair that Gentiles have to push so hard on Jewish-dominated establishments in order to be accepted. We are reaching out to you, will you not reach out to us.

>- Like what? Set up ethnic quotas for them at colleges despite the fact that they have provably higher test scores and grades, and the highest average IQs of any nations in the world?

I don't believe the most qualified people to be MPAA studio executives are Jewish. Maybe you do, but then that shows how elitist, if not bigoted you actually are.

>- Bill O'Reilly isn't a policeman, Jim, nor is that analogy appropriate for the Jew-dominated media, is it?

I know he isn't a policemen. That was a joke. He acts like a policemen, "looking out for the folks," and all that stuff.

>- Bunk - you've already discussed your ideas for quota schemes, not only in Hollywood, but Congress too.

Well if that's true, please present such statements to me, because I can't think of any time I have felt that such would be fair. As far as Congress, yes I have felt a quota would be fair. I feel that congress should be 50% male and 50% female because the population, uniformly, is about 50% male and 50% female. Actually the population is 51% female and 49% male, but I won't require there be 51 female senators and only 49 male senators, unless one insists.

>>I don't condone ANY form of discrimination, whether it be against a Jew or a Non-Jew.

>- Except your stated belief that only white Christians should interpret the Constitution.

What?! Where did that come from?

James Jaeger

Re(6): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 01:58:37 AM by James Jaeger

>- Sorry, Jim, but that's total bullshit - that isn't a "Jewish agenda" That would be an agenda pursued by a small number of people. "The Jewish agenda" is an agenda pursued by Jews as an entire group.

A group's agenda is an EMERGENT PROPERTY of the people that NETWORK with each other to FORM the group identity. Every person in a group can seem like, or be an individual, but, to the degree the individuals communicate with each other, they create a group identity, a group agenda. And this agenda is AN emergent property. Jews are not the only group that manifest emergent properties or an unconscious agenda. All groups and all networks do. But the more people have in common, the greater the probability of communication and empathy. Thus, since over 50% of the executives that control the studios are a) liberal, b) secular, c) male, d) Jewish there is a greater tendency for these people to communicate amongst themselves, thus forming a stronger network amongst themselves than with others. To the degree this network communicates with itself, it will have emergent properties, and one of these emergent properties will be a political agenda. Other emergent properties will be a social agenda as well as an economic agenda.

>That's why only bigots use the phrase.

Bigots are people that have an irrational intolerance for someone. To simply describe and opine upon a network and its sociological agenda is not bigotry, nor is it anti-Semitism if one of the elements of the demographic just happen to be Jewish. Mitchell, you are making a fool out of yourself by trying to defend Jews when no defense is necessary.

- You've never provided even the slightest evidence that studios DO discriminate in their hiring practices,

I certainly have. The evidence is in the RESULTS of control that have accrued over the last 100 years. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>like, for example, the name of anyone that's ever been discriminated against for not being Jewish.

No need to specifically name anyone because the mere fact that the list is so devoid of diversity proves all by itself that in order for this condition to have arisen there was circumstantial if not rampant discrimination over the long term. If your thesis that "Jews started the industry were valid," DISNEY would not be so dominated by Jews as it is today for DISNEY was founded by Gentiles.

>-That's not for the "benefit of Jews" -it's for the benefit of the politicians that want the votes of the 80% of the nation that identifies as Christian, the majority of which believe that Israel has to be controlled by Jews for Christ to return for the Final Judgment.

There is some truth in what you say here, but it is disingenuous to say that this doesn't benefit Jews because, after all, Jews are getting billions of dollars poured into Israel on a regular basis, and many feel we have even sacrificed the lives of young men and women to fight a war in Iraq just so greater security could be delivered to Israel.

>That's the Christian Agenda, Jim. Because of your religious group's ideology, the bloc of voters that determines the outcomes of elections demand that Israel be Jewish.

I am not doubting this is a Christian Agenda. As I have said, all groups have emergent properties and one of these properties is inevitably the way a group interacts its resources with the outside world, in other words politics. My only grip is: If this is true, shouldn't the Jewish community ethically refuse to play along with the Christian agenda? In other words, stop riding on their coattails by using the Bible, in particular the New Testament and Revelations, to extort control over Christians?

>-Hollywood is Jewish because it was created by Jews looking for an industry that wasn't blocked due to Gentile discrimination, AND gentiles didn't want in, based on snobbery. It's only been about twenty five years or so that Gentiles have wished to get into the movie business, when today's group of execs were already in mid-career. They paid their dues, and mow the industry Gentiles will have to pay theirs.

Your lame excuse to justify wanton discrimination. See my DISNEY example above.

>-The business is filled with successful non-Jewish producers and execs, as a quick reading of Variety proves. In time, they'll have their day. Eisner and Geffen get to have theirs now.

That's MALE non-Jewish producers and execs -- only one (1) element of the salient demographic. Women now hold FEWER positions as directors, producers and studio executives than they did a decade ago. John Cones says the studios are dominated by liberal, not very religious, Jewish MALES of European heritage. So note, one of the elements of this demographic is worsening, NOT improving. Let's stop making this conversation all about Jews.

>The only "discrimination" happened when Hollywood was formed, and the WASP establishment snubbed it. If they hadn't, there'd be more non-Jewish studio heads like Faye Vincent.

Is this some sort of theme? Jews never do anything wrong, only Gentiles.

>- No, they aren't - they have nothing to do with it, and don't believe Jews did anything wrong by creating Hollywood.

They stole the patent for the movie camera from Edison, a Gentile.

>Since you've produced no evidence of "discrimination" other than the fact that an industry started by Jews has a lot of Jews in it, they unsurprisingly don't find your claims compelling.

The results ARE the evidence. You just don't want to confront that.

>- Yes, Jim - that's why it's considered a creepy pseudoscientific cult started by a science fiction writer, and is currently under criminal investigation.

I've been hearing this for 20 years now. Typical journalist mentality.

>Ethnic groups don't work that way - just because a WASP was indicted for fraud at Arthur Andersen doesn't mean WASPs everywhere are responsible. Collective responsibility is bullshit.

Oh, so the fact that the predominantly WASP SEC has investigated and taken legal action against the WASP at AA, ISN'T an example of group ethics?!

>- Jim, the overwhelming majority of Jews are secular, and just consider themselves an ethnic group like Italians. If the studios try to imply that all Italians are Mafioso, you'd say that's a stereotype.

If you arrest 100 Mafioso and 99 of them are Italian, it's doesn't mean that all Italians are Mafioso, but if it keeps happening, it is a poor reflection on Italians and it's something that decent people who are Italian will become concerned about.

>In short, you aren't responsible for what other members of your ethnicity do.

Maybe you aren't responsible per se, but doesn't it behooves one, if they take any pride in the good name of their group, to help their fellows live happier more successful lives? And aren't such lives lived by doing what's lawful and moral?

- Yes, Jim - Jews everywhere log into JewNet where we have a massive mindmeld to plot the Jewish agenda. Do you realize HOW ridiculous you sound?

Then what is the purpose of identifying yourself as a Jew if you have NO binding agreements, principles, views on life or relationships? Mitch, are most of your friends Jewish or non-Jewish? I admit most of my friends are non-Jewish. I would like to have more Jewish friends, but I have never been invited into their world, even decades prior to my going public in support of John Cones research.

>- PHEW, that' s a real relief, Jim!!! For a second, I thought you meant that a fascist political party that plotted the extermination of millions for the cause of racial purity was a valid comparison to an ethnic group comprised primarily of doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, etc. that have the audacity to exist!

Since this subject is taboo, no one really knows what the Jews did or did not do to engender the wrath of the German people and their leader, Adolph Hitler. A new doc on the History channel says Hitler went crazy because of some medicine his doctor was giving him. So we are still finding out about this period of history. You tell me, did the Jews do anything to piss off the Germans or were they just innocent victims of a madman and an entire mad population? History wasn't my subject because I knew from a very early age that it was recounted mostly by the victors. The problem I have though, is I don't want to hear German history only recounted only via a media dominated by Jews because I feel the tendency to bias the truth is too great.

>- Sorry, but the most "nefarious" thing you've identified they might be responsible for is not hiring enough studio execs, and supporting Israel, which isn't a crime either.

Well Mitch, contrary to what you must think I think of Jews, I don't even consider these tow things "nefarious" because as I have tried to point out repeatedly, all groups indulge in the same activities. This is the problem in the former case because "Birds of a feather stick together." As far as the later case, there is nothing wrong with supporting your homeland. Where I have a problem is with dual loyalties as in the case of American Jews who also lobby to send excessive amounts of money and support to Israel even when it's not in the best interests of non-Jewish Americans.
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid Since 1949 as of November 1, 1997 alone have been well over $135,000,000,000

(source: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs)

>Except for the premises you've adopted from white racist Kevin MacDonald about Jews "supporting immigration from nations that aren't antisemitic," etc, you've established no "Jewish agenda."

No you recognize no Jewish agenda.

>- Yes, from neo-Nazi websites, like JewWatch and Stormfront.

Obviously you didn't try it.

- Nope, for you, it's all about the Jews.

Well yes it is, if it's the Hollywood Jews that are specifically doing the discrimination. But the stated demographic incorporates more than just Jews. It incorporates excessive MALE domination. Even though I happen to be a male, I would like to see more WOMEN studio executives, but unfortunately as I cited above, this hasn't been the trend. I would say the Jewish element of the control group demographic is probably the most binding with the elements of MALE and LIBERAL following second and third. I don't think people who are secular "bind" with each other except for when they ridicule "all the religious freaks" out there. I don't know whether the SECULAR element is more binding than the LIBERAL. All I know is I have far more friends that fall into the non-Jewish category thus I can surmise that Jews bind less with me than liberals or conservatives (as I associate with both), men or women (as I have friends with both), religious and secular (I have friends with both). I do have Jewish friends and associates who work with me on productions, but it seems they are less a part of my world than I would like for them to be.

Re(6): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 00:12:08 AM by Moshe the Goyim

Levine says: As you're aware, the reason 95% of her coworkers are Jewish is because 57 street was begun by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe that were diamond merchants abroad. Their families continue to go into the business, and it's not like scads of non-Jews want in to their operations there. They're working in an ethnic district of New York.

RESPONSE: The world diamond trade is a Jewish monopoly. (Read Epstein's book about it). 57th street (?) is only a sliver of the matrix that echoes Jewish domination of Hollywood. De Beers is controlled by the Oppenheim family. A large part of the diamond honing is actually in Israel. Belgium is another big (Jewish) center.

It is common knowledge. Jews run the diamond trade and the paradigm is quite the same as the film world. Look it up.

Re(6): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 5, 2005 at 10:47:50 PM by Moshe the Goyim

Mr. Levine insists there is no such thing as a "Jewish agenda." And that those who use this term are "anti-Semites." His position is so asinine it's beyond belief.

Type "Jewish agenda" in google. Go to the first link listed. What is it? It's the Jewish Agency of Israel. And what is the title of the page?

THE GLOBAL JEWISH AGENDA.

Every single sentence Mr. Levine writes is a complete veil to hide Jewish/Zionist tribal activism, and if there was any value in spending tons of time to deconstruct his lies (there isn't) every single thing he says could be exposed as smokescreen.


http://www.jafi.org.il/agenda/2001/english/index.htm

Re(2): Commentary on .... Cont
Posted on January 21, 2005 at 01:09:55 AM by Moshe the Goyim

In the same spirit of Mr. Levine's usual inane comments, I suggest that he join Gush Emunim and overtly join the Jewish fascist movement, since that seems to be his obvious tendency in support of brutal, apartheid Israel.

Re(1): Commentary on .... Cont2
Posted on January 22, 2005 at 05:23:09 PM by Heebie Jeebie

Wow...I leave for a year, and it's still the same 3 guys---The lonely Judenhassers club.

Goyim means nations.
Behemot means beasts.
Parot means cows or cattle.

Re(2): Commentary on .... Cont2
Posted on January 24, 2005 at 11:06:30 AM by Mitchell Levine

Unfortunately, a year from now Mr. Jaeger will still be telling people that Jews refer to Gentiles as "cattle."

Re(3): Commentary on .... Cont2
Posted on January 27, 2005 at 05:38:28 PM by James Jaeger

See my post above on this.

Hollywood and MEMRI
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 01:37:18 AM by Moshe the Goyim

From http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

[Imagine it. This blind Jewish Bozo decided to line up a bunch of the Jews who run Hollywood and the mass media to satirize in a film notions that Jews run Hollywood, the mass media, and Western culture. Lost to him is the fact that this "satire" would go a long way towards providing evidence for the thesis that Jews run way, way, way too much. One time: give us $350,000 and see what kind of movie WE make about Jews, the Jewish Lobby, and Jewish Power. Moore's 9-11 wouldn't hold a candle to it. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is well-known as a subversive Israeli/Zionist propaganda venture (see the article after the next one, below) co-founded by a former Israeli military intelligence officer. Basing a film on the "facts" supplied by the world Zionist Lobby only underscores the world Jewish web, which includes propaganda filmmaker Levin.]

Filmmaker Lifts Lid on Anti-Semitic Tract,
Yahoo! News, January 25, 2005
"Documentary director Marc Levin wanted to make a film spoofing "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- a century-old piece of propaganda claiming to be the Jews' master plan to rule the world. The book has resurfaced since Sept. 11 to support the claim that the Jews were involved in the attacks. Levin, whose credits include "Slam" and "Twilight Los Angeles," planned to enlist Hollywood's Jewish elite -- such producers, directors and comedians as Norman Lear, Rob Reiner, Woody Allen and Mel Brooks -- to help him in his quest. But he soon realized the impossibility of that idea. Through a bit of luck, Levin, whose new documentary "Protocols of Zion" premiered this weekend at Sundance, didn't need the help of the elder statesmen after all. Instead, he stumbled across the Middle East Media Research Institute, an organization that had collected a 40-hour miniseries based on the book and seen by millions of people on Arab television. Says Levin of the TV program, "I thought it was a goof when I first saw it -- something out of an Ali G routine. But once I realized it had been seen by millions, I was stunned. I knew I had to get it into a film." So he took those tapes he discovered and added to them interviews with Arab-Americans, black nationalists, Christian evangelicals, Aryan skinheads, Holocaust deniers and survivors and others to make up his very personal film, which examines how people are processing the aftermath of Sept. 11 and just how divided our world has become. The HBO production also investigates the anti-Semitic resurgence occurring in the United States and around the world and looks for answers as to why Jews are being blamed for the world's tragedies. Levin's group is looking for theatrical distribution for "Protocols of Zion" to help keep that dialogue going." [JTR editor's note: Dialogue? What "dialogue?" With who? Jews talk to Jews and everyone else watches on the sidelines. THAT is Jewish "dialogue."]

[What's "MEMRI," the foundation of Mr. Levin's film that wonders why Jews are being "scapegoated" all the time, above? Juan Cole is a professor at the University of Michigan. And the film about anti-Jewish kooks by Mr. Levin is a colossal propaganda scam. Bottom line: Levin's film -- and its inspiration -- reaffirm what he sought to disprove.]

Repressive MEMRI,
by Juan Cole, antiwar.com, November 24, 2004
"I just checked my campus mail and found a letter in it from Colonel Yigal Carmon, late of Israeli military intelligence, now an official at the Middle East Media Research Organization, or MEMRI. He threatened me with a lawsuit over blog comments I made at Informed Comment. This technique of the SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, has already been pioneered by polluting industries against environmental activists, and now the pro-Likud lobby in the U.S. has apparently decided to try it out against people like me. I urge all readers to send messages of protest to memri@memri.org. Please be polite, and simply urge MEMRI, which has a major Web presence, to withdraw the lawsuit threat and to respect the spirit of the free sharing of ideas that makes the Internet possible ... As a historian, I have no desire to have anything but the facts in evidence. MEMRI obviously a well-funded operation, as any familiarity with its scope and activities would make clear ... I continue to maintain that MEMRI is selective and biased against the Arab press,