FIRM Discussions April 17, 2000 - August 13, 2001
What Are Some Good Aspects of the Film Industry? Cones' Selected Bibliography
Robert Morein
3:23 pm tuesday april 17, 2001I read (John Cones') bibliography. Most of it is solid, but I do not excuse the synthesis of errors contained in the body of his work. But two stood out:
Sarna, Jonathan, D., "The Jewish Way of Crime", Commentary, August, 1984.
Do I have to explain why I'm offended?
This brings up the point that in Cones's curious juxtaposition, where he attempts to show that Jews in Hollywood are an evil presence, he implies that Jews are responsible for the deaths of actors, in unexplained circumstances, for motives which are never given. I found it extremely offensive, and I also found a certain laxity of argument, in that he didn't even bother to fill in the conspiracy holes, preferring to leave it to the imagination.
And:
Richardson, John H., "Hollywood's Actress-Hookers--When Glamour Turns Grim", John H. Richardson, Premiere, 1992.Cones blames Hollywood, and implicitly, the Hollywood Jews, for the human wreckage which results when expected careers do not materialize, and the despair which results when the aging actor fails to age into another castable category.
It is true that when a person reaches an impasse in their career, whatever it may be, this may cause them to abase themselves, or commit suicide, or become a wreck, or -- go onto something else. Frankly, I don't see how you can stretch your Libertarian beliefs to cover social security for actors. Acting is not an equal opportunity profession; many stupid people go into it who don't understand the miniscule probability for success.
Are we to have seatbelts for stupid people? Social security for actors? Put cigarette-pack-style warning on script sides? "Warning: acting may be hazardous to your health."
Are Jewish studio executives responsible for the dummies who came to Hollywood to make it big?
This is something I can tell you a little about, because I am an unsuccessful actor. I still do it, for fun. If it's in your blood, it's absolutely addictive. But that's life. Nobody owes me an acting job. I could complain that preferences for actors have been severely tilted toward the "beautiful people", by Hollywood executives who are more interested in merchandising than acting skills.
But I'm not going to. In the scheme of things, it's a miniscule concern. There are bigger things in life, more important things to this country, than Bob Morein's acting career, or James Jaeger's producing career.
Robert Morein
re: Violent Acts Argument
George
3:27 pm tuesday april 17, 2001Once again, Hollywood was founded mostly by Jews and so why should it be surprising that its top executives tend to be Jewish?
By putting such an emphasis on this, Cones leaves himself open to charges of anti-semitism.
It's not unusual for people in a specific ethnic group to prefer to associate in business with others of the same group. It's not a conspiracy, it's human nature!
George
re: Violent Acts Argument
John Cones
12:06 pm wednesday april 18, 2001George:
Your overly-simplified approach to a complicated subject is based on some false assumptions. I've never expressed "surprise" at the results of the background survey undertaken to determime who really controls Hollywood. As far as I'm concerned, my research simply confirmed something that most people involved in the film industry already new or suspected, but were afraid to openly discuss. The "emphasis" as you call it is not placed on this issue of the backgrounds of the Hollywood control group by me, but others who would rather talk about this issue because it allows them to think they have put me on the defensive by calling me names. The beginning and most emphasized aspect of my analysis has always been on the patterns of bias in motion picture content. The issue of who really controls which movies are produced and released is merely part of the explanation for the observed bias. Your misreading of my "emphasis" is your own. To state that by simply observing and reporting the truth with respect to the backgrounds of members of the Hollywood control group opens me to a charge of anti-Semitism is absurd. If the facts showed that Hollywood was dominated by a small group of Catholic women, I suppose you would immediately claim I was opening myself to the charge of being anti-Catholic or some such nonsense. You seem to be falling into the trap of others who only examine this issue in a very shallow manner (i.e., anyone who dares to criticize the wrongful business-related activities of a small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage must be prejudice). If you read half the books about what's going on in Hollywood that are listed in my bibliography (or any of my own books), you would easily see that there is plenty to criticize about the business- related activities of the top Hollywood studio executives and thus no one has to be prejudice in order to justify their criticism. The "prejudice" argument is merely a smoke-screen for the failure of the Hollywood apologists to be able to refute the criticism of business-related activities. In other words, by trying to distract people's attention from the real issues of wrongdoing, the Hollywood apologists avoid having to deal with issues of substance. Of course, it is not unusual for people in a specific ethnic group to prefer to associate in business with others of the same group, but when it involves extremely lucrative employment opportunities in most of the very top positions in a single industry, it is reasonable to be concerned about discrimination. Again, if you actually read my works, you would know that I have an entire chapter explaining why I have never alleged a "conspiracy", and do not care whether there is a conspiracy or not. A small group of top studio executives with similar backgrounds, arbitrarily excluding others from such positions of power by conducting themselves in a similar manner (i.e., utilizing hundreds of well-doumented unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive and predatory business practices) is enough for me. Your arguments are grossly over- simplified and off the mark. There was no "surprise". Your belief about my "emphasis" is misplaced. Your view of what constitutes anti-semitism is inaccurate. Your presumed reason why most of the top Hollywood studio executives share a similar background is naive.Your attribution of a conspiracy charge to me is simply false and your suggestion that it's ok to follow what you subjectively believe to be principles of "human nature" even when such acts are in violation of the law is pathetic. Try to apply that rule for human conduct in other situations and see how far you get. Have a nice day.
John Cones
re: Violent Acts Argument
Robert Morein
11:29 pm wednesday april 18, 2001>Although, Mr. Morien consistently and falsely states >that my writing directs hatred toward Jews Mr. Cones's document does not contain the statement "Jews are bad." Unfortunately, Mr Cones's document goes a long way to implicate the Hollywood Jews in characterization of a group he considers evil.
Contained within the body of Mr. Cones's reply, we have "It was hateful for Hollywood to consistently portray women, Latinos, Native Americans and African-Americans in a negative or stereotypical manner for all those years. It is hateful for Hollywood to consistently portray Christians and Muslims, political conservatives and White males from the South in a negative or stereotypical manner in its more contemporary movies."
It would appear Mr. Cones wishes to enforce "political correctness" on Hollywood. I wonder, as most of us do, whether he wishes to change expression "Free Speech" to "Politically Correct Free Speech".
Mr. Cones forgets that "PC" is a tool of liberals. Unless Mr. Cones is a liberal, he's not allowed to use it :).
Because Mr. Cones has not debated me at length, he probably does not realize that I sincerely wish for greater diversity in the "control group", and have sympathetic concern for many (but not all) of the other issues he raises. However, as he does not propose a mechanism for change, I fear that he may have as a solution something damaging to basic freedoms.
My assertion that Mr. Cones's book has an antisemitic tone does not decide the question as to whether it is accidental, or intended. In this case, it is not important. What is important is the effect. To his credit, Mr. Cones has stated that the behavior of the "control group" is not characteristic of Jewish people in general, in America. Unfortunately, the book still serves as fuel for the unbalanced followers of "rev Pierce", et al., with their violent agendas.
Meanwhile, (NY Times, front page, 4/16) as Mr. Cones whales away on the antisemitic theme, the F.C.C. and a federal appeals court have further relaxed rules on ownership limits of media companies.
In other words, Mr. Cones is completely ineffectual in changing anything about Hollywood and the media industry.
Where was Mr. Cones when this appeals court in Washington handed down it's rulings?
Robert Morein
Reform Methodology
John Cones
0:17 am monday april 30, 2001Who Built the Movie Industry
I have two problems with the statement that "the movie industry was built by Jewish people". First, it confuses the "movie industry" with "Hollywood". The movie industry originated on the East coast and persons of Jewish heritage were not prominent in the movie industry in those early years. I don’t think we should confuse the entire U.S. film industry with Hollywood, which admittedly dominates the entire industry today. And, we should not overlook the valuable contributions of others to the film industry (i.e., besides those of the Hollywood control group).
The 2nd difficulty I have with the statement is the same problem I have with someone trying to claim that I say "Jews control Hollywood". There is an inherent ambiguity in both statements. Does the statement refer to "the Jewish people" or "some Jewish People". Does the 2nd statement refer to "the Jews" (suggesting Jews generally) or some Jews. My choice of language, that Hollywood is controlled by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage avoids that ambiguity. It should be clear to any reasonably intelligent person that I am not talking about "the Jewish people" generally or "the Jews" generally. I have only talked about the business- related behavior of a small group whose behavior is not typical of Jews generally and who do not behave the way they do because they are Jewish, at least that is my belief.
On the other hand, some of the Hollywood apologists would like for people to believe that I am talking about "the Jewish people" or "the Jews" generally, thus putting me closer to making broad generalizations about Jews generally, something I am clearly not doing. But, if they can convince people that I am making generalizations about Jews, it is much easier for them to convince people that I am prejudice and that I have arrived at my conclusions because of that prejudice and not because of the facts.
So first one should distinguish between "the movie industry" and "Hollywood" when talking about who built what, and 2nd one should distinguish between this atypical group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage and Jews or the Jewish people generally. I believe these are important distinctions.
Kicking Someone Out
I’ve never advocated kicking anyone out of their position in the film industry, unless they are doing something wrong (i.e., something unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory or illegal), certainly not because of who they are. I believe that by calling people’s attention to these problems one may be able to influence the evolution of the movie industry’s leadership and thereby encourage more diversity at all levels, one of the ultimate goals of FIRM.
Anyone who claims that we are advocating that anyone be kicked out of the movie industry simply because of who they are clearly and recklessly misinterpreting our position at FIRM, which, of course, is typical of the arguments of the Hollywood apologists.
They have rarely argued with our actual position on any issue, but more commonly exaggerated or misinterpreted our position.
Just because someone like a Robert Morien puts words in our mouth does not mean that we said it. We simply have to stand firm and keep reminding him that he is misinterpreting our words and that his interpretation is not reasonable.
Plan of Reform
One of the solutions I’ve always advocated is an association of independent feature film producers to work as an advocacy group. We attempted to put together such a group. Unfortunately this has not happened possibly because The Producers Guild, and another producers group, now merged with the guild, was not interested in reform, and were sitting there in the way, thus we couldn’t attract recognizable name people because they were afraid they would be punished.
I would be happy to see an advocacy group created for the purpose of continuing this work. I have no desire to control such a group, but would be happy to help in any way I can.
So, I’m open to others taking the reform movement in another direction on the "remedies" side. I’ll serve as a resource, if needed. Let me know how I can help.
John Cones
re: Violent Acts Argument
John Cones
1:52 pm monday april 30, 2001Mr. Morien’s Follies
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Morien finally conceded that I have never stated that “Jews are bad”. He is correct on that point. But, after making that accurate observation in one of his recent posts, he turns right around and makes an equally false judgment about what he thinks I think (i.e., he falsely claims that I consider the so-called “Hollywood Jews”, a phrase I believe was coined by Neal Gabler, to be “evil”). Once again, Mr. Morien has a horrible track record in trying to figure out and proclaim what I believe, think or consider. I do not consider the Hollywood control group to be “evil” and have never written any such thing. I do consider them greedy and have stated more than once that my research indicates they gained and have maintained their control over the Hollywood-based film industry illegitimately (i.e., through hundreds of documented business practices that are unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive and predatory). But to suggest that I believe they are therefore “evil” is a whole different level of morally reprehensible conduct.
I really do not understand why it is so difficult for men or women of good faith to disagree with and criticize what I actually say. Why is it necessary for such people to make things up, to exaggerate, to make false claims about my statements? Is it because it is more difficult to criticize my actual statements? I suppose so.
As another example, I write about the blatant patterns of bias in Hollywood films (i.e., the consistent portrayal of whole populations in our diverse society in a negative or stereotypical manner), but Mr. Morien chooses to miss the entire point of that discussion and tries to pass it off as “political correctness”. What he fails to realize is that I’m not advocating that everyone be portrayed positively in movies all the time, but that all groups in our diverse society have the same fair and equal opportunity to communicate what they choose through this powerful communications medium (the feature film). Since films tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives an prejudices of their makers, it is only natural then that with more diversity at the top in Hollywood, our films would more likely reflect that diversity. With the power positions in Hollywood dominated by a small group whose backgrounds are very similar, then we get these blatant patterns of bias. And, I have to say, if the same people are consistently portrayed negatively in film while others are consistently portrayed favorably in film, that’s just cheap propaganda, being passed on and promoted to a gullible public as entertainment. By suggesting that my position is somewhat akin to political correctness Mr. Morien has simply once again exposed his inability to understand what is actually be stated (or in the alternative demonstrated once again that he is not a man of good faith who can make an honest argument).
I am glad to know that Mr. Morien and I agree that there needs to be more diversity in the Hollywood “control group” and that he is sympathetic for many of the issues raised at the FIRM site. On the other hand, apparently Mr. Morien is not aware of the fact that I also wrote a book entitled “Film Industry Reform” which addresses a number of different alternative ways to help bring about such reform, thus he mistakenly alleges that I have not proposed “a mechanism for change”.
Here’s another funny assumption on the part of Mr. Morien. He claims, and I quote: “My assertion that Mr. Cones’ book has an antisemitic tone does not decide the question as to whether it is accidental, or intended.” Wait just a minute here! Mr. Morien makes a false statement, then assumes it is true and proceeds them to question my motives for making a statement not made. What kind of logic is that? The truth is that the first part of Mr. Morien’s statement (i.e., “My assertion that Mr. Cones’ book has an antisemitic tone...”) is not true. My writing does not have an antisemitic tone. That’s Mr. Morien’s false judgment. He has never established that my writing has an “antisemitic tone” since he’s never been willing to discuss what anti-Semitism is and what it is not. He just assumes he knows (or that everyone will accept his judgment on such matters) and then moves on to question my motives. If there is no anti-Semitism in my writing (and there is not), then the question he raises as to whether it is accidental or intended is moot. There is no anti- Semitism in my writing because I never write about Jews generally, nor do I ever state that any of the conduct of the members of the Hollywood control group behave the way they do because they are Jewish, and finally, there is nothing in my writing that suggests hatred of any kind directed toward anyone. It’s just criticism of business-related activities, Mr. Morien. Get over it!
John Cones
Position on Conspiracies
James Jaeger
6:49 pm thursday may 10, 2001While there ARE those who get into "conspiracy theories," these have little to do with my specific areas of interest, which are: a) the MPAA studio/distributors and b) the Federal Reserve System. And since nothing the MPAA studios or the Fed do is hidden (other than possibly the now well-documented events surrounding the Feds formation in the years between the secret Jekyll Island meeting in November 1910 to the passage of the Glass-Owen Bill in 1913), there are no legitimate "conspiracy Theories" connected with either, that I know of. The Fed is simply a garden-variety central bank that monetizes debt, issues fiat currency, causes boom and bust business cycles, and dilutes M1 to the point of never ending compound inflation (which acts as a hidden tax on society). And it does all this with the full knowledge of its cartel partner, the Federal government, who has sanctioned all these policies and other policies (such as fractional reserve) in consideration for mutual benefits, benefits that are quite widely promulgated, but little understood by the math-challenged public. In other words, no "conspiracy theory" needed here . . . just 2 + 2 = 4.
And the MPAA studio/distributors are simply a group of garden- variety corporations that operate as an oligopoly or cartel in restraint of trade and who discriminate in their hiring practices at the top-most executive levels.
The Federal Reserve System was formed by an Act of Congress and that Act can be rescinded by Congress. This will eventually happen and, in fact, a bill has already been introduced to do just this: abolish the Federal Reserve System as well as its collection agency, the IRS. Further, the citizens of the United States have three times in the past abolished similar central banks and will continue to do so each time special banking interests take advantage of the People who fail to learn or recall the lessons of history.
The MPAA studios were for many years ago and have certain entrenched business practices that will eventually be reformed or replaced by new paradigms of distribution that are being established in the high- (some say infinite-) bandwidth era of fiber optic distribution upon us.
Thus, I think anyone who thinks I, or the FIRM movement, have any interest in "conspiracies" or "conspiracy theories" may be mistaken. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally don't believe in "conspiracies" any MORE than I believe that boards of directors in the nation's corporations (or top executives in the MPAA studios) engage in strategic planning or partnering.
James Jaeger
Origination Disclosure Law?
James Jaeger
2:06 pm thursday june 21, 2001Perhaps there is little chance the current demographics of the Hollywood control group will change from self-motivated reform, but maybe a type of "consumer protection" law should be enacted requiring movie studios and TV broadcasters (that release programs to more than X people), to disclose specifically (not screen credits) who the decision makers were that green-lit each show. We know what each Congressman votes for.
If the public is constantly subjected to powerful images that display patterns of bias, shouldn't that public be informed about who is behind the programming, similar to the idea that they are informed about what's in the food and drugs they consume?
Such a disclosure law might wake people up to who is influencing their political, social, philosophic and economic thinking opening the door to an evolution of greater diversity.
James Jaeger
My screenplay
Walter Hubbard
1:06 am sunday july 22, 2001I am a African American. I have just completed a script. My story is not about pimps, cool jerks, slavery and any other of the same concepts that we as Americans have been forced to except over the years about African Americans. I wrote a Fairytale/Fantasy... no cussing in this script. I know that it will take an act of you know who -- for this script to be produced in Hollywood or even get a peep. Because everyone knows that African Americans do not and can not write scripts of this genre. But I did!
Walter Hubbard
Email: nuartjazz@cs.com
The suicide of Peggy O'Neill 1945
L. Kirkish Simons
2:40 am tuesday july 24, 2001I have been reading the FIRM website tonight, totally stunned by what I am reading. I was doing research for my mother on a cousin named Peggy O'Neill, who was an actress from 1940 and had small roles in such movies as "Song of the Open Road" 1944, "Penthouse Rhythm" 1945, "It's a Pleasure"1945 "The Hoodlum Saint" released 1945.
On April 13, 1945 she died of drug overdose. My mother said that at the time the family had no information about the circumstances surrounding her young cousin's suicide, and the family was ashamed as well as grieving, but they never received sufficient answers as to why she might have killed herself. So I wanted to learn something about the climate of Hollywood in 1945 to get a sense for what the world was that Peggy lived in, to help my mother understand.
Your website is invaluable. I am horrified to learn that many families have gone through the grief my mother has at losing a loved one to this system.
L.Kirkish Simons
re: The suicide of Peggy O'Neill 1945
John Cones
10:47 am tuesday july 24, 2001Yes, Mr. Simons, our research has revealed a long and consistent history of a pattern of abuse in Hollywood -- hundreds if not thousands of individuals being lured to this industry to pursue their dream, only to end up being caught in a quagmire of abuse and eventual destruction. Thanks for writing.
John Cones
re: The suicide of Peggy O'Neill 1945
James Jaeger
5:35 pm tuesday july 24, 2001I might add that you read John's books to get additional information on the situation. One of them, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD!, is on the Net in its entirety at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm
James Jaeger
re: My screenplay
James Jaeger
9:05 pm tuesday july 24, 2001I hear ya Walter. Hollywood DOES tend to stereotype disenfranchised groups who are not part of the cabal's agenda.
The best thing you could do is tell as many people as possible about this site (http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM) so they can more easily avoid being victimized and collectively we can work for greater diversity in the highest levels of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry.
James Jaeger
P.S. The FIRM site is not the place for solicitations, however you can try submitting that screenplay c/o http://www.mecfilms.com/dna
Distributor Rentals
John Cones
11:33 pm tuesday july 24, 2001Recent numbers released comparing international box offices figures with foreign distributor rentals confirm earlier FIRM studies that rentals are not likely to represent about 50% of the box office gross, as so many people in Hollywood have been erroneously reporting for years, but more likely to be around 42%. You will commonly hear people purporting to be knowledgeable about the film business state that for financial projection purposes, we should figure that distributor rentals are likely to be about 50% of box office gross. Anyone who calculates their financial projections using that false assumption is going to be way off base (see related article in The Hollywood Reporter, June 26-July 2, 2001, pages 1 & 49).
John Cones
Valenti Hides Behind First Amendment
John Cones
11:35 pm tuesday july 24, 2001MPAA chief Jack Valenti continued his obstructionist ways by recently expressing opposition to the suggested creation of a universal ratings system for movies, music, television and computer games. He rather foolishly claims such a system would be unworkable, while failing to recognize that he represents an industry that accomplishes phenomenal feats on a daily basis. What Jack Valenti so transparently personifies is the well-paid spokesman saying what his employers want him to say without really admitting the obvious (i.e., the MPAA ratings systems is not designed to protect children or inform parents, but to protect the movie industry itself). Valenti went on to hide behind the first amendment once again in response to suggestions that a so-called oversight committee be created to set standards in all media. He immediately labels that “censorship” and reminds that the Supreme Court has made it clear that creative materials are protected by the First Amendment. That’s true, of course, but while the rest of the country is being fooled by this smoke screen, FIRM has recognized what is really going on in Hollywood (i.e., while hiding behind the protection of the First Amendment, the people who control Hollywood have consistently engaged in massive employment discrimination and anti-competitive business practices over a 100 year period, for the purpose of arbitrarily limiting the kinds of people who have the opportunity to exercise their First Amendment rights to express their views through the creative medium of film). Wake up America! (see related article in The Hollywood Reporter, July 11, 2001 pages 3 & 13).
John Cones
Dishonesty in Hollywood
John Cones
11:37 pm tuesday july 24, 2001A group calling itself “Citizens for Truth in Movie Advertising” recently sued 10 movie studios, charging that reviewers cited in advertisements are often compensated for their opinions with free trips, gifts and special access to stars. The series of suits, seeks class-action status. They were filed in early July in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suits allege fraud, false advertising and deceptive business practices Other movies goers recently sued Sony Pictures claiming they were duped into seeing “A Knight’s Tale” by ads promoting praise from a phony film critic. Other television ads by the same company purporting to be interviews with moviegoers, turned out to be employees of Sony (see related AP story in The Hollywood Reporter, July 3-9, 2001, page 8). It’s about time someone challenged Hollywood on its deceptive advertising practices.
John Cones
Citizens for Truth in Movie Advertising
John Cones
10:59 am thursday august 2, 2001Dear Mr. Cones,
After reading your post regarding the CTMA lawsuits against the movie studios for "shady" advertising practices, it is clear that you are one consumer who "gets it."
We are looking for individuals such as yourself to join CTMA in our lawsuits against the major studios.
As a non-profit corporation, CTMA does not stand to benefit from these suits but we are hoping that millions of California residents will benefit by receiving refunds and/or free movie tickets.
We hope that you get a chance to check out our web site- you can review one of the lawsuits filed and even sign up online (It's FREE) http://www.citizensfortruthinmovieads.com
Please feel free to pass this information along to any friends or family members who share your feelings about the deceptive practives of the entertainment industry.
Sincerely,
Citizens for Truth in Movie Advertising (CTMA)
Hollywood's Distortion of History
James Jaeger
1:41 pm monday august 13, 2001Having just watched the movie, NUREMBERG, staring Alec Baldwin, Jill Hennessy, Brian Cox, Max von Sydow and Christopher Plummer and released by Warner Bros., an MPAA studio/distributor, a young student of history would believe that Jews were the only people killed in the Holocaust(1). Facts are that out of the 11 million lives lost, 5 million were non-Jewish (3 million being Polish Protestants and Catholics).
Are not these lives just as important to Hollywood's elite studio-masters? Apparently not.
Only once did NUREMBERG allude to the fact that anyone else was killed and such allusion was in reference to Stalin's atrocities in connection with his own people, not the atrocities of Hitler's Third Reich.
So here we have another piece of evidence substantiating John Cones' research that a narrowly-defined group of 'liberal, not very religious, white, Jewish males of European heritage' control the output of Hollywood. And they do this by selecting what screenplays will be produced, how they are biased and who will work on the productions. The bias of course always in the direction of whatever causes or political slant the Hollywood control group dictates.
But don't believe me, read WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! for lots of details and review the information available at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm. Then consider whether it's appropriate for such a Hollywood-based propaganda machine to be operative in a Democratic society, a society with so many multi-faceted people and so much diversity of heritage, political views, religious preferences and racial interests?
James Jaeger
-------------------------------
(1) "Growing up in a Polish-American community, raised by parents who survived the Holocaust, I heard many stories about the atrocities of this World War II horror. I learned how one of my family's homes in Poland was burned to the ground by Nazis. I learned that my uncle was shot in the head by Nazi soldiers because his family was hiding a Jewish woman. Painful as it was for them to speak about it, my parents [Frank and Ewa Pencak] felt it was important that I knew the stories of the Holocaust.""It was only after I moved to the Los Angeles area several years ago that I realized that many people were not aware that millions of victims of the Holocaust were NOT Jewish. Outside the Polish community, I heard very little mention about the five million non-Jewish victims -- usually referred to as "the others".
"Whenever I would say that my parents were survivors of the Holocaust, people would look at me oddly and say, "Oh, I didn't know you were Jewish?" I realized that most people were not aware of any other Holocaust victims except Jews. This concerned me."
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |