FIRM Discussions October 19, 2001 - November 29, 2001
Hollywood's Role in Terrorism? The Essence of FIRM
John Cones
12:14 pm monday october 22, 2001We at FIRM recognize that, as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas, ideas are powerful and that in a democracy, truth is most likely to be found in a free marketplace of ideas. We have also noted, as others have observed before us, that movies tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers. We have observed further, that the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry has for its nearly 100 year history been dominated by a small group of individuals, a majority of whom share a similar racial, ethnic, religious and cultural background. We have also observed that Hollywood motion pictures tend to contain patterns of bias (e.g., whole populations within our diverse society have consistently been portrayed in Hollywood movies in a negative and/or stereotypical manner). Such populations include Arabs and Muslims, Christians, white Southerners, Latinos, African-Americans, Italian-Americans and women. Such patterns of bias being communicated regularly through a powerful communications medium are deeply resented by such populations around the world. Hollywood movies therefore contribute to prejudice and hatred, some of which ultimately result in acts of violence. The solution to this phenomenon is to stop all forms of discrimination at all levels in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry (particularly at the top – in those positions with so- called “greenlight” authority) and to ensure diversity at all levels in this important communications industry.
John Cones
message from your enemy
your enemy
0:55 am tuesday october 30, 2001May the Jewish flag wave long and gloriously over the Jewish Kingdom of Hollywood!
P.S. ZION FOREVER!
happy to meet you
your enemy
1:01 am tuesday october 30, 2001One day I hope I can be added to your list of brilliant,greedy, opportunistic Jews who control the entertainment industry. I have some great concepts in development and you will be happy to know that I do not live in Hollywood but in the American South! I know that your organization is very concerned about equal opportunity. You will also be overjoyed to hear that I am not an employee but an OWNER!
rules
your enemy
1:36 am tuesday october 30, 2001I read your "guidelines" concerning the rules of posting on this site. By the way, I don't play by the rules. Zukor,Goldwyn,Fox, the Brothers Warner, and Harry Cohn didn't either. Especially, Harry Cohn. But I'm sure you already knew that since you know so much about entertainment history. I know that you are really into percentages so I thought I would favor you with a special taste treat: did you know that roughly 90% of America's greatest composers and lyricists are Jewish?
Fresh Love from, Your ENEMY! (GERSHWIN,ARLEN,BERLIN,KERN,LOESSER,RODGERS,HART,GERSHWIN,ETC.)
Gershwin
your enemy
1:38 am tuesday october 30, 2001I need to explain something: there were TWO Gershwins. They were brothers. You know, that really sounds like a conspiracy!
jewish influence in media
jj (Note: this "jj" is NOT James Jaeger)
9:12 pm thursday november 8, 2001Virtually anything you'd like to know about Jewish influence in the mass media may be found at:
You can also find the story of Jewish/Zionist influence in government, popular music, the art world, the literary world, etc. etc. etc. Wondering about the racism of traditional Judaism? It's there too. Jews in investment banking? Their monopoly of the diamond scam? Their dominance in the Russian Mafia? And on and on and on.
Insofar as that it is a virtual crime to EVIDENCE the truths about Jewish dominance of popular culture in today's society, it is further evidence of the strength of the Thought Police that dominates popular culture.
The web site has two sections: 1) an online "magazine" with hundreds of links to articles about Jewish/Zionist racism, hypocrisy, power, etc. etc.
and
2) a scholarly volume (featuring 10,000 citations from 4,000 bibiliographic sources) about this subject (entitled WHEN VICTIMS RULE. A CRITIQUE OF JEWISH PRE-EMINENCE IN AMERICA.)
Per the terrorist attack, U.S. foreign policy has brought Israel's sins home to us and there can be no resolving of our new terrorist dilemma short of facing the realities of Zionist dominance of our national government and treating the Palestinians like human beings and not like furniture. [Read the chapter on Government] That this is not obvious to people is yet another indictment of who runs the show.
Thanks for your courage to deal with the truth. The charge of "anti-Semitism" is endemic when it comes to honestly dealing with Jewish identity, history, and its miltitantly racist appendage: Israel. We've got a chapter at our site entitled "The Accusation of Anti-Semitism" too. Hang in there.
re: jewish influence in media
John Cones
12:18 pm friday november 9, 2001These last several posts, including those purportedly from someone claiming to be FIRM's "enemy" graphically illustrate the onoging problem that FIRM is actually in the middle of extremes. On the one hand we are being assaulted by someone claiming to be a Jewish wantabe entertainment executive who wrongfully thinks we are anti-Semitic, when we are not. On the other hand, we have someone who actually appears to be anti-Semitic promoting a completely unrelated web site that does contain (according to his description) attacks on Jews generally. Anti-Semitism requires either hatred or hateful acts directed toward Jews generally, or hatred or hateful acts directed toward one or more Jews because they are Jewish. Neither of those conditions have ever been met by any statements posted at this site and authored by the founders of FIRM. Those on the left (including or self- professed "enemy") who mistakenly exaggerate our position are in error. There is a clear difference between merely criticising the business related behavior of a small group of people many of whom happen to be Jewish, and expressing hatred or committing hateful acts directed toward Jews generally. Unfortunately, our self-professed "enemy" cannot grasp that distinction (or chooses not to). On the right we have someone who feels that since we have the courage to speak out about wrongdoing in the Hollywood- based U.S. film industry, an industry dominated for its nearly 100 years history by a small group of politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage, that we might then be sympathetic to his website's mission (i.e., to marshall opposition to Jewish activities generally). That is also not true. FIRM's activities are limited to the film industry. And, our position is that, although relevant to the current circumstances and discussion, it really does not make any difference what group dominates this important communictions medium. We feel that no group should dominate and be able to maintain that dominance for 100 years; further that such extended dominance is clear evidence that a form of sophisticated and illegal discrimination is occurring in the industry and that members of other population groups in our multi-cultural society are being arbitrarily excluded from participation in the film industry at a meaningful level. Thus our criticism is based on what we consider to be wrongful acts, not the background of those who have constinously committed those acts. It is unfortunate that spokespersons for the extreme left and right are attracted to FIRM's sight, since neither provides useful discussion of the issues of concern to FIRM, and they ultimately seem to deter those of more moderate and reasonable views that could engage in a meaningful dialogue.
John Cones
re: jewish influence in media
jj
1:19 pm friday november 9, 2001Kind sir,
Your position above is completely untenuous. You are guilty here of effecting upon us all the things you claim are wrought upon you. You smear us as "anti-Semites" exactly the same way others smear you. How come we're "anti-Semites" and you're not? Please explain, in 2,000 pages, your criteria. How on earth can you condemn our prior comments posted here about Jewish influence in Hollywood as "hate" if you do not intend to even visit (as you have posted elsewhere) the web site? Since when is reasoned criticism "hate?" You slur our posted material here as something from the "extreme right?" Really? How do you know? You haven't even looked at the evidence for the allegations yet. You haven't even looked to see what our position is. For you, criticizing the collective Jewish lobby is a sin. Period. You've ingested the Thought Police ethic about this subject that surrounds us all. Our politics are LEFTIST. We believe in pan-human, universalistic democracy. We believe in justice for all human beings. We are against racism and bigotry. We're all for democracy in Hollywood, just like you. Where is our "attack on Jews generally?" Is criticism of a power elite an "attack?" Is meticulous, cited documentation that evidences Jewish/Zionist domination of popular culture "hate?" Sir, you are throwing out gross stereotypes to define us, even though you have not read a single word of our investigation that is central to your own concerns.
You state that "FIRM's activities are limited to the film industry." And yet you also personally state that Jews are pre- eminent in this field. So why is an investigation of the history, identity, and ethnicity of those who wield power off limits at your site, when you yourself state elsewhere that it is legitimate to investigate those who create the stereotypes that emanate from Hollywood? How comet he omnipresence of what Norman Finkelstein calls the "Holocaust Industry" is not part of your concerns in Hollywood? How come the mafia in Hollywood (see Moldea's book about Wasserman, Stein, and MCA -- known for decades as the "Octopus") isn't part of your interest? How come the racist state of Israel is so hallowed in popular culture? (We're "rightists" for pointing out Israeli destruction of the Palestinian people?} How come Bin Laden's statement that U.S. support of oppressive Israeli policies and the spread of Western cultural imperialism are central grievance of his terrorist network, and this is not part of your interest in Hollywood?
The problem here is that your web site has begun something important (investigating the lack of democratization in the Jewish-dominated film industry) and then you wither away when people start yelling "anti-Semite" at you. You draw arbitrary lines in the sand around what you proclaim to be the limits of your concern, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF WHICH IS YOUR FEAR OF BEING CALLED AN 'ANTI-SEMITE.' (What, in today's culture, is NOT related to Hollywood? Television, as many scholars have pointed out, for millions of people IS reality). And CBS (Paley), NBC (Sarnoff), and ABC (Goldenson) -- like the Hollywood film industry -- were all built to power by Jews. Irrelevant? Hey, this is just the tip of the iceberg, and it's time to wake up. Look, if McCarthys and O'Briens and O'Shawnessy's headed ALL TV networks and virtually all TV studios, let alone dominated popular music, the art world, etc. etc. etc. people would long ago have forcibly democratized the field, AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE DECADES-LONG DECONSTRUCTION OF THE WASP ELITE IN OTHER FIELDS! How come Jews get a free pass? Our web site explains it.
You state that you are caught between "extremes." Nonsense. You have started something and midstream you realize that where it takes you can only cause you trouble, and you cling to non- commital fence-sitting as tightly as possible. You are now trying to function after being intimidated (being called an "anti- Semite") by the Jewish lobby. The accusation of "anti-Semite" is omnipresent, and this is why you -- like most -- tend to self- protect and self-censor.
You state that "it doesn't matter what groups dominates this important communications medium." Do you really believe that? Surely you joke. Don't you think it would be different if it was dominated by Saudis? Or Malaysians? Mohicans? Pakistanis? African- Americans. The attendant investigation into control by any of these groups would legitimately entail an query into their collective world view, history, and identity. But, likewise, these ethnic groups do not dominate the film world. Jews do. WHY? And herein is your link to, ah, wonderous information. Information that you categorically fear (Look. A huge part of your web site is dedicated to people defending themselves against the charge of "anti-Semitism." Don't you see what is happening? We've got an entire 150-page chapter online about the accusation of Anti-Semitism, including the Jewish version of the same thing, Jewish "self-hate," which has been a Jewish institution since the Enlightenment. What does this all mean? You haven't a clue, because you stick your head in the sand, warding off legitimate political commentary by others with smears and slurs: no different than what you claim others do to you.
How can you say that we provide "no useful discussion to the concerns of FIRM," when, again, you haven't even looked to see what our discussion is?
Hey, your position of fear and dissimulation guarantees your web site a fate of total inertia. Educate yourself! If not at our site, somewhere else. Your reluctant, worrisome "middle dialogue" is the same stuff our doublespeak politicans use in trying to get elected: they avoid the truth, avoid controversy, and try to cater to widest possible denominator.
It's a real pity, because your web site has a lot of potential, and you've done some good work until you the reached the point where you became intimidated by those who demand your self- imposed silence.
re: jewish influence in media
John Cones
1:16 pm sunday november 11, 2001JJ:
I don't think it will take 2,000 pages. The difference in our positions are quite simple. Your accusations are so serious and so broadly applied to Jews generally, that it is fair to characterize them as hatred of Jews generally, one of the definitions of anti-Semitism. On the other hand, my writing is merely criticism of the business-related behavior of a small group of individuals (in a single narrowly-defined industry) most of whom happen to be politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage. Thus, the label applies to you and not to me. Have a nice day.
John Cones
re: jewish influence in media
jj
5:34 pm monday november 12, 2001Dear Sir,
Your web site, so nobly intentioned, has clearly been long since commandeered by your critics to be reconfigured primarily into a sweaty-palmed defense against the accusation of "anti-Semitism."
How can you accused us of "hatred" to simply investigate whether we have a fair, balanced, and open, information system -- the exact same thing you claim to be doing, "limited to Hollywood?" How is it "hatred" to cite the verifiable facts of our current socio-cultural world, and point out bias and injustice? (Why is it OK to assail WASP culture, for decades, in every form, and turn a blind eye to omnipresent Jewish nepotism and its Judeo- centric interests? How come its OK to defame Louis Farrakhan as a racist at every turn, and not turn the same eye to similar Jewish experessions of ethnocentrism: Gush Emunim, Ariel Sharon, ad nauseum). You have the exact same critical perspective in your own work about gender/ethnicity in Hollywood as we do. Yours is a mirror image of the following list below, albeit on a smaller scale, however you dissimulate.
The current terrorist mess we're all in is the result of two central things: the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people, and exportation of American cultural imperialism, both deeply related to the power elite of "Hollywood" and your own concerns, however you seek to shoo it from your door and save your butt from the slander of "anti-Semitism." (Hey, Jewish journalist Ken Auletta even speculated that when Tisch seized control of CBS in the 1980s, his main interest was to influence how news was presented about Israel).
Let me underscore the dimensions to all this as clearly as possible, in the way that a child should be able to understand, and this is absolutely CENTRAL to the stated gender/ethnicity democratization goals about Hollywood in your web site:
Imagine that three individuals of Palestinian heritage built to power NBC, ABC, and CBS -- positions that were central in the shaping of American society. Imagine also that Palestinians ruled over virtually all Hollywood film studios, they still do, and today 4 of the top 5 mass media conglomerates (Viacom, Disney- ABC, Time-Warner-AOL, etc. are people of Palestinian heritage (no, Murdoch isn't one of them). (Imagine that Palestinians likewise founded three three TV networks in England -- Associated- Rediffusion, Associated Television, and Granada). Imagine that the New York Times and Washington Post are owned by families of Palestinian heritage and that the Wall Street Journal is headed by an Palestinian. Imagine that the second largest TV conglommerate in Canada is Palestinan-owned, as is the second- largest in Brazil. Imagine that 50-80% of Russia's economy is controlled by a handful of Palestinian oligarchs (some with both Russian and Palestinian citizenship), and two of the top three TV networks in that country are in their domain. Imagine that a 1973 study found that 21 of 36 TV network news producers and editors were Palestians. Another study found that 59% of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 most economically successful films between 1965-82 were Palestinians. Imagine that, according to a late 1970s survey, 70-80 percent of Hollywood's Screen Writers' Guild were Palestinans.
Imagine also that four Palestinains created the famous Woodstock festival. A Palestinian managed and built to fame the Beatles. Most rock and roll acts had/have Palestinian overseers -- the Rolling Stones, Creedence Clearwater, Bruce Springsteen, etc. etc. Tin Pan Alley (the foundation of American popular music) was founded, and dominated, by Palestinians, and Palestinians predominate still in the music industry. An estimated 80% of American comics are of Palestian heritage, as are 80% of pioneers of the comic book industry. Palestinians dominate the theatre and classical music worlds (let alone the popular music scene). Two Palestinian brothers are chairmen of the Museum of Modern Art and the Whitney Museum, respectively (reprenting merely the best known of a long list of Palestinian art moguls). One of them supports a right-wing party in Palestine, and he also heads a television conglommerate that has holdings in nearly a dozen countries in Eastern and Central Europe.
Imagine that a Palestinian founded Intel and the number two man behind Bill Gates at Microsoft is "half-Palestinian" and a contributor to Palestinian causes. Palestinians have headed in recent years Compaq computers, Hewlett-Packard, and still Dell. The head of NASA (retiring this year) is of Palestinian heritage. Palestinians largely founded (with the Italian mafia) Las Vegas, and an important role in its development was the head of the largest crime syndicate in American history, headed by a Palestinian. Palestinians also are pre-eminent in today's so- called "Russian Mafia," and this fact was underscored by a book -- and stated bluntly -- about the subject by a Palestinian reporter who worked at the Village Voice. By the 1970s, Palestinians owned 80% of all businesses in New York, perhaps the greatest cultural nerve center in America, and the world. Imagine also that 5 of the last 8 American poet laureates are of Palestinian heritage, as were 15 of 21 "top American intellectuals," according to an early 1970s academic study (and that such intellectuals were promoted by journals like the New York Review of Books and Partisan Review, again, founded and edited by Palestinians. Imagine that Simon and Schuster, Alfred A.Knopf, Farrar Strauss and Giroux, to begin a long list of New York publishers, are Palestinian-founded and controlled.
Imagine that roughly half of the National Basketball teams are headed by Palestinians, and the Commissioner of the NBA, National Hockey League, and Professional Baseball are all of Palestinian heritage. Imagine that Palestinians dominate the agents for professional sports players. Imagine that 5 of the 8 Ivy League colleges are headed by Palestinians.
Imagine that in Bill Clinton's cabinet the following positions were filled by Palestinians: Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary of State. The Secretary of Defense had an Palestinian father. Clinton's two appointees for the Supreme Court were also Palestinians. Both of California's senators are of Palestinian heritage, and both are members of an activist pro- Palestine women's organization.
Say also, that by 1996, as documented by a Palestinian newspaper, four of the seven CIA directorates were also headed by Palestinians, as was the head of the CIA (He was later pardoned by Bill Clinton for security violations before the investigation into his activity was complete).
Imagine that, as 2.5% of the population, in 1999, 45% of the wealthiest 40 Americans were of Palestinian heritage, and 23% of the top 400. In 2000, Palestiniansrepresented at least 42 of the top 100 political contributors in American national elections; 4 of the first five were Palestinians and two were actually from Palestine. Imagine that Palestinians regularly donate half of the funds to the Democratic Party, "he that pays the piper calls the tune," and their foremost agenda is always U.S. foreign policy (per Palestine). Imagine that in 1997 the head of the foremost pro-Palestine political action committee became head of the National Democratic Party, and a few months later the Deputy Political Affairs officer at the Palestine lobbying group became the Financial Director for the Democratic Party. Imagine that by the late 1990s, the head of the International Monetary Fund was a Palestinian as were the two top leaders at the World Bank. A Palestinian also heads the U.S. Federal Reserve and, for that matter, the Federal Trade Commission.
Imagine that by 2001, a Palestinian "oligarchy," as documented by a Palestinian scholar, "controlled between 50 and 80 percent of the Russian economy." The second richest man in Australia is of Palestinian heritage and he owned one of the two leases to parts of the World Trade Center -- the second was held by a Palestinian from New York. By the 1990s, the CEO of MacDonalds was a Palestinian, as was the CEO of Bank of America, United Airlines, to begin a very long list or corporate influence. Even the man that man that built ITT to power was "half-Palestinian."|
A Palestinian scholar wrote a book about the Palestinian diamond "monopoly." Palestinians dominate the fashion industry (Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilger, Ralph Lauren, Donna Karan, Kenneth Cole, etc. are Palestinians).
Is this cultural pluralism? Is this "democracy" at its finest? And, per your concerns, is this irrelevant to Hollywood and your interest in gender/ethnicity fairness? And all this is just a mere small SAMPLING of the dimensions of widespread Palestinian cultural hegemony. Now, however bizaare, imagine that we live in a society where to simply mention the above facts (and it is truly the tip of an iceberg) about enormous Palestinian influence in society (a U.S. Palestinian community that is profundly active in supporting the country of Palestine) immediately, categorically, raises omnipresent condemnations of prejudice, bigotry, racism, and "hate"-mongering. Imagine that in this society all its citizens are socialized to self-censor any recognition of the above facts of Palestinian cultural hegemony, for fear of being called an "anti-Palestinian," a slur that can (obviously) destroy your career -- certainly any one in the realm of popular culture.
Imagine too that there are actually organizations, each with budgets of tens of millions of dollars, whose main purpose is to police what anyone says about Palestinians, and make sure they are punished (defamed as "haters") for saying anything critical whatsoever about Palestinians. Imagine that those few who recognize the dimensions to this are actually afraid to speak out publicly about it. Imagine further that most people haven't got the slightest idea of the dimensions of the issue because the censorship about it is omnipresent -- especially in Hollywood (the attacks upon your work and your web site are a clear case in point. Your endless experiences in fending off charges of "anti- Semitim" by those who demand silence on the issue of Jewish pre- eminence in Hollywood epitimizes this censorship.)
Imagine further that in this society everyone is socialized -- throughout the mass media and educational apparatus -- to perceive Palestinians as history's great VICTIMS, solely, even as they are documented to be the wealthiest ethnic group in America. Imagine that World War II is largely forgotten (where between 50- 64 million people died) and, thanks to Judeo-centric interest in Hollywood, and everywhere else in popular culture, World War II has been reinvented as memorial to murdered Palestinian victims in that war.
Now, guess what? Obviously. Take the word "Palestinian" out of all the things above, and insert the word "Jew" and you have reality. (All these "allegations" are documented, complete with bibliographic sources, at our web site. And it's only a VERY, VERY small part of the story).
If this situation of Palestinian hegemony in American popular culture existed, the Jewish community would long ago have been out in force protesting, screaming bias, moral bankruptcy, ideological corruption, demanding new kinds of affirmative actions laws, lobbying politicans for major changes, and whatever else it took to return this country to some kind of reasonable multicultural balance.
This, judging by your many writings, was supposed to be the foundation of your web site. Not building arbitrary walls when the logical (and factual and ethical) extension of your righteous themes makes you cringe with discomfort. If you don't speak the truth, why have this web site? I hear Bronfman is hiring.
re: jewish influence in media
James Jaeger
8:26 pm friday november 16, 2001JJ
I hear what you're saying that the Jews run the PLANET, but FIRM's mission as my founding partner, John Cones, has tried to explain is to basically address the narrowly defined group that's running HOLLYWOOD right now, such being: Liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage.
In all honesty, we are not concerned that part of that demographic includes the fact that they are also Jewish, for if Hollywood WERE run by liberal, not very religious, PALISTINIANS of East African heritage we would have the same issue, the same reform movement and the same website.
Whether or not John or I are anti-semitic or not is of no importance. Having known John for a number of years, I feel there is a very high probability that he is NOT anti-Semitic in any way. As far as me, I could really care less if anyone thinks I'm anti-Semitic or not. I have been called a Nazi so many times by Hollywood apologists I have almost come to a point where I like it. My career with Hollywood is finished, and I fully realize this but could care less because Hollywood and the MPAA studio/distributors are on their way our anyway once Internet distribution of movies takes hold fully. (See two sites Matrixx Entertainment has set up to fill the void at http://www.homevideo.net and http://www.pay-per-view.com) So we are not just complaining about the Biz, we are trying to improve it as well.
Basically, your are right, Jews have been discriminating in so many industries that they effectively monopolize many, if not most, of the power positions in the world. But this discrimination is going on with what is called the "Commercial Jews" for the most part, NOT Jews in general. Jews in general are good people who have been put down and discriminated against for decades by WASPS, not to even mention the Holocaust. As John says, you simply cannot cross-colateralize the crimes of a small handfull of Commercial Jews with the vast majority of Jews. This is true in the film biz and I would imagine that it's true in other industries. BTW the term "Commercial Jews" was neoterized by a Jew who worked in a Jewish-owned jewelry store. She said: These Commercial Jews" make all the rest of us look bad at times."
The purpose of FIRM is to address the Hollywood-base U.S. film industry -- not sit in judgement on the activities of Jews around the world. If such is your mission, and you wish to annex us into such mission, I am afraid we cannot really help you as, franlky, this is too broad of a mission and, I for one, have not studied all the facts. Please note here that I am not saying that you are wrong about the Jews running the planet, you are probably correct and I am not afraid to say as much -- it's just that FIRM is NOT concerned with this. We are concerned that the film industry provides equal oportunities for all in a democratic society, even in the top-most eshelons.
James Jaeger
re: jewish influence in media
jj
11:23 am saturday november 17, 2001Thank you Mr. Jaeger for your reasoned reply to my comments, and thank you for not automatically condemning and dismissing them. I appreciate and respect the courage of you and Mr. Cones in daring to initiate, and maintain, such a web site against formidable odds. I would, however, like to respond to, and challenge somewhat, if I may, your commentary:
First, I don't know if you're being facetious about "Jews running the planet." They, of course, don't -- at least not yet, but Jewish influence in Western culture, especially, is awesome.
It is true that the Jews who dominate Hollywood are "liberal," but this liberalism is not monolithic. The Baltimore Jewish Times noted in 2000 that there are about 30 Orthodox writers in Hollywood, "especially in television." The Executive Producer of "Third Rock from the Sun," David Sachs, for example, is Orthodox, as is Etan Cohen, a writer -- believe it or not -- for Beavis and Butthead (so says the BALT JEWISH TIMES). When Kirk Douglas returned to Orthodoxy, in 1997 the "fundamentalist" Aish Ha Torah organization had a fete for him in Hollywood. Attendees included everyone from Michael Ovitz and Larry King to the then- prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Not all these folks are Orthodox, of course, but my point is that you would be hard pressed to find such support in Hollywood for the likes of Jerry Falwell. There IS room in the movie world for Orthodox Judaism (witness too the enduring, loving legendary icon of The Fiddler on the Roof), and this move towards traditional Orthodoxy in the Jewish community at-large is remarked upon often by Jewish scholars.
Per your comments that you have no interest in Jews per se, and that their dominance in Hollywood is somehow arbitrary -- interchangeable with any other ethnic group (say, Palestinians), you are wrong. The Jewish specificity/particularity here IS profoundly relevant. Note please, that it is not the French, or Senegalese, or Brazilians, or Eskimos who dominate so much the Hollywood world. It is Jews. Why them, and not others? You will find, if you look (and we are all socialized not to) that this Jewish hegemony in the mass media also exists in other countries (Great Britain, Canada, etc.), and it has also existed in the PAST. Likewise, you will find parallel Jewish power mirrored in the art world, theatre, popular music, classical music, the publishing world, the intelligentsia hierarchy, increasingly government, etc. The obvious, and very important, question here is "Why Jews?" and not some other ethnic group. There is no comparable ethnic group to these current facts, and this is central to examining the issue of the lack of democratization in Hollywood.
The answer to "Why Jews?" entails an investigation into Jewish history, heritage, and identity. (The knowledge about these subjects among non-Jewish visitors to your web site could probably balance on a toothpick atop a shrunken beebee). Per your "commerical Jews"/non-commercial Jews framework, that division is ahistorical. Jews are the wealthiest ethnic group in America. They are an elite economic strata also in Great Britain, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, etc. and even Iran (til the Shah's demise forced thousands of Iranian Jews to set up camp in the wealthiest sections of Los Angeles). Jewish heritage has for centuries been entwined in merchantry, trading, peddling, banks, usury, smuggling, war profiteering, fencing operations, etc.
"Non-commercial" Jews have also dominated leftist movements in this century, particularly communist and socialist. Stalin wasn't Jewish, but his number 2 man, Kagalansky (spelling?) was. Stalin also had to fend off three Jewish Bolsheviks (among them Trotsky) in his storming to power. Jews have been pre-eminent in the communist movement in Poland, Russia, Hungary, South Africa, Canada, etc. etc. Jews dominated the early Soviet "Cheka" secret police, and they dominated the Polish communist thought police as well (See Jewish author John Sack's An Eye For An Eye, for a sampling of this story -- This book has been widely censored, as Sack himself has written). When communist Bela Kun seized power in Hungary in 1919, he was Jewish, as were the overwhelming majority of those who filled the ranks of his communist hierarchy. 5 of the 9 male presidents of the SDS in the 1960s were Jewish. Hollywood's communists, as you probaby know, were overwhelmingly Jewish and the McCarthy stuff was largely aiming at them. In other words, there is something going on here. Irrefutably. What exactly that is, is grounds for debate, but not the fact that Jews are so disproportionately powerful in both commercial (and "non-commercial") realms.
It is not irrelevant to note, in trying to understand all this, as many scholars noted, that the origins of Jewish identity is Judaism -- a materialist "this-world" religion (with little interest in an afterlife -- the Messiah will come back to THIS world). Poverty in Jewish tradition has no virtue (unlike the teachings of Christ). Jewish religious -- and secular! -- tradition even holds that Jews are "the light in the world" to others. Jews have even been held by some scholars to have invented capitalism itself (although this has been heavily debated over the years), but few argue that Jews have not been major beneficiaries, and key historical players, in this economic system.
I will note to you also that, obviously, one must claw to power -- you don't float to it. No one rises to the top of the heap because they're "nice." The existence of a Jewish criminal underworld in the formation of the motion picture and music world is not irrelevant here. (Note, for example, Moldea's examination of Wasserman and Stein at MCA -- for decades known as "The Octopus.")
I would also like to point yet another obvious reason why a discussion of Jewish history and identity (distinct from anyone else's history and identity)is relevant to your forum. If Norweigans ran Hollywood, at least Norway is not in a monumental conflict with another ethnic/religious people across the world which has resulted in an international hostility by billions against Norweigans, as well as against AMERICANS for its support of Norway. The fact remains that it is NOT Norweigans who run Hollywood, and the art world, publishing world, etc. etc. etc., nor the Amish; it is Jews.
Per anti-Semitism, Cones' labeling it as a "sword" (i.e., a weapon) is true, but it is also, just as importantly a shield. This shield has been in place for decades, it is carefully hewn and molded, and its effect is to deflect the slightest bit of criticism of Jewish power and collective activity. The factual commentary stated here are, hence, by Jewish edict, prejudicial and -- at origin -- irrational "hatred." These dictates are so vast, so ominpresent, and so ingrained in American society by a decades-long socialization process, that well-meaning citizens are trained to self-censor.
I understand the rationale for your focus, only, on your very limited concerns abut Hollywood. I would like to note, however, that your position of disengagement from CONTEXT to the real (not reel) world is akin to the average American who spends his/her life limited to their immediate life concerns, content enough to grapple with the complications of that alone. Suddenly, out of the blue, a terrorist jet smashes into their mindscape intent upon killing even them. My God, why? This person hasn't a clue to the horror dropped at their doorstep -- because the jet zoomed in from beyond the horizon, from across the known world, beyond Knowledge. The point, of course, is that if you are not involved in the connective/contextual issues beyond the literal boundaries of the motion picture world, it may be soon (judging by all the talk we're hearing about further terrorist attacks), that you may not have a Hollywood to talk about. With all due respect, if I may be so bold to say, FIRM is concerned about this.
re: rules
Palani
9:12 am sunday november 18, 2001... not surprised to hear that you "don't play by the rules", like many other jewish that I met during my life as well. Staying anonymous or using a fake "official" name seem to be a habbit in the jewish communities as it looks like and seems to be a part of the jewish mentality as it looks like... Well, you guys might have your reasons I guess...!
oh yes, and one more thing: ... you're terrible wrong by stating here that "90% of America's greatest composers and lyricists are Jewish", in fact, thery're not. It's just the percentage of people that have been especially supported by the (jewish ruled) music industry and well published by the (jewish ruled) media. There are many more (true americans!) great composers and lyricists that you are not even heard about since they are not jewish and therefore not showing up in any of your "independent" jewish newspapers or "independent" charts.
Well, as long as there are people that are not brainwashed by you guys (and it looks like, that you're one of them without noticing it), you won't win this game, ...and that's a promise! But, keep on trying... :o)
re: Dramatizing the Third Reich
Palani
9:26 am sunday november 18, 2001... this is one of the best thoughts to the subject I've ever came across. Thanks to James for taking the time to write it down. Hollywood is on it's best way to kill itself. (and I'm tempted to say "thanks god!).
re: jewish influence in media
Palani
9:43 am sunday november 18, 2001...thanks so much for the link. I've never been into anti-semitism or the like, but even someone who's nearly blind can see the dangers involved if the influence is getting a part of daily life (that's probably the goal anyway), ...or is it just that age opens my eyes? Anyhow, thanks again!
re: jewish influence in media
Palani
10:09 am sunday november 18, 2001...you're right in all you're saying. I just found it very difficult to stay neutral on the subject and not getting too emotional involved and instead being pulled down on a level where a more "logical" discussion of the matter is rather impossible.
I'm just concerned about the "brainwashing concept" that very subtile lures behind literally every production of Hollywood, starting with the selection of actors, script writers and even dialogs (i.e., ...why else there are always the "bad guys" in the movies carrying german first or family names? ... why there has to be a (even in smallest glimps) sequence of mean behaving guys in Nazi uniforms, ...why are german actors have nearly no chance starring in Hollywood else then in the role as the "bad guy"?). No american actor has the slightest chance getting into a mayor production if he hasn't at least the slightest jewish connection somewhere down the road.
Hollywood suffers already by now a persecution complex, a paranoia that needs urgently psychological treatment.
Meanwhile I already rather seeing myself in a position of "self defence" against this brainwashing procedures, trying to escape this "sneaking in" into my daily's life, and being more and more aware of the slightest "try".
And I'm getting even more concerned about the well being of our kids regarding this matter.
re: message from your enemy
Peter
11:32 am sunday november 18, 2001...what a bullsh*t! If you love it so much, why don't you go there?
re: Dramatizing the Third Reich
jj
8:52 pm sunday november 18, 2001A few things, Mr. Jaeger, if I may.
You address a range of subjects and ideas, and I only have space to respond to a couple of them. First, I'd like to note your premise of "transference," per the tenets of psychoanalysis. You are aware, I presume, that Freud's original psychoanalytic group (I believe there were 17 persons) were all Jewish. (And Jews overwhelmingly dominate the psychoanalytic field today). The key man in aiding Freud to broaden psychoanalysis from being eternally known as a "Jewish science" (or Jewish fiction) was Karl Jung. And guess what? Jung eventually had a falling out with Freud, he left that group, and, lo, Jung has ever since been accused of "anti-Semitism." Surprise, surprise -- Jung even felt the necessity to write an article in his own defense against the accusation.
I'd like to note also, as you may not be aware, that this theory of transference (that the "oppressed" identifies with the "oppresser") is a foundation of classical Jewish conceptions of modern anti-Semitism. You'll find it throughout Jewish scholarship. Since the Enlightenment, there has been a very strong tradition in the Jewish community of "self-hatred" (i.e., Jewish anti-Semitism - in other words, large numbers of Jews have admitted as true many of the very same things "anti-Semites" have complained about). This troubling phenomenon is explained away by the theory of psychoanalytic transference, i.e., that Jews who have so much disdain for their Jewish community and heritage (per Karl Marx, Walter Lippman, etc. --even Stanley Kubrick!) are really just identifying with the surrounding non-Jewish culture, i.e. in their view, their oppresser.
Now, the Holocaust is an enormous subject to discuss. And I think you genuflect a little too heavily, non-critically, in that direction. You mention that Jewish-dominated Hollywood "rewrites the very history of the world." This is true, and I have a good example for you. I'd like to point out a few things about "Schindler's List" (the pinnacle of the Jewish propaganda film genre) as a microcosm for the larger problems of Jewish bias in Hollywood.
I did a very simple test. I rented the video of Spielberg's classic, then immediately read Thomas Keneally's book, upon which the film is based. The novel is, per the author's introduction, based on fact, and events and persons are not expressions of poetic license.
Spielberg's film, you'll discover, is soley a homage to one of the pillars of Jewish identity: victimization (and this Jewish conviction predates the Holocaust by many centuries -- it has just about always been part of the Jewish world view). What is missing from Spielberg's film, that was in the novel? -- anything about anyone elses' suffering in World War II, and any unpleasantries about the story of Jews and Oscar Schindler. (In the movie, Jews are, of course, categorically saints in contradistinction to the wall of Nazi evil.)
Curiously, Keneally notes in his book that 250 non-Jewish Poles also worked in Schindler's factory (p. 72), non-Jews were among the corpses in the Inferno pile (p. 253), the Nazis made roads also out of Christian tombstones, and when Oscar Schindler shoots water from a hose into boxcars at a train station, Poles were in those cars too. (p. 265)(For the record, three million Jews from Poland are estimated to have been murdered by the Nazis. For the record, three million non-Jewish Poles were likewise murdered by the Nazis).
The Monster Nazi bad-guy, Amon, head of the concentration camp, had a Jewish agent (Wilek Chilowicz) selling stolen prison rations on the open market. To actually get on Schindler's List (and this is really ugly), you had to go through Marcel Goldberg, and this guy took bribes: diamonds. (p. 292-293) Symcha Spira was another pleasant Jewish fellow (not in the film, but in the book) who worked for the Nazi SS.
The conclusion of Spielberg's Schindler's List (when the liberated Jews discuss where to go, and the "real-life" vignette of Jewish survivors in Jerusalem) is pure propaganda, and this has been remarked upon by some Jewish scholars: it is an endorsement of modern Israel. Steven Kellman, for instance, calls the film "a Zionist affirmation." Underscoring the political machinations in the film (especially its ending) one Israeli scholar noted the reasons why the American version of the film ended with the song "Jerusalem of Gold," but the Israeli version ends with "Eli, Eli." For Israelis, Jerusalem of Gold has ambiguous, and troubling connotations, reflecting "first the euphoria and the Israeli victory of 1967 and then the bitter fruits of conquest, occupation, and repression of others by the young Jewish state." So, the new song, Eli, Eli, "shifts the politics of the film's ending from the Arab-Israeli conflict to the Israeli-sponsored 'heroic' aspect of the Holocaust." Each set of Jews, the American and Israeli, need their own respective musical affirmation of their respective legends.
Now, per, the popularization of Nazi themes in Hollywood, I think it has something to do with Jewish interest in more deeply popularizing a clean, dialectical expression of good versus evil. The Nazis are easily everyone's bad guys but, above all else, they manifest the quintessential anti-Semite, and it is always important in the Jewish community to keep this icon of evil looming large in the public eye.
re: jewish influence in media
jj
9:23 pm sunday november 18, 2001Thanks to you too. But I don't think anyone is "into anti- Semitism" -- literally defined by the Jewish community as a mental pathology. I just think that the fundamental issue here is really quite simple: in a supposed free society, decent, ethical, moral people have the right to speak out against bias and injustice -- WHOEVER perpetrates it. That elemental right has been severely compromised by a self-serving power elite in our society. Only one ethnic group has the power to frame itself atop a virtual pedestal, immunized against critical inquiry.
Extremists
John Cones
12:09 pm monday november 19, 2001Isn't it interesting that the positions taken by FIRM regarding film industry reform have been attacked from both sides: (1) those who support the lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood and exaggerate our claims so as to justify their extreme labels applied to their own misrepresentation of our positions, and (2) those that agree with what we are saying, but want us to go beyond the film industry in our criticism and become quite agitated when we explain that such an expansion of the subject matter of our concern has never been and will not be in our plans. That must mean we are just about where we want to be relative to the truth. We have extremists on both sides attacking us and that puts us pretty much in the middle, just were we want to be. The unfortunate repercussion of these extreme attacks and the associated language used is that it scares off those who might be inclined to conduct a reasonable discussion of these important issues relating to what kind of messages are being communicated through this powerful communications medium -- the Hollywood motion picture.
John Cones
The Why of Things
James Jaeger
5:55 pm monday november 19, 2001jj wrote:
>The point, of course, is that if you are not involved in the connective/contextual issues beyond the literal boundaries of the motion picture world, it may be soon (judging by all the talk we're hearing about further terrorist attacks), that you may not have a Hollywood to talk about. With all due respect, if I may be so bold to say, FIRM is concerned about this.James Jaeger wrote:
In essence, you and FIRM are asking some of the same questions, as far as the Jewish element in Hollywood's control group. I think you are concerned with the full range of sociological questions with regard to Jewish involvement and Power and FIRM is only concerned with the fact that there IS a narrowly focused group in there and how that relates to a democratic society. If such group were all Quakers, FIRM would have the same basic argument and we have said this many times, and some get it, some do not. Apparently you DO seem to get it. As far as my statement that Jews run the world, yes I was being a little facetious. As far was to WHY Jews are so much in positions of power in the media -- I DO have to admit that it IS a very interesting question (even though outside the scope of FIRM).On a personal level I have summed up the reasons why Jews are in power in the movies and media:
A) they are actually very good at this. It's difficult making movies, writing a screenplay or book, or reporting the news. It really takes talent and intelligence. I can relate to this in my struggle to learn how to write, produce, direct and edit features. You can't be out drinking every night. You have to work hard and study and be serious. I believe Jews in the media ARE good because most of them ARE serious about their careers and do all the right things to master their trade. | F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |B) they network and push power to each other. I believe that all religious and ethnic groups do this, so Jews are not to be singled out. However I believe they do this much MORE than Christians for instance. Part of the reason, is because they do not want others who do not have the ability (as described in point A of above) to screw up the project and the other part is because they are afraid as a collective. Their fear is well- founded because, after all, they HAVE been put down a lot. But then, anyone (or any group) that is talented, to a great degree generates as much hate and jealousy as they generate admiration and respect. It's just the nature of this aberrated world, I guess. So, that's my personal opinion on this. I have nothing against people that are good and want to huddle together, but when such huddling reaches an extreme, then I have to agree with someone like John Cones who asks the question: Is this okay in a democratic society that such a narrowly-defined group has so much power over the most powerful communication machine yet devised? And the answer to this question is NO, no it's not healthy in a society of free ideas -- it's not healthy, again, no matter WHO the group is (Jews or not, liberals or not, whites or not, religious or not).
Nevertheless, as far as I'm concerned, you have the right to post your views on WHY the control group is there, HOW it got there and HOW it relates to the rest of the power structure in the world -- however addressing film industry reform from this angle is not necessary nor is it the purpose of FIRM. Lastly, as far as Hollywood being attacked and reduced to rubble by terrorists attacks -- this would be terrible as I basically love Hollywood and the artists and technical people who work there. I have no quarrel with any of them. My only quarrel is with the top green- lighting executives of the 7 major studios and whether those positions are filled by a non-discriminating diversity of people.
Hollywood, as we all know it, is on its way out anyway because the major studios will never be able to create digital-delivery encryption that cannot be hacked, therefor, they will never be able to remove the risk of placing an expensive motion picture ($55 million up) on the Internet. Since this is the case, an increasing amount of digital-delivery will default to independents who are willing to bear the risks of digital piracy -- because such digital piracy will be less devastating than the predatory business practices they currently suffer under the oligopolistic MPAA studio/distributor-influenced system of today. The studios will never be able to sustain their "brick and mortar" infrastructure when they cannot utilize the advantages of such business practices as cross-collateralization and creative accounting -- all which will be made obsolete with the new Automatically Parsed Royalty system (which pays profit participants simultaneously and out of gross by ABA bank wire and merchant accounts).
And what about when low-budget filmmakers only need a photograph (or ten seconds of video) of a Tom Hanks to digitally generate an entire feature with him "starring" in it -whether authorized or not. Jack Valenti thinks he has piracy problems now -- just wait. You will see the day when some rouge filmgroup actually "borrows" a name talent's image, digitally integrates it into a feature, releases it and generates $300 million in world- wide receipts before most even realize what's happening. And then they will get the money and use it to hire crack foreign lawyers to fight off the star's lawyers and agents who will attempt to sue for an "crime" that may not even be on the books. But even if the talent's fiduciaries win, the public, perhaps 200 million of them world wide, may reason: Hey, if I enjoyed the fake, unauthorized, digital-version of Tom Hanks just as much as I do the real, authorized, meat-version of Tom, why do I really NEED that meat- version any way!? Tom, or any actor, can only generate a range of emotions and facial expressions, say 10^4, whereas AI programs will easily be able to generate 10^9 eventually -- so who really needs the meat-actors with their limited range of expression? And for that matter, why can't independent filmmakers just dream up any and all "name" talents they want, or merge, say a Tom Hanks with a Sean Penn and get a character that has BOTH rolled into one. Now THAT'S getting your box-office admission's worth! And the public will flock to all this newness -- just as it flocked to movies from the theaters. Thus the star-system, which today drives Hollywood, will also wither.
James Jaeger
re: Extremists
jj 9:00 pm monday november 19, 2001Dear Mr. Cones.
Your position continues to baffle me. You have done some very solid research about the power elite of Hollywood. For your efforts, you have been defamed as an "anti-Semite," lost lectures, been snubbed by former acquaintances, and everything else. You robustly object to all the slanders coming your way, justifiably. You know the terrain.
So, "relative to the truth," how can such a man continue to defame my postings at your discussion board ("anti- Semite," "hate," "extremist," etc.) when you have not offered the slightest minutia of fact that anything I have posted here is not true. All you point in my direction is slander. You merely take the rhetoric of your many unjust attackers and apply it to me. Nothing you have stated in reply to my postings is substantive to the assertions I have made at your site. You name call, and nothing else. I don't understand how someone who has faced the same treatment can so easily marshall it towards others.
My interest in posting at your discusson board is not to "attack" you (or FIRM) at all, but to contribute in the exchange of ideas with anyone interested in the subject of Jewish influence in Hollywood (I didn't invent that term. It was already on your discussion board.) But, however, when I am repeatedly dismissed by you as an "anti-Semite," "extremist," etc. what do you expect me to do but defend my position further? Isn't that what your discussion board is for: a free exchange of ideas? I mean, would you rather have a forum where everyone just sits back, nods, and agrees in total with everything you yourself say? Of what use is that?
You're a lawyer. What on earth does the phrase "extreme attack and associated language" have to do with anything posted by me at your site? The innuendo is outrageous. Again, everything I have formerly stated to you is true. My postings are civil, factually verifiable, and abusive to no one. There is no "extreme attack" of any sort, unless in your eyes telling the truth is fanatical. My comments are generally critical yes, but isn't that the foundation of intellectual exchange?
You say people "are scared off from reasonable discussion," due to my postings. I don't think so. (But if so, scared of WHAT? Or, rather, Who?) Some people are certainly frightened by truths to which they have nothing to respond. (Except silence or slander). Agree with me or not, my postings challenge people to think. I guarantee you that in my few short postings I've provided information that few of your discussion group members even knew. And, again, everything that I have posted at your web site is "reasonable." It is all true. And it is all documented.
Now, per your insistence that FIRM is only about motion pictures in a vaccuum, hermetically sealed, air tight from the rest of human existence, well, what can I say? It's your web site, and you're free to create your own reality. Although you well know that the "motion picture" itself is nothing but some strips of plastic and chemicals and it is the entirety of the social, political, and psychological worlds (radiating in every direction) that inform and bring that plastic to life, whether it's lying exactly within the exact city boundary of Burbank or drifting in an air current over the deserts of Afghanistan.
Thanks for your continued tolerance of opposing views, and the forum to speak freely.
re: The Why of Things
jj
10:45 pm monday november 19, 2001Thanks, Mr. Jaeger, for the thoughtful reply. I have a couple of observations about your commentary.
I think you are exactly correct when you note Jews "network and push power to each other." Are you familiar with the old Jewish joke that MGM stood for (in Yiddish) "Mayer's ganz mishpoche" (Mayer's whole family)?" Or Ogden Nash's couplet: "Uncle Laemmle has a large famlee." This tribalism (which is documented in numerous scholarly studies about the Jewish community -- I mean, hey, look at Jewish allegiance to Israel) is one of the very historical foundations of Hollywood. (Cones, of course, itemizes this in his ethnicity/gender lists of the executive elite of the movie studios).
I'd part company with you with your notion about some special Jewish "talent," unless you mean a "talent" towards attaining power. (Part of Jewish legend is that they are collective geniuses, smarter than anyone else, more studious than anyone else, etc. -- You subscribe to this?)
One genre of Hollywood "talent" was epitomized by Budd Schulberg (son of the Jewish head of Paramount) in 1941 with a novel/screenplay called What Makes Sammy Run? The story is about Sammy Glick, a Jew who hustles and rips off everyone in his path on his way to the top of Hollywood. The story was deemed "anti- Semitic" by the powers that be (MGM's Mayer, etc.); it came close to being made into a film, a few times, but never finally made it. (The Maysles [spelling?] brothers, who are Jewish, also did a controversial documentary, in the same vein, about producer Joseph E. Levine). Another example, Sweet Smell of Success is a classic film (that did get made) with a similar theme -- the ruthlessness it takes to get to power (I don't remember the background to this film, but I think the Burt Lancaster character was based on gossip journalist Walter Winchell [also Jewish]. But, again, I'm not certain about this one).
As far as Jews being more dedicated, "serious," or intelligent, than others in Hollywood, I'm not comfortable with that. An African-American, struggling to make it in Hollywood, is any less "serious" than anyone else there? You know too, "talent" is a subjective value judgment (and here I'm talking about "abilities" -- be they acting, directing, singing, etc.) It would seem that since Hollywood is already a Jewish milieu, it makes sense that those who best succeed with their "talents" are those who have that brand of "talent" that is esteemed by the local power elite. It's like a face in the mirror, no? I mean, the very notion of "quality" (What's good/what's bad)is a philosphical query. I don't think it's absurd to bring this up, because there are some very fundamental differences in, say, Christian/Jewish/Islamic, etc. world views -- secular or religious. I mean, ethnic background influences perception. Of course. Maybe overtly. Maybe subtly. But it does.
Thank you very much also for your support of the notion of asking "Why?" about things, per this web site -- meaning, of course, how come it is Jews, and no other ethnic group, that is prevalent in the upper tiers of so much in our world? For some, it is a crime to ask this. It's a complex question, but it seems it goes to the very heart of the concerns of FIRM. If Saudis ran Hollywood -- and so much else, I would think it would make obvious sense to know something about them. Saudis, Quakers, and Malaysians are not interchangeable. They would not all function exactly the same as cultural overseers -- IF each respective community had the "talent" to achieve a kind of cultural hegemony over all others. (And, again, what does THAT take?)
re: jewish influence in media
James Jaeger
0:43 am tuesday november 20, 2001>Per your comments that you have no interest in Jews per se, and that their dominance in Hollywood is somehow arbitrary -- interchangeable with any other ethnic group (say, Palestinians), you are wrong.
No I am not wrong on this as we are talking about two different things. I, and FIRM, are saying that WE don't care WHAT particular elements are in the control group demographic, where as you DO care -- and that's fine: but it's a DIFFERENT issue.
>The Jewish specificity/particularity here IS profoundly relevant.
No, it's not.
>Note please, that it is not the French, or Senegalese, or Brazilians, or Eskimos who dominate so much the Hollywood world. It is Jews.
True. But here FIRM is NOT interested in the CAUSE -- it's only interested in the EFFECT. Again, YOU are interested in the CAUSE.
>Why them, and not others?
Well, then, WHY. I personally might be interested. But FIRM is NOT interested in solving THIS question. See FIRM's Mission Statement at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/fmission.htm
James Jaeger
re: The Why of Things
James Jaeger
1:45 am tuesday november 20, 2001>Thanks, Mr. Jaeger, for the thoughtful reply. I have a couple of observations about your commentary.
You are welcome.
>I think you are exactly correct when you note Jews "network and push power to each other." Are you familiar with the old Jewish joke that MGM stood for (in Yiddish) "Mayer's ganz mishpoche" (Mayer's whole family)?" Or Ogden Nash's couplet: "Uncle Laemmle has a large famlee." This tribalism (which is documented in numerous scholarly studies about the Jewish community -- I mean, hey, look at Jewish allegiance to Israel) is one of the very historical foundations of Hollywood. (Cones, of course, itemizes this in his ethnicity/gender lists of the executive elite of the movie studios).
No I wasn't familiar with those old Jewish jokes, but I get what you are saying.
>I'd part company with you with your notion about some special Jewish "talent," unless you mean a "talent" towards attaining power. (Part of Jewish legend is that they are collective geniuses, smarter than anyone else, more studious than anyone else, etc. -- You subscribe to this?)
Not exactly. I can only go on my personal experience with Jewish people I personally know. Among the things I have observed that I can generalize about are that a) they don't drink very much, b) they like the lights turned up bright, c) their mothers really show their love for them and never is a bad word spoken by a Jewish parent for a Jewish child, d) they are usually in bed earlier rather than later, e) they don't beat around the bush very much in their talk or with their time, f) they are aggressive, if not pushy at times, g) they have sharp wits h) they make good and intelligent conversationalists, i) they are very concerned with money, if not nit picking about it at times, j) they deal fairly for the most part and follow the law, k) they are not dreamers and are mostly concerned with the day-to-day affairs of this world. Of course Scientologists also fill most of these points, with the added element that they are brutally ethical.
>One genre of Hollywood "talent" was epitomized by Budd Schulberg (son of the Jewish head of Paramount) in 1941 with a novel/screenplay called What Makes Sammy Run?
Yes, I have read this book.
>The story is about Sammy Glick, a Jew who hustles and rips off everyone in his path on his way to the top of Hollywood. The story was deemed "anti-Semitic" by the powers that be (MGM's Mayer, etc.); it came close to being made into a film, a few times, but never finally made it. (The Maysles [spelling?] brothers, who are Jewish, also did a controversial documentary, in the same vein, about producer Joseph E. Levine). Another example, Sweet Smell of Success is a classic film (that did get made) with a similar theme -- the ruthlessness it takes to get to power (I don't remember the background to this film, but I think the Burt Lancaster character was based on gossip journalist Walter Winchell [also Jewish]. But, again, I'm not certain about this one).
Yes, I have always felt the book INDECENT EXPOSURE would have made a great film -- but obviously due to the fact that it exposes the inner unethical business practices of so many of the Hollywood players, it is no wonder it has failed to reach the screen: whereas BARBARIANS AT THE GATE has (at least as an MOW). This is part of the bias John talks about in his books.
>As far as Jews being more dedicated, "serious," or intelligent, than others in Hollywood, I'm not comfortable with that. An African-American, struggling to make it in Hollywood, is any less "serious" than anyone else there? You know too, "talent" is a subjective value judgment (and here I'm talking about "abilities" -- be they acting, directing, singing, etc.)
Yes, you have a good point here. My statement was stupid. (Upon re-reading what I actually said, I see that I did not say that Jews are "more" "serious," I simply said "Jews in the media ARE good because most of them ARE serious about their careers and do all the right things to master their trade." Upon further reflection, I can see that Jews in the movie business might very well be LESS serious in their trade because after all, they are playing in a medium where there is rampant nepotism, cronyism and favoritism and thus they are able to more easily get and hold a job in the movie business.)
>It would seem that since Hollywood is already a Jewish milieu, it makes sense that those who best succeed with their "talents" are those who have that brand of "talent" that is esteemed by the local power elite. It's like a face in the mirror, no? I mean, the very notion of "quality" (What's good/what's bad)is a philosphical query.
Good point.
>I don't think it's absurd to bring this up, because there are some very fundamental differences in, say, Christian/Jewish/Islamic, etc. world views -- secular or religious. I mean, ethnic background influences perception. Of course. Maybe overtly. Maybe subtly. But it does.
And I believe this is, in fact, one of John's pivotal points as well (See WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm
>Thank you very much also for your support of the notion of asking "Why?" about things, per this web site -- meaning, of course, how come it is Jews, and no other ethnic group, that is prevalent in the upper tiers of so much in our world? For some, it is a crime to ask this. It's a complex question, but it seems it goes to the very heart of the concerns of FIRM.
Here again, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this does NOT go to the “very heart of concerns of FIRM.” While I am personally interested in this question, but I have to agree with John that its answer is not relevant to FIRM's Mission.
>If Saudis ran Hollywood -- and so much else, I would think it would make obvious sense to know something about them.
No it would not. All we would know is that there would be another DIFFERENT bias in the movies that were green-lit for production and release. We are not concerned with WHAT the quality of that bias is, only THAT there IS a bias.
>Saudis, Quakers, and Malaysians are not interchangeable.
True. And if Hollywood were run by Martians we would still have no concern beyond the concern that they were discriminating against Klingons to ALSO tell THEIR unique stories. :)
>They would not all function exactly the same as cultural overseers -- IF each respective community had the "talent" to achieve a kind of cultural hegemony over all others.
Of course not. They would all function differently -- and this should be left to the sociologists, not the reformers, who are just trying to encourage diversity and remedy discrimination.
>(And, again, what does THAT take?)
Well, you can study that interesting question.
James Jaeger
MPAA-Influence in Canada
Jor
2:03 am tuesday november 20, 2001>Greetings, James, Thanks again for responding to my messages... What a great report. I am getting tired of working in a medium that has no questions about the blatant lies it puts to air.
I hear ya, but gee, I would think that it would be much better there in Canada. Are you guys owned or controlled by the MPAA studio/distributors in any way?
>No, but we are owned by a multinational corporation, the owner of which happens to be a liberal, not very religious ..., who sends a lot of money overseas to Israel, and whose viewpoint takes up a great deal of time on our airwaves. Despite the size of our network, our news departments pull international stories from daily CNN and CBS newsfeeds. The anchor leads are send to us via "the wire", and are not reworded or altered in any way, nor are the Voice Over scripts and packages we run. This means that even Canadians have to put up with the viewpoint of the big American "news" corporations. On September 11, we made up our own commentary for the first few hours, which was great to see, but as soon as CNN was back "on script" we followed suit, carrying their signal exclusively. I've complained in the past, but like everywhere else, if concerns don't effect the bottom line, they aren't worth dealing with. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but what do I know? ... I think it's wrong to trust a foreign power with informing the People about world events. We don't seem to understand that America is a foreign power.
>Jor
James Jaeger
re: jewish influence in media
jj
12:52 pm tuesday november 20, 2001Thanks again, sir, for your thoughtful reply.
I'm sorry to belabor this, I think I do understand your position, and it seems to me the main gap between us is merely a technicality (albeit a large one), i.e., the formal tenets of FIRM per its range of concern. I looked over the "Mission statement," and it seems to me there's a few open doors in that text. Sorry. I direct you, for instance, to:
"f. How did such persons (and entities) gain that power?"
This opening actually has no door to shut. The entire scope of Jewish history can slide through this corridor. Any qualifier clause addended to point "f" would merely be arbitrary. Only when someone steps into the city of Los Angeles, then it's OK to talk about how they "gained power?" An investigation of their rise to power only has relevancy if it is talking about the exact dates it took to make a movie? It's OK to talk about "gaining power" in Hollywood, providing words used can only be found in a movie book dictionary?
I mean, look, the money to finance a film, doesn't come from some Hollywood mogul's drawer in a desk on Rodeo Drive. It comes from investors and "players" from all kinds of places. The "network" necessary to make a movie is not solely based in Hollywood: the financing can come from anywhere. Hollywood and motion picture- making (as you have noted per its future on the Internet), is less and less a geographical (or any other kind of) absolute.
How about an example of how many "gain power," or, more correctly, a peek at one of the prerequisites to "gain power?" Take powerful Hollywood mogul Arnon Milchon, producer of "Pretty Woman" and a lot of Oliver Stone's ("half-Jewish") films. He's an Israeli. But not just that. He's been charged (even by 60 Minutes) with a swirl of underworld weapons dealings, including smuggling important parts to Israel for its nuclear weapons program. An examination "how people come to power," etc. in Hollywood will sooner or later run into such facts. Chaim Saban is another Israeli Hollywood mogul, ranked in the top five American political contributors by Mother Jones magazine. (Unrelated to his "movie making?") Globus [spelling?] at Canon was another Israeli. My point here is that Jewish American allegiance to Israel is well-documented by Jewish scholarship and it is a clear factor in "how elites gain power" (try getting a job in Hollywood if it's known you're a critic of Israel). Thomas Kiernan's biography of non-Jewish media mogul Rupert Murdoch has a few pages about this mogul's avid pro-Israel bias, as cultivated in him by Leonard Goldenson at ABC and the rest of the Jewish New York mogul network that aided in Murdoch's rise to power.
In 1998, CBS ran a special celebrating Israel's 50th anniversary. How come? Do we get such television attention for other countries' patriotic holidays? The co-chairmen of the "international" event were Merv Adelson (head of Lorimar and former husband of Jewish journalist Barbara Walters) and Marv Josephson (head of ICM, one of the two largest Hollywood talent agencies). As the Jewish Journal for Greater Los Angeles noted, these two men "were appointed to serve as international co- chairmen of the 50th celebration at the behest of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanjahu." My point? You may wish to limit the boundaries by which to address the power elite in movie making, but others broaden the issue about the subject, not me.
When Wolf Blitzer tells you some objective fact on CNN, is it irrelevant that he used to be the editor the Near East Report, the house organ of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the famed pro-Israel lobby? Is it irrelevant that 60 Minutes II reporter Bob Simon has a home in Israel?
You also state this: "FIRM is NOT interested in the CAUSE -- it's only interested in the EFFECT. Again, YOU are interested in the CAUSE."
With all due respect, how on earth can any problem ever be remedied (or even be reasonably addressed) by intentionally neglecting its CAUSE? Please don't come to my place to fix the plumbing. Anyone can perceive an "effect." An apple falls out of the sky onto your head. But where does it come from? Does FIRM expect that the Jewish movie moguls are going to throw up their hands and say, "Oh, you guys perceive the situation correctly. We've set up an unjust system. We're sorry" and volunteer power to a multiethnic power arrangement? I don't think so. It seems to me, if I may be so bold to say, that you've got to lay out ALL the evidence that impugns the Jewish case to preserve power. Self- imposed censorship (limiting the range of commentary and investigation), at FIRM and other places, hinders -- in the long term -- your cause. (In the short term, of course, it harms your cause because the kinds of things I state here are smeared as bigoted, anti-Semitic, prejudicial, etc. etc. etc. But an absolute KEY to get people talking about your issue -- the democratization of the motion picture industry -- is to break this powerful taboo that declares that you cannot, under any circumstances, and for any reason, criticize Jews). Look. I want what you want. Justice. Fairness. Genuine democracy. And Jews are entitled, in a multiethnic democracy, to their FAIR share of the pie.
Lastly, I'd like to comment upon your stated lack of interest in exactly WHO is in power in Hollywood, but rather, abtractly, the strata of power itself as the focus of criticism. As illustration of my argument, let's take a look at Afghanistan, post-bombing. It's a dramatic case, but it makes my point well. The SPECIFICS of WHO is going to rule Afghanistan is absolutely EVERYTHING. The Northern Alliance? Some warlord from that group? An imported King? Western powers in disguise, with a puppet government? Pakistan? Iran? Pashtuns? Shitte or Sunni Muslims? Again, the specificity in this, or any scenario, is everything. WHOEVER runs the show will point those in tow in a direction specific to the leaders' own ideology. Each different ethnic/political group's influence is distinct, and a fundamental determinant to the future of that country.
Thank you for your openness to free discussion.
re: jewish influence in media
part 2
Stan 3:46 pm tuesday november 20, 2001Pure Unadulterated Bullshit
You neglected to mention that only Jews were THE "final solution" of the Nazis, not the other 44-50m (I have serious doubts about that number) who died. WWII was not about genocide against everyone, nor about making all people scapegoats to justify Nazi atrocities. You seem to be envious of the attainments of persons of Jewish descent. You could have added to this list, the disproportionate percentage of people of Jewish descent who are violinists, physicians and surgeons, and CPAs. You could also point out the dominance within American professional sport of Blacks, particulary in Basketball, Football, Baseball, Boxing, and Track & Field. There have not been too many great WASP or Jewish Blues or Jazz musicians, either, at least in proportion to Blacks. There are not too many ethnic or religious groups which consistently overachieve, in any tolerant society. The common element is not religion: you have pointed out that Jewish, white executives and business leaders are not particularly religious. You regularly intimate that a conspiracy existed and is maintained to perpeuate the power of Jews. But the examples you have furnished in this piece reveal such a diversity of prominence that to concieve of these disparate overachievers as being in league with each other is preposterous. I could argue that Blacks are simply more powerful, faster, and better athletes in most American-style sports. But they compete as individuals. If I had to generalize from my own community and family history, I would say that many of "us" were taught to try to distinguish ourselves in whatever endeavor we are inclined to participate, and competition, not collusion, was and has been a key element in our successes.
I believe that the unusual degree of success of persons of Jewish heritage is attributable to cultural and family values and the continuation of tradition or leadership of those who went before the present generations. Since ethnic "purity" has long been discarded as prevelant in our multiracial and intermarried society, I would assign most of the weight in this exchange to this mind-set, or values imbued within.I dismiss genetic superiority completely (except in the realm of sport--Kenyans and Ethiopians, and many North Africans are inbred, and have a huge "gene pool" of talent), as there are many, many examples of extremely successfull people of any ethnicity born to common parents. I hate to say it, but despite all of our imperfections, we're doing OK. You seem to whip yourself into a frenzy with your flawed research and conclusions. Your piece escalates, like the late comedian Sam Kinison, into a rant, which, when observed objectively, is pure unadulterated bullshit.
Stan
re: Pure Unadulterated Bullshit
jj 8:36 pm tuesday november 20, 2001
Thanks for the reply, in spite of your smears.First,what does Hitler's "Final Solution" have anything to do what I've been saying? Nothing whatsoever. You drag that in as if that is the foundation of all discourse about the Jewish community and it's supposed to halt all conversation. Sorry. Your raising of the sacred sacrament of the Holocaust doesn't cower me into silence. The Holocaust had nothing to do with me, nor my friends, nor my relatives, nor my country, and it happened half a century ago on the other side of the world.
Second, the Nazis did indeed have other genocides in mind. The Gypsies were a well-known target. Hitler also planned the extermination of the Slavs too (although some were to be used as slaves), and if you need some citations about that, I can provide them. For starters, read The Forgotten Holocaust (about the suffering of Polish non-Jews); University of Kentucky Press. If you cared about the Poles, I'd have a heart attack.
Third, the influence of African-Americans in sports (particularly basketball) is well known, and people do sometimes publicly debate what that might mean. Their disproportionate representation in, say, basketball is a product of very objective standards. If Shaquille O'Neil can dunk over you, repeatedly, there's not much to say. Tip your hat and walk off the floor. But Jewish dominance in popular culture isn't based on any objective criteria. It's back rooms and bank accounts, who knows who, etc., ad nauseum. If Sumner Redstone's Viacom takes over Random House this has no relation whatsoever to a fadeaway jump shot. I might also add that you neglect to note that, in the behind-the-scenes managerial/economic sphere of basketball, boxing, etc., Jews dominate the fields. The details of all this, with bibliographic sources, are at our web site.
Fourth, I have not overlooked Jewish domination in other fields -- violinists, doctors, etc. Such information is included at our web site. Yes, there is much, much more. And this does not, of course, detract from my argument, but supports it further. But I'll point out to you that the BEST violinist (who gets to sit in the first violin row) or the BEST artist (who gets that big exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art) are completely subjective judgments, based on a wide range of variables. (Who's the curator? Who funds the museum? Who's the art critic? Who wrote the book that dictates what quality art is? What's your connections? If you have no connections, forget it.) Jews dominate the money ends of both fields: classical music and modern art. These realms have become largely Jewish playing fields. The probable "whys" of Jewish domination in such fields is a long, long discussion and they're addressed at our web site.
The reason why there have not been very many WASP jazz musicians is because it was a Black invention, and Jews gravitated to it, especially in an entrepreneurial/exploitive way. Most of the big jazz clubs (Cotton Club, etc.) were owned by Jews. Blacks were managed by Jews; Jews owned most of the record companies that produced Black songs -- Chess, Old Towne, etc. etc. (We've got a discussion about this at our web site too). And there is a long list of Blacks who have went on record with complaints about exploitation by Jewish overseers (everyone from Chuck Berry to Fats Domino). For your unpleasant information, Jewish economic domination of African-Americans in the slums of our large cities (as slumlords, businessmen, etc.) is documented at our web site. The 1960s Watts riots was largely a riot against the Jews who economically dominated that community. (Citations posted at your request).
Do I regularly intimidate that a "conspiracy" exists among Jews? Well, I don't put any stock in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, if that's what you're saying. However, massive Jewish collective effort (overt and covert) in the support of Israel is verifiable, it permeates throughout Jewish American culture (including Hollywood), and it has reached the clear point where such support for a foreign power is detremental to the best interests of American society at-large. I would also note that in capitalist society, Jews, as a collective group, are an entrepreurial elite, and while "conspiracy" is too strong a word, the transnational solidarity of the Jewish community towards their own ethnocentric networking is something that is of no value to anyone but Jews.
Again, secular or religous, Democrat or Republican, fat or skinny, what is the common denominator for the overwhelming majority of Jews? Israel, which, as one Jewish scholar put it, has become "the pillar of Jewish American identity."
When Zev Chafets (a Jew born in Pontiac, Michigan, who moved to Israel) came back to write about a book about the Jewish American community, he affectionately called his kindred throughout America MOTs ("Members of the Tribe"). There are tons of scholarly citations about Jewish tribalism at our web site, and for you to claim that Jewish identity is not rooted in a collective identity is dissimulative. If you want to continue arguing this, I'll start posting research citations to refute you at this discussion board.
Jewish "family values" and "tradition of leadership" and all that as the reason for Jewish economic and social dominance is nonsense. I've got some studies cited at our web site about Jewish domestic abuse, etc. and, guaranteed, you're not going to like them. You are spewing legend. "Jews living in the Diaspora," says Jewish scholar Mimi Scarf, "have frequently spread much propaganda about themselves in order to keep a low profile and as a consequence have tended to downplay social problems of their own. Thus, Jews are not alcoholics. Jewish fathers do not desert their children. Jewish mothers do not batter their children, Jewish men do not beat their wives ... " [SCARF, p. 51] "Although it is tempting to teach our children that the Jewish family is superior to all others ... [we] must admit that our idealized concept of the Jewish family is ... a myth." [SCARF, p. 63] . Sorry, but Jews just aren't one giant Bambi. "Family values" has nothing to do with taking over the Disney corporation.
Next, we've done a ton of research about Jewish identity, intermarriage and all the stuff you throw out on the table to end your piece. Briefly, in response, 1) Jewish identity, by halakhic law, is based on matrilineal descent: a Jew is someone born to a Jewish mother. (You don't mention the war going on in the Jewish world about who qualifies as a Jew. Reform Judaism wants kids of Jewish fathers to be officially Jews too). If there is anything clearly racist in this world, it's one's identity linked on bloodline to a parent and a continuum of ancient ancestors. Yes, there's a lot of intermarriage going on in the Jewish community, but what you neglect to mention is how the mainstream Jewish community has rallied to stop it. What would be the public response if all major WASP organizations started lobbying their own to marry only other WASPs? How come Jews get a free rein here?
In your conclusion, it's interesting you choose non-Jew Sam Kinison as your epitomy of a fanatic, considering the fact that an estimated 80% of all comedians are Jewish, and legions of them "rant." Here's a quote, in 1999, from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: "Some of the most notoriously foul-mouthed and obscene- minded entertainers are Jewish and earn no reproof for their public aggrandizement of filth." [LAPIN, D., 1999, p. 293] I guess Rabbi Lapin, per your probable criteria, is a Nazi?
re: Dramatizing the Third Reich - Cont.
James Jaeger
8:14 pm wednesday november 21, 2001Some very good points on SCHINDLER'S LIST and how Hollywood selectively deleted portions of the book that did not push their vision of the Holocaust.
I'd like to post portions of this over on the NGs and see what all the appologist writers over there at misc.writing.screenplays have to say.
James Jaeger
re: jewish influence in media
James Jaeger
9:03 pm wednesday november 21, 2001>Thanks again, sir, for your thoughtful reply.
You're welcome.
>I'm sorry to belabor this, I think I do understand your position, and it seems to me the main gap between us is merely a technicality (albeit a large one), i.e., the formal tenets of FIRM per its range of concern. I looked over the "Mission statement," and it seems to me there's a few open doors in that text. Sorry. I direct you, for instance, to: "f. How did such persons (and entities) gain that power?"
Well John should be interested in that one if it's in the Mission Statement. Is his answer to that in his book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD (http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm or in any of the writings at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm?
>This opening actually has no door to shut. The entire scope of Jewish history can slide through this corridor. Any qualifier clause addended to point "f" would merely be arbitrary. Only when someone steps into the city of Los Angeles, then it's OK to talk about how they "gained power?" An investigation of their rise to power only has relevancy if it is talking about the exact dates it took to make a movie? It's OK to talk about "gaining power" in Hollywood, providing words used can only be found in a movie book dictionary?
Right.
>I mean, look, the money to finance a film, doesn't come from some Hollywood mogul's drawer in a desk on Rodeo Drive. It comes from investors and "players" from all kinds of places. The "network" necessary to make a movie is not solely based in Hollywood: the financing can come from anywhere. Hollywood and motion picture-making (as you have noted per its future on the Internet), is less and less a geographical (or any other kind of) absolute.
Possibly true, however, doesn't a lot of that stuff fade away if the control group becomes more diversified?
>How about an example of how many "gain power," or, more correctly, a peek at one of the prerequisites to "gain power?" Take powerful Hollywood mogul Arnon Milchon, producer of "Pretty Woman" and a lot of Oliver Stone's ("half-Jewish") films. He's an Israeli. But not just that. He's been charged (even by 60 Minutes) with a swirl of underworld weapons dealings, including smuggling important parts to Israel for its nuclear weapons program. An examination "how people come to power," etc. in Hollywood will sooner or later run into such facts. Chaim Saban is another Israeli Hollywood mogul, ranked in the top five American political contributors by Mother Jones magazine. (Unrelated to his "movie making?") Globus [spelling?] at Canon was another Israeli. My point here is that Jewish American allegiance to Israel is well-documented by Jewish scholarship and it is a clear factor in "how elites gain power" (try getting a job in Hollywood if it's known you're a critic of Israel). Thomas Kiernan's biography of non-Jewish media mogul Rupert Murdoch has a few pages about this mogul's avid pro-Israel bias, as cultivated in him by Leonard Goldenson at ABC and the rest of the Jewish New York mogul network that aided in Murdoch's rise to power.
Again, isn't much of this held in place by the lack of diversity in the control group?
>In 1998, CBS ran a special celebrating Israel's 50th anniversary. How come? Do we get such television attention for other countries' patriotic holidays? The co-chairmen of the "international" event were Merv Adelson (head of Lorimar and former husband of Jewish journalist Barbara Walters) and Marv Josephson (head of ICM, one of the two largest Hollywood talent agencies). As the Jewish Journal for Greater Los Angeles noted, these two men "were appointed to serve as international co- chairmen of the 50th celebration at the behest of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanjahu." My point? You may wish to limit the boundaries by which to address the power elite in movie making, but others broaden the issue about the subject, not me.
There's no doubt that all this runs deep and broad and it takes quite a mind to confront all of it, but many people have failed to reform Hollywood because they have bitten off more than they can chew or they have been chewing on the wrong bones. We hope to avoid both. :)
>When Wolf Blitzer tells you some objective fact on CNN, is it irrelevant that he used to be the editor the Near East Report, the house organ of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the famed pro-Israel lobby? Is it irrelevant that 60 Minutes II reporter Bob Simon has a home in Israel?
The fact that you have been posting your view here at FIRM will be read by many and you will go into the FIRM Archives for all to read over the years -- so your views ARE getting out for those who feel they are important. The first step in reforming Hollywood is to get ALL the facts on the table and how these relate to a democratic society. I think we are accomplishing this, and argument is good. No one has all the answers or facts.
>You also state this: "FIRM is NOT interested in the CAUSE -- it's only interested in the EFFECT. Again, YOU are interested in the CAUSE."
>With all due respect, how on earth can any problem ever be remedied (or even be reasonably addressed) by intentionally neglecting its CAUSE? Please don't come to my place to fix the plumbing. Anyone can perceive an "effect." An apple falls out of the sky onto your head. But where does it come from?
I had a feeling you would bring this up when I wrote about CAUSE. Let me explain further then. There are always prior causes to everything in the universe. In fact all matter can be traced back to the Big Bang up to, but NOT including, any instant shorter than the plank time. When I say I (John) have (has) found our CAUSE, meaning the approximately 2 dozen LIBERAL, NOT- VER-RELIGIOUS, WHITE, JEWISH, MALES OF EUROPEAN HERITAGE that have been running the 7 studio/distributors for the past 90-some years, I don't mean that there is NOT an earlier cause for them as well -- there is. But going into this AND why we find Jews all over the world in other industries is to bite off too much. If we took on this, we should also take on the question of why do we find LIBERALS all over the world in all other industries, and why do we find WHITES all over the world in all other industries and why do we find NOT-VERY-RELIGIOUS people all over in other industries. You get the point.
This is why we have to draw the line to the "CAUSE" I suggested. This is a "workable cause" for us. It is a focus. It provides a solid reason why Hollywood is what it is and why it green-lights only the movies it does. It is not all dependent on Jews either. Even the 30 or 40 percent of the people that are NOT Jewish in Hollywood are mostly LIBERAL. And almost none of them are religious. Hey, I lived there for 11 years, so I know first hand about this without even putting an iota of attention on the Jewish factor all the time I was there. So this is what OUR CAUSE goes back to, whereas your questions ARE much deeper so you HAVE to follow YOUR CAUSE back further as you are just addressing Jews. We are not. Jews are just one element, though an important element, only one element in our cause.
>Does FIRM expect that the Jewish movie moguls are going to throw up their hands and say, "Oh, you guys perceive the situation correctly. We've set up an unjust system. We're sorry" and volunteer power to a multiethnic power arrangement? I don't think so.
No of course not. But with enough public exposure on WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD, the Christian community and other religious communities, as well as the federal government can step in there and say: "Hey, this is not fair - John Cones, James Jaeger and FIRM have a point."
>It seems to me, if I may be so bold to say, that you've got to lay out ALL the evidence that impugns the Jewish case to preserve power. Self-imposed censorship (limiting the range of commentary and investigation), at FIRM and other places, hinders -- in the long term -- your cause. (In the short term, of course, it harms your cause because the kinds of things I state here are smeared as bigoted, anti-Semitic, prejudicial, etc. etc. etc. But an absolute KEY to get people talking about your issue -- the democratization of the motion picture industry -- is to break this powerful taboo that declares that you cannot, under any circumstances, and for any reason, criticize Jews). Oh, here John and I agree completely. No one has the right to call either of us anti-Semitic because we criticize Hollywood and we have both been standing up to this for many years. The use of what John calls the "anti-Semitic Sword" has been broadcast loud and clear all over the Net and the NGs and there is no intention to drop this clarion call. So actually, THIS may be the point were your interests and FIRM's interests intersect the most, not withstanding the issues dealing with feature motion pictures from Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry.
>Look. I want what you want. Justice. Fairness. Genuine democracy. And Jews are entitled, in a multiethnic democracy, to their FAIR share of the pie.
Yes, but you are dealing with Jewish influence in all of American Society. FIRM is dealing with the influence of a narrowly- defined group running Hollywood, a part of which incorporates Jewish influence.
>Lastly, I'd like to comment upon your stated lack of interest in exactly WHO is in power in Hollywood, but rather, abtractly, the strata of power itself as the focus of criticism. As illustration of my argument, let's take a look at Afghanistan, post-bombing. It's a dramatic case, but it makes my point well. The SPECIFICS of WHO is going to rule Afghanistan is absolutely EVERYTHING. The Northern Alliance? Some warlord from that group? An imported King? Western powers in disguise, with a puppet government? Pakistan? Iran? Pashtuns? Shitte or Sunni Muslims? Again, the specificity in this, or any scenario, is everything. WHOEVER runs the show will point those in tow in a direction specific to the leaders' own ideology. Each different ethnic/political group's influence is distinct, and a fundamental determinant to the future of that country.
Yes, WHO runs something is important, and that's why FIRM only asks that those who run Hollywood be a diversified group, not a group as described at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist
>Thank you for your openness to free discussion.
Thank you too.
James Jaeger
re: Pure Unadulterated Bullshit
James Jaeger
11:48 pm wednesday november 21, 2001>In your conclusion, it's interesting you choose non-Jew Sam Kinison as your epitomy of a fanatic, considering the fact that an estimated 80% of all comedians are Jewish, and legions of them "rant." What's your source on this?
James Jaeger
re: Pure Unadulterated Bullshit
jj-baker (Note: jj has elected to call himself "jj-baker" so as not to be confused with JJ (James Jaeger)
1:45 am thursday november 22, 2001Not hard to find. For purposes here, you can find a number of reliable citations on the Internet. I quickly typed jewish comedians 80 (at google.com) and got a few about the 80% estimation, including a description of a college course about Jewish humor:
http://www.scsu.ctstateu.edu/undergrad/schas/JST/index.php? file=courses.html
At our web site -- jewishtribalreview.org -- we list, and discuss, a number of these Jewish comedians (few who are known by their real names)in Mass Media, Part 1 of WHEN VICTIMS RULE. A CRITIQUE OF JEWISH PRE-EMINENCE IN AMERICA.
(If you're actually asking what's the bibliographic source for the assertion that Jewish comedians "rant" too, you'll find some noteworthy Jewish comedic ranting in that chapter).
The Accusation of anti-Semitism
James Jaeger
2:45 pm thursday november 22, 2001Since those of us at FIRM have often been accused of being anti-Semitic, we share this concern with others who have attempted to provide constructive criticism touching on the activities of Jews in various fields of endeavor. The below are some excerpts from JJ-baker's book, WHEN VICTIM'S RULE - A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America, which can be found in it's entirety on the web for free at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/wvr.htm
Below are some quotes from Chapter 19, which provides 'an investigation into how virtually anyone and anything is considered by popular Jewish convention to be anti-Semitic, and how this all-encompassing smear of irrational bigotry is used to ward off all morally justifiable criticism of Jewish-inspired injustice and Israel.'
"All critics of Jews should not be tagged as anti-Semites. We are not a nation of Christs, Spinozas, and Einsteins; that the Nazis are brutes does not make us angels ... Criticism is not the same as hatred, and critics are not our enemies. The greatest friends of a people are not those who praise but those who honestly find fault. A people without criticism is either a dictatorship or a community so deeply embedded in smug self-satisfaction as to be on the road to decadence."-- William Zuckerman, Jewish author [written before World War II, in Goldstein, D., p. 119]
"The far-reaching consequences of the [Jewish] martyr complex go beyond any effect of the individual Jew ... and do not leave unmarked even the most sympathetically inclined Gentiles. Since the Jew is hypersensitive on the subject of his Judaism, Gentiles fear to offer constructive criticism lest they be accused of prejudices. Thus the Jew is denied the benefit of honest evaluation of the very real differences and prejudices existing ... I believe we Jews will never be normal individuals so long as we foster our martyr complex, so long as we remain evasive of self-appraisal and self-improvement, and so long as it is easier to blame the other fellow for our own faults."-- Maurice M. Feurlich, Jewish author - in "Children of the Martyr Race," The Forum, NYC, September 1937; cited in Goldstein, D., p. 116
"By accusing western democracies of anti-Semitism, the Jews put them on the defensive. As long as guilt feelings can be profitably mined, advantages can be gained. But the lode is not likely to last forever."-- Moshe Leshem, former Israeli diplomat, p. 253-254]
"A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own government must arm themselves with the power which knowledge.-- James Madison
Source: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/19antis1.htm
Allen & Company’s INDECENT EXPOSURE
James Jaeger
6:12 pm thursday november 22, 2001In the studio executive ranks, it's almost impossible, if one is in the inner circle AND Jewish, to be kicked out. Perfect case in point is what Hollywood (and its NYC Bosses) went through handling David Begleman when he was President of Production at Columbia Pictures, an MPAA studio/distributor. The Book, INDECENT EXPOSURE, goes into all the embarrassing details of how the Hollywood powers-that-be, on both Coasts, covered their asses and milled all over the question of 'what to do with David.'
Particularly amusing was the window into Herbert Alan, Jr., President of Allen & Company, the New York-based investment bank which underwrites and brokers some of the MPAA studio/distributors' biggest deals such as the Seagram-Universal deal, the Disney-Capital Cities/ABC deal, and of course the Coke-Columbia Pictures deal (which is the reason everyone connected with David Begelman's activities were concerned).
INDECENT EXPOSURE goes into it all and is an incredible read, such a good read, it not only has NOT been made into a movie (as was BARBARIANS AT THE GATE of similar corporate intrigue) but the book has all but disappeared. I tried to get another copy from AMAZON.COM (I got my first copy when it came out around 1983) and guess what, it's conveniently "out of print." Amazon then refers you to one of its signatory book-resellers and I have yet to get it from them either. Barns & Noble also doesn't have it. Hmm, I wouldn't be at all surprised if agents from Columbia Pictures, the Coca-Cola Company, the MPAA or Allen & Company (or the whole bunch) haven't been buying up the outstanding copies over the past 18 years and stashing them in the trash. Maybe the authors of INDECENT EXPOSURE will some day put the entire book on the Net for free (like Eric Drexler did with ENGINES OF CREATION and John Cones did with WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD!).
In the meantime, here's some information about the low-profile, or should we say controlled-profile (as you will see below), Herbert Allen and his Allen & Co.
Herbert A. Allen (61) has been a director at The Coca-Cola Company since 1982 and is President and Chief Executive Officer of Allen & Company, Inc., incorporated as a privately-held investment banking firm. Thus he was in there when then- MPAA studio executive, David Begleman, was (allegedly) helping himself to Cliff Robertson's pay checks, especially that $60,000 one that he got caught on.
Herb, who brought Coca-Cola in to purchase Columbia Pictures, must have forgot to mention in the "Risk Factors" of the Columbia Pictures business plan that David might, from time to time, be inclined to steal a little cash from the company's actors.
But back to Herb who, according to Forbes, has been listed as one of the 400 richest Americans and one of the world's "richest people" with a net worth of $1,800,000,000 -- not bad for a guy who went to Williams College with only a Bachelor degree. After Herb's second divorce, he is left with 4 children and lives in New York City, but he often manages to sneak out and throw an annual party in Sun Valley, Idaho where you can't attend unless you are Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Jeff Bezos or were Katharin Graham and/or work for News Corporation, Disney and/or the Fox Family Channel. But who knows, maybe Herb will invite me and John Cones to the next party to show us that they are just a bunch of regular guys who like movies and Democracy.
For more info on Herb see http://www.hoovers.com/cgi-bin/offsite and http://www.hoovers.com/co/capsule/6/0,2163,51026,00.html but for more information on the book, INDECENT EXPOSURE, just pray that Santa Clause will drop a copy down the chimney this December.
James Jaeger
re: Allen and Co’s INDECENT EXPOSURE
jj-baker
7:01 pm thursday november 22, 2001David Begelman "was in the insurance business when he met and married Esther Feldman, sister of the agent Charles Feldman." Feldman was one of the most powerful agents in Hollywood. Begelman soon worked at the "MCA" agency till he formed his own company with Freddie Fields -- Creative Management Associates, (CMA). [SHIPMAN, D., 1993, p. 447] By the 1970s, Begelman was head of Columbia studios. MCA executive Jay Kanter was Paramount president Barney Balaban's son-in-law. [MCDOUGAL, p. 231] Famed Universal director William Wyler's cousin, Carl Laemmle, was the head of that movie company. [BERG, A., 1989, p. 263] Paul Weinstein, vice president of production at Warner Brothers has a sister, Lisa, who is a "D-girl for the powerful production team of Leonard Goldberg and Jerry Weintraub at Universal." And on and on. [ABRAMOWITZ, R., 2000, p. 170]
"Hollywood is a make-work town where nepotism is a way of life," observed (Jewish) comedian Roseanne Barr's sister (and longtime manager), Geraldine, in 1994. [BARR, G., 1994] "In Hollywood," once joked British character actor Arthur Treacher, "success is relative. The closer the relative, the greater the success." [HAY, P., 1990, p. 262]
"I became a director," says Jay Sandrich (director of TV's 'The Bill Cosby Show,' among others), "by being in the right place at the right time, plus the wonderful thing that helps so many people in this business, nepotism.... My father was a feature film director ... I really had no interest in the business. I've always felt that if my father had worked in the automobile business, I'd be in the automobile business." [LEVINSON, p. 118- 119]
Bin Laden/Schindler's List: propaganda e
jj-baker
8:51 pm thursday november 22, 2001http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml? xml=/news/2001/11/16/wvid16.xml&sSheet=/news/20001/11/16/ixhome.h tml
From the Telegraph (Great Britain), Nov. 16, 2001
This interesting excerpt from an article -- written by a Jewish author -- notes the propaganda dimension of Bin Laden's recruitment movie per the standard set by Schindler's List. (Schindler's List was fictionalized. The Laden film uses recurrent documentary "news" images).
"Until I sat down to watch a two-hour Al Qa'eda recruitment video, made just six months before the September 11 attacks, I had no idea that the champion of anti-Americanism had hijacked our Hollywood gimmicks and television tricks. Far more likely, I thought, that he'd produce a dreary display of militant fundamentalism: lots of ranting against America and Saudi Arabia, with some macho gun-play thrown in for show. What I actually saw was far more worrying: Osama bin Laden beating us at our own media game. With devilish cunning, he has plugged into the MTV generation - and it's clear he knows how to reach us. I have spent all day humming militant Islamic songs. And I am a Jewish twenty-something from New York ... Bin Laden's film crew must have studied Schindler's List, because a five- minute orgy of Israelis brutalising women and children is like a replay of scenes from the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto. In Spielberg's film, the camera panned to the body of a little girl in red; in this, the climax is the murder of Mohammed al-Durra. As in Schindler's List, children and women sing slowly and movingly. And this is the point at which I burst into tears. I hardly realise that I have been visually and aurally manipulated until I study the clip in detail. In slow motion, and in time to the music, Israeli soldiers beat two women with sticks, until one falls to ground. The soldiers carry off screaming men, as if they are so much rubbish. Then, they strike a little boy with such force that he crumples to the ground. These images, and similar ones, are repeated over and over, until the violence seems unending. But, hang on aren't these the same three incidents, shot from different angles? Bin Laden has simply cut up full-length 'news' sequences and scattered them about, fooling me with the frenzied graphics and sound effects."
re: Pure Unadulterated Bullshit
James Jaeger
2:26 am saturday november 24, 2001Thanks jj (aka JJ-baker)
James
Misc.Writing.Screenplay's Obfuscations
Sal
8:04 pm thursday november 29, 2001Sorry, folks.
I know the religio-cultural roots of the scam going on here:
In Jewish tradition "pilpul"(pepper), is a "dialectical technique of reconciling apparently contradictory concepts in the Talmud's texts, often by straining original meanings through the needle's eye ... [It later] degenerated into little more than sophistry." [SACHAR, p. 65]
Talmudic dialectics, "notes the Jewish Encyclopedia, "became developed and endowed the Jews who stood beneath the spell of the Talmud with peculiar characteristics, especially imbuing them with a love of hair-splitting which afterwards deteriorated into sophistic subtlety." [GOLDSTEIN, D, p. 133, v. 5, p. 726] The Talmud, notes Robert Goldenberg, has a reputation for "overcomplicated, 'hairsplitting' dialectic." [GOLDENBERG, R., 1984, p. 13]
Look. I can dust off the books and get into an endless argument with you guys about the esoteric nuances of baptism, except for one thing. This serves you, obviously, as a diversion from the point of the original posts: Jewish dominance (and nepotism) in Hollywood (and a lot of other places). Your tactic is the same used by Herzl to generate lots of "noise" to diffuse investigation into the nuts and bolts of Zionism.
Your only responses to Jewish dominance of Hollywood is:
1) Go to Hell fucking Nazi.
2) You're jealous (and sarcasm).
3) Where are Catholic babies buried?
4) Jews founded Hollywood. So what? [Logically then: WASPs founded Amercia -- To Hell with Jews and their decades-long complaints about discrimination]
5) Silence.Nothing substantive. The Jewish fiefdom of Hollywood (and so much else) is central to so many of this countries problems. Your flippant responses are a defense mechanism. What happened to democracy? What happened to a fair shake for those in the multicultural spectrum?
Sal -- jewishtribalreview.org
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |