FIRM Discussions January 19, 2003 - April 13, 2003
What does NOT need Reform in Hollywood?
THE PASSION
Posted on January 19, 2003 at 10:45:14 PM
by James JaegerMel Gibson is directing a new movie called THE PASSION. The picture is about the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ.
According to Gibson, all of the Hollywood-based studios have passed on the project. They say they aren't interested in the movie because it's not in English and won't have any subtitles. Gibson says he wants the picture to be as absolutely accurate as possible and thus has retained the original languages of the day. He says the story is universal enough to not require subtitles.
This sounds like another situation similar to MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING where the Hollywood control group panned a film because they have no (political) interest in the subject. (See my discussion entitled "GREEK WEDDING: Hollywood's Real Agenda" above.) This film will probably be a huge money maker, just as MBFGW has been. But contrary to popular myth, Hollywood is often not interested in making money. When the political agenda of Hollywood conflicts with its potential to make money, Hollywood seems to defer to its political agenda. THE PASSION is also being produced AND financed by Mel Gibson, who is a devout Christian. In a similar fashion, Steven Spielberg, who is a devout Jew, said he didn’t care if his passion-picture, SHINDLER’S LIST, was not commercial -– he was going to make it anyway: and it was going to be in black and white (for greater authenticity) and it was going to be 3 hours long (even if people fell asleep). But did Hollywood pass on SHINDLER’S LIST? Go figure.
Given what Gibson says about the production values of THE PASSION, not to mention that he's consulted the Vatican, it's a NO BRAINER that this picture will generate at least a BILLION dollars at the box office from many of the 1.1 billion Christians worldwide. So why is Hollywood not interested? Go figure.
James Jaeger
Re(2): THE PASSION
Posted on January 21, 2003 at 05:08:10 AM
by Sarah SweenyI have mistakenly stummbled onto this site and was horrified by what I have been reading. You are an anti-semite, oh yes you are.One day you will realize it. Your jeaoulsy and hatred towrads the fact that people of Jewish background happen to be successful in this industry is blinding your senses and your logics. I will try and break it down for you: If I were from India and happened to be a successful owner of a film company it will always be up to me to decide which movies I am willing to support in production. It is also obvious that I will choose the movies based on my cultural/religious/historical background. And don't be surprised that I would not choose movies that promote those who wish to destroy or denounce my very own exsistance, afterall that would be like committing cultural suicide. I am not trying to "control" anything but what I am willing to take part in. This does not mean that every movie would be about India, but on probablity I would assume that those movies with themes that are familiar to me would be more attractive to me. Now if my people had the history of being descriminated against, it would be in my interest to include Indian characters in movies, and normalize a social injustice by showing the world that my people are as good or bad as anyone else. Now, if I love myself as an Indian, and realize that 75% of my people were murdered less then 60 years ago, it is not unlikely that I would hire Indians who happen to be talanted writers, actors and whatever else, as it is my duty to help those who are dear to me, it is a mechanisim of survival of my people. I don't know one person who wouldn't do the same. Now, it just happens to be that Jewish people are of one of the oldest people still surviving- and history shows that things have never been easy on them. I don't blame them for helping one another, I say good for them! Now if I were you I would go to school, become talented,(usually means going through a lot and developing a way to channel that onto an art form) work real hard, save a lot of money, use your brain to invest well, and build your own film company. You can make a movie about whatever you would like, and you wouldn't even have to put a Jewish character in the script. No one would have the right to force you to. of course you would have to hope that you make a commercialy successful movie to compete with what is out there. Hey if you do good then you can buy more, expand, hire more people that benefit your own agenda and grow, just like any person has the right to. Stop with this Jewish thing, you have no idea how uneducated, hateful and jealous you sound. Enough! Grow up!
Re(3): THE PASSION
Posted on January 21, 2003 at 12:18:00 AM
by John ConesSarah:
Actually, your own statements are, in a way, making our point for us. We’ve always said that it does not matter what particular group controls an industry, but that if that group regularly and routinely uses hundreds of identified business practices that can only be described as unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and/or illegal (including massive, although quite sophisticated discrimination), which is the well-documented case in Hollywood, then it is wrong for that group to be allowed to continue to dominate that industry. That would be the case if your hypothetical group of Indians controlled Hollywood, or if any other single group including African-Americans, Native Americans, Italian-Americans, Latinos, Women, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, White males from the American South, or any other group controlled this important entertainment/communications industry. Diversity at the top in such an industry would be even more important if the industry was considered a “significant medium for the communication of ideas” (as so designated by the U.S. Supreme Court) in a democracy based on a free marketplace of ideas, and was being used, in some instances, as a medium for the propaganda of the control group (another long-time observed phenomena of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry). Recognizing, of course, that we at FIRM had no control over who used the above-described business practices over a hundred year period to gain and maintain dominance over the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, that we have merely observed and accurately reported on such control, it is clear to any reasonable person that there is absolutely no prejudice involved in what is presented here. We first observed the clear patterns of bias contained in Hollywood movies over the years and then sought to develop a reasonable explanation for the phenomena (i.e., movies tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers). That being the case, it only makes sense to determine who those “makers” are. You are the one who has turned logic on its head and demonstrated a glaring deficiency of maturity in your ability to reason clearly. Why is that?
Best wishes,
John Cones
Re(4): THE PASSION
Posted on January 21, 2003 at 06:16:35 PM
by sarah SweenyIf you haven't noticed it, United States is a free country. We are a capitalsit society, hense we strive for successful financial and hopefully peaceful life. Private companies have the right to hire who they want. Government owned industries are under laws to hire on a quota. It doesn't matter who owns a private company, they have the right to hire who they want, and if you don't like it stop belly aching and create what you see as a better project. I mean it would be like if we started to look at who owns most of the sports team in the USA? what happens if a lot of the owners are Christians? should we fill that christians are controlling sports? To n=me it would sound like paranoia. Big film companies are not activly seeking to control anything, but because they happen to have accumulated great funds over years of success do to high achivements in this business, they are activly seeking to continue and be successful-they use their money as anyone else would to make bigger and better projects wouldn't you? You or anyone else, we have no right to force a Privatly owned business to do things your way or mine.Unless you believe that the govrnment should take over all privatly owned busnissess and REDESTRIBUTE their personal wealth to you? I am sure you wouldn't like it if someone came to your company and told you that you must spend YOUR money on things that you didn't belive in.That is not the American dream. I am sorry that you are upset that it happens to be that Jewish people happen to have become very successful in this industry-that is where I feel your hate.You spend so much energy on trying to find out everyone's last name to see if they are Jewish or not. Don't you see that as a negative black hole sucking your energy? Don't complain, start your own business, hire your own friends. I have worked for many Jewish people, and have gained much knowledge through them.I don't look at people on the bases of their religion. I suggest you shouldn't either. You must look at all people as if they had no reigion at all.If you could do that perhaps you can see that it is this LOVE that you should strive for.Jewish people at this day an age only make less then 1% of the whole population, (1.5 Billion christains, 1,3 billion muslims-and growing fast, only 11 million Jews)I think they should help their families and friends, otherwise this great people will disappear forever. Now another point I wanted to make. many of these so called "Jewish themed" movies on your list happen to have a Jewsih character in them-so what? Are Jews not part of the world? And for your information Jewish faith is at the base of our "western philosophy" it is impossible to separate us from as a whole from truly being of Jewish background. For Even movies that are based on Jesus like "passaion" deal with oh no "Jewish themes" that of course unless you forgot that Jesus/Joshua was a Jew preaching the old testement and never wanted or claimed to be anything else then a Jewsih teacher.I wander if in your heart you see me in the negative way of being "A JEW LOVER"? You see anything that deals with christains and even some Muslim themes, in the end are truely of Jewish descent. I can go on and yes , I am a writer, with a BA in ancient History, Social science, and philosophy. I happen to be writing a screen play about a man that I studied and became enthraled and amazed with, he happens to be a historical figure and happens to be also mentioned in the old testement. Does this now become a Jewish religious vehicle for you? Even if religion does not play any part in my story? I am curious? Just because the man happens to be a Jewish faith? What I am getting to is if movies that happen to have christmas scenes in them, (which many do)with families celebrating , does this make a film a christian religous vehicle? Don't you think that films are mirrors of our world?
A PASSION FOR ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted on February 21, 2003 at 01:34:50 AM
by AnonymousYour work is anti-semitic because it feels anti-semetic. Logic can be found to justify your concerns, but there are so many injustices. Why this one? Why does it attract you so?
In my high school in Hawaii, you had to be oriental to be a cheerleader, and you couldn't be white and be in the prom court, or probably the student council either. In Hawaii, the majority of government jobs have gone to Japanese Americans since before I was born. Being white, I was also rejected by many retail businesses as an employee, and by landlords.
Like all women, I've had plenty of problems that men don't confront, from not being able to get men to take me seriously to being underpaid to far more serious stuff.
When I was trying to get an internship at KPFA radio in Berkeley, some of the black people there that I happened to be dealing with were cool to me to the point of freezing. The guy running the program wouldn't let me in the first time, but the second time I tried he let me in. I still had to deal with one woman in the hallway with an African headdress who acted like I was dogshit scraped off her shoe.
I guess I could go on, but hey, people survive.
It feels to me like the reason for the focus on Jews is anti-semitism, because surely you are detracting from what you might achieve to satify something inside you that perceives a vulnerable outgroup that you can critize.
As for the reasons you give for your obsession: just because something could be true, doesn't mean that it is.
P.S. TO A PASSION FOR ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted on February 21, 2003 at 02:00:44 AM
by AnonymousAbout my internship at KPFA, I was the only white person in my group of interns(but I was used to that). I got along pretty well with the others in the group (two of them asked me out) and the leader seemed to somewhat warm up to me after a while. He had said that there was no room in the first group of interns but that I had "seemed sincere." In other words, he began to see me as human after a while. I had been totally shocked to be omitted from the first group because I was so well-suited and qualified. All during the time I interned there, the black woman with the African Headdress that I encountered in the hallway continued to regard me with an icy stare best reserved the for the devil incarnate. I had to thaw myself out after I ran into her.
I produced a show that was ultimately fought over by two departments there, and was put on the air.
Prejudice and favoritism does hurt people, and it does stop people but given the choice, would you rather tear down the Jews or succeed yourself? I think you'd rather do the later.
Re(1): P.S. TO A PASSION FOR ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted on March 10, 2003 at 11:42:43 AM
by John ConesDear Anonymous:
Unfortunately, you are mistating what is written here at the FIRM site, which means you are either unable to understand plain English are you are just plain dishonest. There is nothing at this site devoted to "tearing down the Jews". You mistake the very narrow but bonafide criticism of the business-related practices of a small group of political liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage who dominate a relatively small industry based on the West Coast of Caifornia with your much broader, but twisted view of reality. Get a grip!
John Cones
Re(2): P.S. TO A PASSION FOR ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted on March 17, 2003 at 06:04:15 PM
by Marcus DarkcolmThe fact that Arabs and Arab-Americans are Semitic is often not taken into consideration. So therein lies a "...Passion For Anti-Semitism" in the perpetual stereotypical portrayal of them on screen. I mean, even movies that try to portray Arabs in a "good light" (and that is NOT many) consistently flood their films with stereotypes. That's where the anti-Semitism lies, NOT here.
Re(5): THE PASSION
Posted on January 22, 2003 at 11:19:56 AM
by John ConesSarah:
Of course I’ve noticed that the United States is a free country and that we are in a capitalist society. But, if you believe that freedom in society is not limited by our responsibility and duty to others, your history background is not bridging the gap between your idealism and reality. After all, we have anti-trust, securities, criminal and many other laws that provide limits on the freedom of business persons to conduct themselves as they please. We also have standards of honest behavior and fair dealing that apply in business transactions. Further, it is clear that you are firing off your rather wordy comments without actually understanding what has been set forth at the FIRM site. The study relating to the backgrounds of the top three studio executives considered the sex of such executives (male or female), the rather crude and popular concept of race (even though in reality there is only one race – the human race) and the religious/cultural background of these executives (recognizing that, according to other authors who have studied and written about Hollywood, the so-called “Jews of Hollywood” are not very religious at all, but are Jewish in the cultural sense. Further, if you had more carefully read the studies, you would have recognized that we never just set out to determine whether a studio executive was Jewish (as you falsely allege), but what his or her background was as reported in the literature of the industry. With respect to the religious/cultural background of these individuals we found among others, a “Swiss-Protestant”, “Greek Orthodox”, other “Protestants”, a “Gentile”, “non-Jewish”, “Irish-Canadian Protestant”, “part Indian” and “Catholics”. Those reports clearly demonstrate that we were not solely seeking to identify Jews (again, as you recklessly and falsely suggest). Instead, we were simply trying to determine the facts regarding the backgrounds of the studio executives, a perfectly legitimate sociological study, principally based on published reports. When you try to apply “hate” to such a study, that is something that is occurring in your mind. It has no relevance to our study or what is in the minds of those here at FIRM. You have a gap in your thinking and clearly have not made the connection to anything we have written. It is absolutely dishonest on your part to attribute “hate” to someone else, where there is none, and none has been demonstrated.
John Cones
Jaeger, a German name? my last post!
Posted on January 22, 2003 at 06:27:50 PM
by Sarah SweenyI did do some research about you and your views. I even used your tactics as to find out what culture you are decended from. It was not surprising that you are a German. There was my connection to your uncomfortability with the success of Jewish people in the enterainment industry. But of course you are above such things as collective knowledge. If you have a sociology degree-you should understand what I am talking about. Are you willing to tell me that you are immuned, PERFECT?
of any social, cultural, bias? How about your anti-Israel views? not to mention your insticnt to promote your suddenly beloved Arab friend? Did not the Nazi's develop an alliance (really they just used them for their own personal goals of building the "Arian Empire"-they hated them just as much since we all agree that Arabs were far from bolnd blue eyd peoples)with arab nations in order to help them get rid of the "Jewish Problem" You my dear are blind or either think that people are not inteligent enough to see your hate and jelousy. See in me you are messing with someone who sees right through you. I know more about you then you know about yourself! Your lack of success in the film industry is blamed on the Jews, the same way that Geramny scapgoated the Jews in order to find a cause for their lose of WWI and the economical stagnation they were in. Germany used age old anti Jewish sentiment to get to the personal wealth that Jewsih people have earned yes even under the toughest conditions. WHY such success you ask-after researching the history of the Jews (as a History major)I came to conclusion that since education was always the number one drive for this culture, the jump start of 4000 years of reading and writing, studying the world and so on is one that new nations who only became litarate in the last 1500 years is one that will take years to catch up to. It is not only the Jews tha have this jump start, the far east societies of China, and ancient India is also ahead. Hence an amazing amount of top notch education and success is visible by people of that culture. conclusuion. Once more-You are a Nazi and don't even know it. Since you might want to see some proof to my conclusion, I am including an insert from a study that I have done in Religous Sociology: " There have been many different attempts to discover how different knowledge systems are produced by various social and cultural influences - - for example, one might ask how the very discipline of sociology evolved, when and where it did, and why the biographies of its founding fathers (i.e., Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Cooley, Mead, et. al.) overlap as they do. It is notable that many of the great leader Sociologists were of Jewish descent, and were growing up and living in an environment that was extremely hostile to them. It is also known that some of them renounced their religion. Could it be that Marx and Durkheim (both Jewish) were influenced by the increasing Anti-Semitism of their environments, leading to frustration and anger over their undeniable heritage? Collective knowledge, regardless of its relative truth, can pass into the realm of fact with remarkable rapidity. An example: Palestinian schoolbooks reiterate the message that Israel and the Jews are the enemies of the Palestinians, of the Arabs, of Islam, and even of all humanity. Muslims are called upon to engage in Jihad (Holy War) against what they perceive to be the conquerors of Arab soil, meaning that each one must be ready to kill and be killed for the sake of Allah, knowing that anyone who dies in battle for the sake of Allah will be rewarded in paradise. These lessons from books, teachers, and the community are impressed on the minds and sentiments of the Palestinian children by the continual repetition of public rituals surrounding the funerals of slain terrorists, and the glorification of the spilled blood of “the enemy”. These types of historical skews can be commonly found in religion, politics, the scientific community, the entertainment & media, and in other modes of everyday communication, and can be seen to differentially flourish within varying social cultures. By the time that Nazi party took over Germany, for almost 2000 years, novels, books, movies, posters, and plain political propaganda were distributed among the population of Europe,depecting Jews as the killers of christ, rapists of christian german girls and so on. It is not surprising that Europe as a whole had no problem with sending millions of innocent people on trains that brought them to death camps. NEVER IN HUMAN HISTORY has such measures such as building factories with ovens for the annihilation of human life has been seen. Is it possible that years of coloring the Jewish people as monsters, children killers, rapists, and blood sucking vampires, worked into human consciousness? A proof of such transfer of knowledge can be seen transferred to the Arab world by the Nazi regime, with the famous Arab consciousness knowledge that Jews use children’s blood to make dumplings (matzo balls) for their soup. This made up fact is still circling the main News papers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, ect…It just happen to be that the Matzo Ball dumpling is a European recipe, and before WWII the Arab world was not aware that this dumpling even existed.
In part, a healthy skepticism, assuming that social appearances often are not what they seem, is a healthy train of thought, but this may also lead to mistrusting anything and everything, which can drive someone to extreme paranoia. And then this skepticism can used to further one’s personal agenda. But even more, this perspective involves consciousness toward the linkages between history and biography, between social structure and consciousness, and between "knowledge" and its socio-cultural contexts. It is one of this discipline's approaches to critical thinking. The Jewish people are a people ridden with Anxiety -- an anxiety that is causally connected to feelings of insecurity. Due to historical events such as the Diaspora, frequent massacres,and of course the Holocaust, Jews are particularly vulnerable to anxiety; they experience uncertainty and ambiguity as particularly difficult states to bear, and so are often propelled towards instant resolution. Any resolution that puts an end to the uncertainty serves to relieve the anxiety in some way.
The lack of roots, of home, of belonging - the lack of identity, pride, territoriality - these have made many Jews, even when home at last in Israel, feel and behave as if still eternally in exile. this is understandable as Israel is surrounded by enemies who since the before WWII have been attackimg and killing Jews in a measure to weaken any success of the Jewish state becoming once more a home land for the Jewish people. Is it fair to that in today’s politically correct paranoid society, that Israeli patriotism and nationalism are perceived as bad, as racist, they are therefore rejected and suppressed? Arab nationalism and chauvinism are acceptable and accepted -- and thus enjoyed vicariously. Arab "rights" are considered to be inalienable and are enjoyed. Aggression by the Muslims is tolerated and explained away as response to the "occupation", or to Israeli/Jewish "oppression" or even Westernization. Oppression by those who now become designated as the "enemy" and against whom their aggression is ultimately leveled, the ultimate "enemy". It is fair to say that the plague of Jewish self-hatred is more dangerous for the survival of the Jewish people than any outside threat. Recognition of this trend to disavowal of Jewish history leads us to make explicit what has been implicit, i.e. the current relatively pervasive and deep reluctance for taking responsibility for Jewish existence, for Jewish roles and burdens. The Jew as victim, as persecuted, discriminated against, without rights or legal recourse still fits what many see as a balanced, "fitting" state of affairs-this do to 2000 years of normal life with Jewish people existing as the frightened losers of the game. . The Jew as victorious, as victor and authority, asserting dominion over his own land , or business, jurisdiction over its inhabitants, seemingly flouts some subtle rule, upsetting the balance in some undefined system.
I am sorry that Successful Jews upset you so.Oh by the way, I will make sure when my movie gets famous, that I will bring you out to light and make sure that every descent human being of any culture or religion will never ever hire you for your 2nd rate work. When you will see me on your TV,you will remember me, promise.
Sweeny, a German name?
Posted on January 23, 2003 at 03:16:50 AM
by James JaegerSome hefty points there Sara. Keep on truckin'. . .
James Jaeger
What's Your Obsession withJews?
Posted on February 21, 2003 at 01:08:09 AM
by AnonymousYeah, what is your obssession with Jews? Are you anti-semitic? At first I saw one posting Jews, but then I saw more and more. Is there that much to say?
Writer Burnout!
Posted on January 23, 2003 at 11:21:32 AM
by John ConesWow! I guess it is frustrating to be a writer and not be persuasive. The only thing I got from Sarah's contributions was (1) she confused me with James Jaeger, since I was conducting the discussion with her, but all of a sudden she took off on James; (2) the only person who has posted anything approaching hatred at this site was Sarah herself; and (3) Sarah has revealed a prejudice she has against Germans. Some people, just do not get it! We are for diversity at all levels in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. And we are for exposing the truth about Hollywood. We would be most happy to see someone conduct their own study of the diversity or lack thereof at the top among the major studios in Hollywood, but in the meantime, the hysterical rants of people who feel threatened by honesty are just downright embarrassing. Best of luck to Sarah in her future endeavors.
John Cones
Media Consolidation
Posted on February 1, 2003 at 01:42:14 AM
by Jack RooneyMedia Consolidation
a letter to the FCC
by Jack RooneyTo: The Secretary, FCC Commisioners, and Chief, Media Bureau: FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554
From: Jack Rooney
Re: Public Comments Requested at http://www.mediatank.org/fcc_webform2.html
In the Matter of 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review - Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 02-277, (rel. Sept. 23, 2002)
I am writing to you today to comment on Docket No. 02-277, The Biennial Review of the FCC's broadcast media ownership rules. I am an independent media producer, film, radio, and television artist. I own and operate a small independent film and music production studio in Indianapolis, Indiana: Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney. I strongly oppose any further concentration of the media in the hands of the giant corporations who presently dominate the media marketplace.
It is difficult enough for independent artists to market their work to the public when we are at the mercy of a small handful of corporations who control all the outlets for media. I can not even get the local radio stations to play my music http://home.att.net/~JackRooney/mp3downloads.html on the radio in my own hometown, even though I have a very large and established fan base in the international market place. Were it not for the Internet, it is highly unlikely I would be able to sell any of my music or film product by relying on local or national radio and television media to exhibit my work to the public.
Clear Channel, for example, owns the majority of Radio stations in Indianapolis. And Clear Channel promotes those producers and artists who patronize it with advertising dollars and payola, those artists who are under the control of the major record labels, and the majority of these labels and "signed" artists are under control of less than six giant corporate entities, BMI, EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner. These corporations are without exception located in California and New York, and the ideas, attitudes, and beliefs they espouse through selection of entertainment media they choose to promote and exhibit to the public are without question regionally and culturally biased.
But there are more serious and more compelling economic reasons why the media marketplace should be more rigorously regulated and controlled to promote diversity, and the FCC should do everything in it's power to exercise government's Constitutional responsibility and mandate under The Constitution of the United States of America to "regulate commerce" (Section 8, Clause 3) in the best interests of the American people to promote the "general welfare" of the United States (Section 8.).
The media production industry is highly vertically integrated. These media giants dominate, and when they act in concert through their cartel alliance in the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Industry Association of America (MPAA), they effectively have monopoly power in the market for the commercial distribution of entertainment media in the United States. The combined US market share of these five major production distribution companies exceed 85%. Nearly all the major media production companies in the US are corporate affiliates of, or are under direct financial influence of (with advertising dollars spent), and therefore, control of, these five major corporations. The Justice department is now conducting investigations into allegations of monopoly, racketeering, price fixing, restraint of trade, and a variety of violations of federal anti trust law by these corporations and suit has been filed against them recently in California courts alleging much the same thing. I would think that for these reasons alone the FCC would not want to grant these corporations any more permission to further consolidate than they already have. I am a part of a growing segment of the music and film production industry known as "independent artists", artists who are not "signed" under contract with these corporations or any of their affiliates, artists who produce and market our own film and music to the public. There are tens of millions of independent artists like myself throughout the world, all operating at varying degrees of sophistication in their capacity to produce entertainment media, with a high concentration located in the United States, who are not a part of, not represented by, or who have broken away from, the giant media control of the performing arts for moral, financial, and artistic reasons, or who, for whatever reason, have decided not to participate in a system of corporate control of our art which we view as stifling, uncreative, un-inovative, monopolistic, predatory, and corrupt.
But we pay our taxes and we contribute revenue to our federal, state, and local economies. We spend and consume goods and services in the day-to-day management and operation of our business and we create new jobs, both on a long and short term basis, and we promote and support and sustain existing media jobs, both in the physical media manufacturing sector and in the media production and exhibition sector.
Small independent producers and independent artists are one of the major emerging outlets for independently produced records and entertainment media. Individually, the single independent artist may not account for much in terms of record CD sales, DVD and video sales, but collectively, as a total group or class of producer/media product resellers, our total combined sales are staggering. We are the direct competitors of the giant cooperate cartel, the under represented majority segment of the industry the giant corporations do not want you to know about, and our numbers are increasing. But we are locked in a constant struggle for market share with the media giants who correctly view the rising tide of independent artists as a threat to their established business model. They will not play our songs on commercial radio. They will not broadcast our films on the commercial airways. They will not distribute or do anything that would serve to promote our work in the marketplace in competition with their own productions. Any further concentration of media outlets, particularly terrestrial television and radio broadcasting, in the hands of the cartel members will further restrain my ability to market my product to the public.
There are millions of independent artists in America similarly situated whose efforts and activities are routinely stifled and restrained by the giant corporations who control access to the public market by controlling the media that the public relies upon to gain information about available media product.
Today, with advances in imaging and music recording technology and falling costs of this technology that place it in the hands of almost anyone, more and more independent artist are emerging who produce their own work and manufacture and sell their own independently produced CDs, DVDs, films, and videos.
Independent performing artists can now, if they wish, produce their own art, not only their demo songs, but entire albums, music videos, and recordings of live shows, television shows and films, news programs, documentaries, educational programming, and can maintain control over their own recorded masters, their copyrights, their own creative art, and keep their own copyrights intact and then license their own work, exhibit, and sell copies as the market will bear demand for their product. This is a real problem for the cartel members, the major studios and the established broadcast networks. They do not own the rights to product produced by independents, and our rising numbers are having the effect of diminishing major studio market share, cutting into their established corporate bank accounts. Every CD or DVD sale I make is one sale not made by them.
Millions of artists now have the capacity to produce their wares in competition with each other and with the giant studios who have dominated the marketplace for decades, but the cartel conglomerates still control the radio and television exhibition outlets to the world almost exclusively, which restricts the independent producer's access to market.
As little as 10 years ago, it would have been almost impossible for an unsigned music artist or band or television artist to gain a foothold in this marketplace without hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions in capital outlay. Today, many independent artists are doing very well on their own selling CDs, DVD, and streams and downloads on the internet, getting bookings and gigs from the internet, reaching worldwide fan bases from the Internet, and gaining notoriety and fame from the internet, which all translates into money in the pocket of the independent artist and into their local and regional economies, and not into the pocket of the cartel. However, terrestrial broadcasting is still the dominant media exhibition outlet overshadowing the Internet and will almost certainly remain so for the general mass audience for some time to come.
Even though there have been observed downturns in the media industry sales and corporate profit margins among the well established industry players, people are still spending the same amount of money on entertainment as ever (in terms of percentage spent relative to income ratios), which is an 80 billion dollar industry, and this dollars-spent-by-the-consumer figure does not change much up or down outside of normal market fluctuations that respond to the ebb and flow of all interdependent markets - the money is just distributed among a now larger and wider market of artists, the vast majority of which are not signed.
And it is good that independents should now at long last all be allowed to compete against one another and the corporate giants for the public affection and make sales of their art to the public in an open and free marketplace. The more competition, the more artists creating, the more they will each be motivated to strive for higher and higher standards of excellence in their work. And the public will have meaningful choices, and the public will decide what is good art, and the public will be enriched.
But government deregulation of marketplaces under the presumption that the market will regulate itself, such as the proposed relaxing of standards deregulation move now being considered by the FCC, works only for markets where there is a potentially unlimited number of sales outlets in any given market, such as the Internet, where there are an unlimited number of possible broadcast streams that can be made available to the public at any given time. The public airways, on the other hand, as an outlet for media product, is finite. There are only a limited number of bandwidths that can be reasonably assigned for effective broadcasting of terrestrial stations. So the idea that deregulation allowing further consolidation of the finite broadcast station airways will result in greater diversity, better programming, and more jobs in the media sector is pure fallacy. Consolidation of finite sales outlets in the hands of a few results in a less stable marketplace and greater potential for catastrophic collapse of the entire market and subsequent loss of more jobs during unstable or changing economic times, which is exactly what we are witnessing today in the established media industry. When the market is centralized around a few players who control the means of production and distribution and who also create and control media jobs, more people will loose their jobs en mass and more American investors will loose their money en mass when the marketplace changes and the power of production, distribution, and sales is centralized around a few corporations. The market will change. All markets constantly change and evolve, and the media market is changing now. Because of the potential risks involved to consumers, workers, and investors, allowing any further media consolidation is ill advised.
A diverse marketplace makes the entire market more resilient, more flexible, more adaptable to change during inevitable market changes, shifts in technology, fluctuations in supply and demand, and downturns in the economy, such as in a recession or a depression. The national public interest will not be well served by allowing its eggs to be placed in a small handful of baskets. Such a strategy is risky to American media workers, corporate investors, the public, and is dangerous to the national economy.
So in the interests of the public welfare alone, notwithstanding the valid cultural and artistic considerations and implications that have been raised by well-reasoning objectors to media consolidation, the FCC should deny any further requests on the part of the cartel to deregulate and loosen ownership controls presently in place.
The argument of the proponents for media consolidation that the Internet now makes media consolidation less an important issue is only a half-truth. The Internet, as an exhibition outlet for media, is also a vast desert wasteland, with no clear markers or signposts pointing to the refreshing oasis. Traditional media such as radio, television, cable, magazines, newspapers, etc serve as signposts pointing the way to product and are effective public guides because of their ability to advertise and communicate marketing information to the masses. Media consolidation gives the giant corporations unfair advantage over what signposts get posted pointing the way to Internet content. Surely the media giants will not post signs to their competitor's product. So further media consolidation is further counter-indicated because of its ability to unfairly influence, interfere with, and distort public perception regarding quality and availability of media product on the Internet.
The idea that further industry consolidation should be allowed in order to strengthen the United States media industry dominance in the world market place to protect the established US entertainment industry that exports media to the rest of the world against competing nations and foreign producers is also specious. The United States has always been the leading producer of entertainment programming in the world. It will continue to be the leader whether the production/distribution of media is concentrated in the hands of a few or distributed more evenly and more broadly among many competing American producers. The demand for American media will not change much worldwide and may actually increase when competing producers are motivated by competition to create programming and physical product in the form of tapes, CDs, DVDs, and Internet transferable media with more diverse variety. American artists, who are the real producers, the real innovators, the real creators of the media and entertainment programming that the rest of the world finds attractive, will continue to produce and provide the world with as much media programming as the market demands. Diversity in the American media production sector will stimulate variety and increase sales of American media product to the world. It makes little difference economically whether the US exports 100 million copies of media produced by one or two giant corporations or 100 million copies produced by 5 thousand producers. The overall unit export numbers will remain relatively stable and innovation brought about by increased competition among American producers will actually stimulate the development of better product and increase demand for American media in the foreign market. So government has nothing to gain economically from an overall physical media product export standpoint by allowing further media concentration.
In its goals to promote competition, diversity and localism in today's media market, I strongly believe that the FCC should retain all of the current media ownership rules now in question. These rules serve the public interest by limiting the market power of already huge companies in the broadcast industry.
I believe past actions by former FCC administrators, actions that allowed media consolidation in the hands of a few powerful corporations to reach its present state, actions that relaxed the rules regarding limitations on media ownership, were ill conceived and should be re-examined in the light of empirical market realities which may have eluded these past FCC administrators and regulators in their decision making, and corporate control and consolidation of the media should be gradually rolled back to pre-1980 standards, even if this means the large corporations who now control most of the media marketplace will be ultimately compelled to divest some of their ownership interests in the media they now control.
The FCC ought not wait until the anti trust regulators intervene and start dismantling these monopolies when there is clear evidence now of the negative impact of media consolidation, nor should the FCC take any action or acquiesce to any media industry activities or requests that would serve to promote the furtherance of monopoly.
Balance of article at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/fcc_let.htm
Limits of Free Speech
Posted on February 8, 2003 at 06:05:25 PM
by James JaegerADL Praises Major League Baseball for Suspending Umpire Who Made Anti-Semitic Remark
New York, NY, January 31, 2003 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today praised Major League Baseball (MLB) for its "appropriate and swift" decision to suspend a senior umpire for hurling an anti-Semitic epithet at an MLB administrator. The umpire, Bruce Froemming, was suspended for 10 days and pulled from officiating at baseball's opening games in Japan after Major League officials disclosed that he had referred to a female administrator as a "stupid Jew bitch" in a recorded phone message.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
"We commend Major League Baseball for its swift and appropriate decision to suspend Bruce Froemming for hurling an anti-Semitic epithet. Such language is unacceptable, whether uttered in the workplace or on the playing field. There is no place in baseball, or society, for this kind of comment.
"We hope that through his suspension Mr. Froemming will come to understand the hurt he has caused, not just to the individual, but to every person who has felt the pain of a racial or ethnic slur. The injury is worse when such hateful words come from celebrities, sports stars, and others who are looked up to as role models and whose voices have a strong influence on the larger society.
"Major League Baseball, with players of many backgrounds, is in many ways a celebration of our nation's diversity. America's Pastime should not be marred by hateful ethnic slurs."
Source: http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/4226_12.asp
-------------------------------------
Commentary:So by the same token if a Jewish person, or any other person, calls me or you anti-Semitic (a potentially damaging accusation), when we're not but simply criticizing Jewish hegemony, then is that epithet also unacceptable?(1) In other words, is an epithet unacceptable only if it's true, or only if it's false? Suppose the woman discussed in the ADL press release above WAS stupid (her IQ was found to be 50) and she WAS Jewish BUT she is obviously not a bitch (because bitches are dogs) -- is the unacceptable part the fact that she's being misrepresented, that is represented as a dog when in fact she's a homo sapiens, or is it because of the other words or the combination or the intention? What is it? I thought sticks and stone can break my bones but names can never hurt me. Or is this, what we teach our kids, not true? I'm not trying to be facetious here, I'm just trying to get a clear idea where we should allow powerful organizations, such as the ADL, to determine where freedom of speech starts and stops before someone is damaged by equally potent epithets.
I would proffer that calling some one a "stupid Jew bitch" or a "stupid Irish bastard," as tastless and ignorant as it is, is actually LESS damaging than calling someone anti-Semitic -- especially if one works in the motion picture industry.
James Jaeger
--------------
(1) See "The anti-Semitic Sword" at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/shields.htm
Re(1): Limits of Free Speech
Posted on March 17, 2003 at 06:13:39 PM
by Marcus DarkcolmI think the offense lies in the hateful, slanderous implication wrather in factual expression. If being called an anti-Semite harbors the same amount of hatred than it equals the slander of being called a "Stupid Jew Bitch." Also the implication that culture or ethnicity affects intelligence is also extremely insulting. Being anti-semitic could easily influence one's judgement in thought, while ethnicity will not. (Significant only for the insult, the reason why being called anti-Semitic is LESS insulting than being called: "stupid Jew Bitch."
Re(1): Limits of Free Speech
Posted on February 10, 2003 at 04:56:09 PM
by Joe F.So, if I understand you correctly, free speech only applies to non-Jewish people, right?
If Jewish people were to, let's say, form companies that make movies. And, let's say, those companies were so successful that they spawned an entire new industry.
These companies grew to include people from many cultures, but not in ideal, politically-correct percentages.
Well, then, obviously we must step in and stop these Jewish people from expressing their rights.
I'm surprised by your stance on this one, since you've come down so heavily on the side of First Amendment restriction in past posts. This entire site is all about restricting the rights of Hollywood studios.
As for me, I don't necessarily agree with the Froemming suspension, nor would I agree if he were suspended for using the n-word. The way free speech works is simple: Say whatever you please, as it's always better to know your enemy than have him hide amongst you.
Your postings indicate quite clearly your pro-Nazi, anti-semitic bias. It's a good thing you're free to post them, so we know who you are and what you represent.
I'm sorry your buddy Froemming missed out on a trip to Japan. But it's a good thing he didn't use the n-word, or he'd be hauling trash for a living right about now.
Re(2): Limits of Free Speech
Posted on February 11, 2003 at 00:12:45 AM
by James Jaeger>So, if I understand you correctly, free speech only applies to non-Jewish people, right?
Wrong.
>If Jewish people were to, let's say, form companies that make movies. And, let's say, those companies were so successful that they spawned an entire new industry.
They spawned an entire industry through discrimination, predatory and illegal business practices not to mention the fact that they stole Thomas Edison's motion picture camera to kick the whole thing off near the turn of the last century. See FATAL SUBTRACTION, INDECENT EXPOSURE and WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm.Also see class action filed against all the MPAA studios at http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/business/garrison.html
>These companies grew to include people from many cultures, but not in ideal, politically-correct percentages.
No, they don't include people from many cultures at all. The top executive ranks of the major studios are mostly liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage. They have politically-obscene, not politically-correct, percentages of certain people. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist
>Well, then, obviously we must step in and stop these Jewish people from expressing their rights.
If only you new how many times I have heard this exact rhetoric from other Jewish and Hollywood apologists. You are not very original and you are acting like a monolithic entity.
>I'm surprised by your stance on this one, since you've come down so heavily on the side of First Amendment restriction in past posts. This entire site is all about restricting the rights of Hollywood studios.
The studios monopolize major entertainment and communication channels, directly or indirectly. They are restricting other companies' rights. You have it backwards.
>As for me, I don't necessarily agree with the Froemming suspension, nor would I agree if he were suspended for using the n-word. The way free speech works is simple: Say whatever you please, as it's always better to know your enemy than have him hide amongst you.
You mean like you hide behind the name "Joe F"?
>Your postings indicate quite clearly your pro-Nazi, anti-semitic bias.
There it is again, the accusation of anti-Semitism to silence any critical comments about Hollywood. (See "The anti-Semitic Sword" at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/shields.htm) First of all, even if I WERE anti-Semitic, so what? I still have a right to my views. Much of the world is anti-Semitic at this time because people like you use this accusation to silence free speech. Secondly, and for the record, I despise the Nazis, what they represent and what they did to Jews and non-Jews a like. Thirdly, I have nothing at all against Jewish people as individuals and on an individual basis. As a political collective, such as the Jewish Lobby and the AIPAC, I DO have my disagreements in the same way I have disagreements with the Republican and Democratic parties. This is my right, and you have no right to call me anti-Semitic, which implies a whole host of other things relating to the Nazis, etc. or a desire to harm Jewish people. This is false and despicable that you would hint at this just to silence or intimidate me. You should reserve these words to describe the people that conducted atrocities during WWI, not people that are simply trying to reform the American movie industry so that it's an industry that embraces diverse points of view in a democratic society. If you are Jewish, you should be ashamed of yourself because you disgrace your own people.
>It's a good thing you're free to post them, so we know who you are and what you represent.
. . . while we have no idea who YOU are or who YOU represent because you're hiding behind the name "Joe F". What's your real_name and what's your real email? Bet I don't hear from you on this.
>I'm sorry your buddy Froemming missed out on a trip to Japan. But it's a good thing he didn't use the n-word, or he'd be hauling trash for a living right about now.
Who's Froemming?
James Jaeger
Re(3): Limits of Free Speech
Posted on February 11, 2003 at 10:31:29 PM
by Joe F.Herr Froemming is the baseball umpire you were defending in your last post. Are you one of those weird people with that short-term memory disorder?
This is apparently Nazi web territory, and, according to your other post today, you've just issued some sort of fence-sitter jihad to your minions. I'd be a fool to post identifying information. You and your Nazi punks would probably sue me for not hiring a culturally diverse firm to clear the snow from my driveway.
You just don't get it, Jaeger. People are independent from the limited amount they share from their cultural backgrounds.
I came to the anti-semitic conclusions based on my own observations. No one pointed me here, no one told me what to say. In fact, I've never read what these groups write. Is it possible that so many people conclude that you're an anti-semitic crybaby because, well, you are one?
You admit you hold anti-semitic beliefs. And that is your right. As it is mine to read what you write and make the same conclusions many others have made.
I'm sure your court cases will lose, just as I'm sure you and your friends make lousy films. Why do I know this? Because that's how the entertainment business works. It's customer-driven. Money talks. If you and your friends made good films, they'd be out there.
That's why it's clear that you and your minions are just a bunch of wannabes who choose to blame your failures on the Jews rather than yourselves, marching in lock-step with countless others who worry more about race than individuality.
You're weak and powerless, and have chosen to enslave yourselves to the court system. Stupid Nazi Jaeger, you will never make anything of yourself until you look within and understand there's no conspiracy to hold you down - unless you're counting your own campaign.
How pathetic a figure. Deluding yourself that you actually could make a good film if only the Jews weren't around. I guess that's better than admitting you're a total failure as a filmmaker and a man.
To You Fence Sitters
Posted on February 11, 2003 at 00:41:08 AM
by James JaegerYou know who you are.
You have been reading the material and arguments here at FIRM for quite a while. You agree with what is being said and you have experienced much of it for yourself. You might have even read a few books on the subject . . . yet you sit there reading and watching in fear or auto-wreck amusement.
You are despicable. You are placing the hope of a successful career in a corrupt business above your integrity. You are scared to speak up because you are leery about being labeled anti-Semitic or some other thing designed to intimidate and silence you. I have news for you, even if you DO succeed in the film business by hiding your real feelings and cowardice, you will never be much of a filmmaker or an artist, for a filmmaker and an artist is first and foremost a communicator. The fact that you know that what we say here at FIRM is true, yet you say nothing in support, proves that you are no communicator and proves that you are no artist, for an artist seeks and reveals the truth . . . no matter what the personal cost. S/he does not hide or sit on the fence when s/he sees an honest effort -- what could be one of the most important reform movements we cold have in a democratic society -- get assailed by industry apologists and people that are still fighting some long-past war.
I hope you -- and again you know who you are -- reconsider your silence and find the courage to speak up when you know you should and can make a difference.
James Jaeger
Re(1): To You Fence Sitters
Posted on March 24, 2003 at 05:30:48 PM
by James JaegerIt's heart-warming to receive a responce from 78,427 former fence-sitters all pledging to get off the fence and change Hollywood.
Thanks.
James Jaeger
P.S. The above is what I wish I could report.
French View of Hollywood
Posted on February 20, 2003 at 00:36:11 AM
by Jim JenksThe Jewish Lobby has been very active in defaming France lately for its alleged resurgence of "anti-Semitism" and its refusal to go along with the Jewish-directed U.S. attack on Iraq.
What do you think the subtext to the following article might be? Who makes most of these garage American movies?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2779983.stm
French hit out at US cinema
French directiors and intellectuals say American films are producing a generation of "stupid children" in the country.
As is the case in most countries around the world, the majority of films shown in French cinemas are American.
But a number of French critics are attacking Hollywood movies for what they see as a poverty of ideas, which in turn is having an adverse effect on the country's children.
In particular, they single out high-profile special effects-driven blockbusters as responsible.
"If the technology is controlling us, it will transform us into stupid children, and in a way, part of the American cinema does that," French director Bertrand Tavernier told the BBC World Service's Meridian Masterpiece programme.
'Art is dead'
"I go very often to schools, and I have found a lot of young kids have difficulties in analysing a concept, an idea, in a film."
He added that now children only went to films to see the special effects.
"They are enjoying the technology. They are able to watch, very easily, if a special effect is good or bad, if it is well done.
"They will admire very much how the Nazi officer is blowing up the brains of somebody in Schindler's List, they say 'oh that's very well done, it's exciting.'."
American arts writer Peter Pullman, who was born in New York but now lives in Paris, agrees.
"The great art that my country produced - I suspect that those movements are dead," Pullman said.
American 'non-culture'
"I don't see anything coming out of my country in the cinema that has anything anywhere near the inventive quotient that the cinema did of the past.
"If we look at what the United States is exporting to the world that is creative, it has to do with computer, it has to do with software, it has to do with other kinds of technology - not the ideas."
But Phillipe Rogier, author of L'Enemie Americain, said the French were not willingly accepting the increase in American culture in their society.
"The French would not call it a culture - it is a non-culture, a non-civilisation, just a way of life," Rogier contends.
"This has been central to French attitudes towards America.
"As early as 1927, the French Government had made a failed attempt at limiting the number of American movies being shown in France."
Ultimately, Tavernier insists, the films are the first step of an American takeover of France.
"The Americans understood that if they are forcing the people to see the film, the people who see the film will buy the product - they will buy hamburgers, they will buy Coca-Cola, they will buy the clothes - and maybe they will buy their policy," he said.
"They always understood that the first way to occupy a country was to impose their films."
Logical Fallacies
Posted on March 13, 2003 at 03:13:30 PM
by John ConesMost of the statements made by the so-called "loyal oppostion" to FIRM and the research undertaken by FIRM relating to Hollywood fall into one category of logical fallacy or another. These logical fallacies have been catalogued and described in great detail at
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Anyone who wants to think more clearly about any subject would benefit from visiting this site and becoming familiar with the various fallacies described there. Good luck.
John Cones
What are you going to do?
Posted on March 17, 2003 at 07:04:41 AM
by tharsaileJames, it's good to know you're alive and well. After your (and Jim Jenks') disappearance from the AI forum, I was beginning to think the Jews finally got ahold of your Precious Bodily Fluids. But I see you have a (relatively) more appropriate forum here to complain about the preponderance of Jews in Hollywood.
John Cones, you write very well. Like many lawyers, you can write rings around the average Joe. Unfortunately, you're devoting your energy to something that most of the rest of us find ridiculous. Do you really think you're going to free Hollywood from the perceived clutches of Eisner, Spielberg, and Dassin? Jews are going to continue to force bad films on the gentiles, as it's a necessary step toward world domination, mwah hah, hah. Seriously, you guys are full of it.
Re(1): What are you going to do?
Posted on March 22, 2003 at 07:46:48 PM
by James JaegerTharsaile,
As I've said many times, the issue is not about "Jews running Hollywood." I wish it were, because then it would be a simple issue to understand. The issue is about the fact that a narrow demographic controls the most powerful communications machine yet devised. As John Cones' research indicates, the group that controls this machine is politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage. Everyone wants to focus on that word "Jewish," as if this observation is meant to be an assault on Jews. It's not. It's an assault on lack of diversity and that's all. If Hollywood were run by politically conservative, religious, Christian females of African heritage we would have the same problem in Hollywood -- only, in this scenario, the lack of diversity would effect people like liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage because THEY would be inhibited in getting THEIR terific movies greenlit and their terific ideas out.
I know you get it, I'm just not sure why you want to make the issue into something other than it is.
Now as far as Jim Jenks and his thesis: He, nor his research, have anything to do with the mission of FIRM. HE has been studying broader Jewish culture and HE has found that many of the issues of Jewish hegemony are tangential to what's going on in the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry. Whether his work is valid or not is currently being debated on a number of forums including at his website www.jewishtribalreview.org. Since I don't claim to be a Jewish scholar, I cannot say with any certainty whether his research and thesis is correct. I DO applaud his courage in tackling this taboo subject and reserve the right to give him platform as an independent producer -- however, again, let me make it clear that none of this has anything to do with FIRM or its mission.
Getting back to FIRM, if you are interested in film affairs, you might consider reading John Cones' book, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD, a free copy at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm.This book gives a good overview of Hollywood and some of its history. John has also published several other books, one of which is quickly becoming the bible in the film industry as far as distribution is concerned. The book is THE FEATURE FILM DISTRIBUTION DEAL and you can get it at Amazon.
Take Care.
James
P.S. I may post over at Ray's AI site sometime in the future when I feel I have something to contribute.
Re(1): What are you going to do?
Posted on March 20, 2003 at 12:06:51 AM
by John ConesTharsaile:
The FIRM site will continue to work for diversity at all levels in the Hollywood-based U.S. industry. Have a nice day!
John Cones
Michael Moore's Oscar Comments
Posted on March 24, 2003 at 05:22:11 PM
by James JaegerIt was revealing to watch how the crowd at the 2003 OSCAR CERIMONY reacted to Michael Moore's politically-oriented blurbs.
When Michael questioned the legitimacy of Bush's Republican presidency in light of the tie election, the crowd clapped. But two seconds after he went on to denounce the war in Iraq, the crowd started BOOing.
This exercise demonstrates that the Hollywood elite is indeed comprised of liberal Democrats. It also demonstrates that the crowd is in favor of bombing Arab/Muslims out of existence in the name of "security." Gee, I wonder why?
James Jaeger
Re(1): Michael Moore's Oscar Comments
Posted on April 6, 2003 at 01:56:31 AM
by George ShelpsMoore revealed himself to be the left-wing ranter that he always has been. Our cause in Iraq is heroic and magnificent as we rid the world of a low-rent Hitler.
Changing the Industry
Posted on March 26, 2003 at 11:21:36 AM
by John Cones"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
Re(1): Changing the Industry
Posted on April 2, 2003 at 01:07:14 PM
by Molly M.The problems you describe in your book should be of major interest and concern to every American citizen. It seems to me that several of the "media watchdog" organizations would be interested in pursuing an investigation based on the detailed information you provide. They would then be in a position to present their findings to our government leaders and the general public in high-profile forums they have access to that could not be ignored. Have you contacted them for help in revealing these problems in the motion picture and television industries? Have our elected government representatives been made aware?
It is very curious to me, given the seriousness of the current situation as you describe it, that nobody else has issued an investigative report on the subject. On a matter of such great importance I would expect a large number of discussions and reports in venues nationwide. It is high time that a top-level, open discussion is begun on these matters so the American public can decide if the sources of its information are being controlled improperly.
Re(2): Changing the Industry
Posted on April 6, 2003 at 12:58:04 AM
by John ConesMolly:
Unfortunately, not all subjects can be openly discussed in this country.
John Cones
RE: changing the industry
Posted on April 9, 2003 at 10:57:27 PM
by Mitchell LevineJames,
Simply claiming not to be antisemitic doesn't prevent you from perceived as such when your actions belie your words. Nor does hiding behind pseudo-libertarian rhetoric make you moderate nor progressive when the implications of your assertions clearly indicate otherwise.
True, you do an admirable job of trying to mask your bigotry by cloaking it in the guise of moderate rhetoric. But let's take a look at what you are in reality proposing.
For one, Hollywood's "changing" would require that we have a federal take-over of the film business, the import of which would be to remove whatever you would consider to be the "excess" of Jews in key administrative posts. Since you state that your polemic is only directed towards "two dozen not-very-religious Jewish males of Eastern European extraction," the above is all that could be done. Simply getting them to hire non-Jews wouldn't do the trick, since it's apparently their posts specifically that you are referring to. This would set the very unconstitutional precedent that business ownership should be permitted only on a religious quota system - a system that would single out Jews exclusively, because it appears that it's only "overrepresentation" of Jews that gets your dander up. I don't see you complaining about the sinister domination of our police forces by the Irish, for example. In fact, if the Irish now "controlled" the media in the same fashion you claim the Jews do, you would be rather unlikely to devote a website to the matter. Jews must be pretty bad if they are the only group whose right to own and administrate businesses should be restricted on moral grounds. Please note that this is not an equal opportunity question, because we are discussing not the overall percentage of Jews the studios employ (statistics I doubt you've consulted), but merely those in the highest executive positions.
Film studios are not public institutions; they are private businesses that individuals of any ethnic extraction are perfectly eligible to establish and manage. Not having your screenplay produced is not a violation of your constitutional rights, because you do not have a right to have your scripts bought nor produced. A right to speak is not the same thing as a right to be heard. Private businesses like the studios are absolutely within their rights to purchase and produce whatever they think is interesting and, more importantly, will make money. Of course, if what you're advocating is that private investors finance new studios whose charters forbid the hiring of Jewish executives or the production of scripts written by Jewish screenwriters, instead of the equivalent of an economic pogrom that would set civil rights back 40 years by re-establishing quotas, then maybe you'd be progressive. But, on the other hand, that would still entail restricting people on the basis of religion. And I highly doubt that's what you would like to see anyhow.
In the "desegregation" era that you desire, how would you propose that it be determined which Jewish executives should be extirpated? By whichever ones are the most Jewish?
In fact, your refusal to comment on how you'd like this "problem" be dealt with is a rather cowardly attempt to fly under the radar of the social stigma attached to outspoken bigotry. In principle, whatever solution you could implement to address your grievances would be a highly discriminatory precedent completely at odds with the Bill of Rights. If this isn't so, please tell me exactly what you think should be done, and why it isn't so. I won't hold my breath.
By the way, being called antisemitic is not the equal of an ethnic slur, as the former is a description of what someone does, which is potentially modifiable, while the latter refers to what someone is, which cannot be changed. Only you know what is in your heart. Everyone else has to interpret what you say and do.
And, finally, to the idiot some time ago in the posts that actually perpetuated the antisemitic lie that the word "goyim" means "cattle": You should know that the canard you are helping to spread is a propaganda myth promoted almost entirely by Neo-nazi sites. "Goyim" is a Hebrew term meaning "nation" that appears in The Old Testament; i.e., the Assyrians, Hittites, and other nations beside the Israelites, and therefore, a non-Jew. Look it up. Please stop popularizing that bit of antisemitica.
Re(1): RE: changing the industry
Posted on April 10, 2003 at 12:40:10 AM
by John ConesMitchell:
Gee, Mitchell, why don't you just tell us what you think is wrong with our seeking diversity at all levels in Hollywood, which is our real objective, as opposed to exaggerating and misstating our objectives, so you can waste your time coming up with arguments to knock down the straw men you erect for that purpose?
John Cones
Re(1): RE: changing the industry
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 05:34:37 PM
by James Jaeger>James, Simply claiming not to be antisemitic doesn't prevent you from perceived as such when your actions belie your words. Nor does hiding behind pseudo-libertarian rhetoric make you moderate nor progressive when the implications of your assertions clearly indicate otherwise.
Mitchell, I'm not that concerned whether or not I'm perceived as anti-Semitic. Who or what I may be is irrelevant to the issues of the observable lack of diversity in the top ranks of the movie industry. In several years of argument/discussion I have learned that no matter WHAT is said or how I say it, there will always be some who will accuse me of being anti-Semitic in order to abridge my free speech or obfuscate the valid issues. Your commentary is just another garden-variety assault along these lines with the not-so-original twist that you are trying to differentiate hence alienate me with John Cones. All this has been tried before. I agree with John's research and observations, no more, no less.
>True, you do an admirable job of trying to mask your bigotry by cloaking it in the guise of moderate rhetoric. But let's take a look at what you are in reality proposing.
Gee thanks.
>For one, Hollywood's "changing" would require that we have a federal take-over of the film business, the import of which would be to remove whatever you would consider to be the "excess" of Jews in key administrative posts.
Maybe this would be your solution, but please don't ascribe it to me. I have written on this site and elsewhere many times that I am not in favor of this kind of a "remedy" for Hollywood.
>Since you state that your polemic is only directed towards "two dozen not-very-religious Jewish males of Eastern European extraction," the above is all that could be done. Simply getting them to hire non-Jews wouldn't do the trick, since it's apparently their posts specifically that you are referring to.
Given the incredibly narrow demographic of the top studio ranks over the past 90-some years, it's doubtful that rampant discrimination is NOT going on in the studios. Since discrimination violates equal opportunity hiring practices, it's a violation of the law and therefore actionable. The remedy is not up to ME to decide, it's up to a court of competent jurisdiction and a jury to decide.
>This would set the very unconstitutional precedent that business ownership should be permitted only on a religious quota system - a system that would single out Jews exclusively, because it appears that it's only "overrepresentation" of Jews that gets your dander up.
You are setting up a straw argument here. See above.
>I don't see you complaining about the sinister domination of our police forces by the Irish, for example. In fact, if the Irish now "controlled" the media in the same fashion you claim the Jews do, you would be rather unlikely to devote a website to the matter.
Since I'm not an expert on police forces, nor am I that concerned about them, it's perfectly reasonable that I am not as vocal on this subject. I DO feel that lack of diversity, or discrimination, in ANY industry, or in connection with any race or religion, including Jewish people, is not acceptable. Perhaps if Hollywood finds itself greenlighting my films I would make movies that showcased this sentiment.
>Jews must be pretty bad if they are the only group whose right to own and administrate businesses should be restricted on moral grounds. Please note that this is not an equal opportunity question, because we are discussing not the overall percentage of Jews the studios employ (statistics I doubt you've consulted), but merely those in the highest executive positions.
It's true, the top studio executives SEEM to be increasingly sensitive to employing people in the trades more than in past years, and I applaud that, but the real acid-test is this: When will we see a bunch of disenfranchised people, men and women, employed as President & CEO of, say a WARNER BROS. or as Chairman of a DISNEY? When will I see an Opra Winfrey in one of these positions? When we see THAT, a real change is in the air in the power structure of Hollywood. Anything else is placation.
>Film studios are not public institutions; they are private businesses that individuals of any ethnic extraction are perfectly eligible to establish and manage.
Unless ownership has recently changed, the MPAA studio/distributors are for the most part publicly-held entities.
>Not having your screenplay produced is not a violation of your constitutional rights, because you do not have a right to have your scripts bought nor produced.
Gee, thanks for informing me on that, I thought I had a GOD-GIVEN right to be financed up to any sum required, including a billion dollars for my new picture entitled, MY PET DOG.
>A right to speak is not the same thing as a right to be heard.
Everybody has as much of a right to speak as they have to be heard. But then I wouldn't expect you to understand this.
>Private businesses like the studios are absolutely within their rights to purchase and produce whatever they think is interesting and, more importantly, will make money.
Money is often not the motivation. John Cones covers this in his on-line free book entitled WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD! at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/whats.htm
>Of course, if what you're advocating is that private investors finance new studios whose charters forbid the hiring of Jewish executives or the production of scripts written by Jewish screenwriters, instead of the equivalent of an economic pogrom that would set civil rights back 40 years by re-establishing quotas, then maybe you'd be progressive.
As I have said many times, I don't think government action is the answer, nor do I feel any sort of a religious or racial quota system is the answer. The answer lies more in the direction of a) disenfranchised groups getting off their butts and financing/building their own competing studios and b) bringing to justice any employers or boards of directors of existing studios that practice, or condone, discrimination in their organizations.
>But, on the other hand, that would still entail restricting people on the basis of religion. And I highly doubt that's what you would like to see anyhow.
I feel the most qualified person should get the jobs no matter what race, religion, sex or political affiliation they are. When you have long-term statistics such as the ones posted at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist it's difficult to imagine anything other than discrimination going on. The only other possible "explanation" for these stats is to say that all these liberal, not-very-religious Jewish males of European heritage are simply more able than all other demographics, thus they EARNED and DESERVE the positions over all others. But if one says this, aren't they being elitist? I mean, to say that the only people able enough to make good movies are liberal, not-very-religious Jewish males of European heritage is sort of elitist, don't you think? Or do you say that they got the jobs because they WERE the only ones qualified? You don't think that Irishman can run a major studio JUST as well?
>In the "desegregation" era that you desire, how would you propose that it be determined which Jewish executives should be extirpated? By whichever ones are the most Jewish?
Boy are you getting off on the contorted extrapolations of what you fantasize must be in my mind.
>In fact, your refusal to comment on how you'd like this "problem" be dealt with is a rather cowardly attempt to fly under the radar of the social stigma attached to outspoken bigotry.
As I have said, I have gone into this and I HAVE expressed much the same as I have expressed above.
>In principle, whatever solution you could implement to address your grievances would be a highly discriminatory precedent completely at odds with the Bill of Rights. If this isn't so, please tell me exactly what you think should be done, and why it isn't so.
See above.
>I won't hold my breath.
Take a breath and calm down Mitchell.
>By the way, being called antisemitic is not the equal of an ethnic slur, as the former is a description of what someone does, which is potentially modifiable, while the latter refers to what someone is, which cannot be changed.
Well I guess we'll all have to see as time goes on. In the meantime if you want to have some fun, why don't you try digging up all/some of the people I have ever come into contact with in Hollywood over the past 25 years and see how many of them will bear witness to your assertions.
>Only you know what is in your heart. Everyone else has to interpret what you say and do.
True, and if I have not been as clear as I could have been, I apologize and will attempt to do better.
>And, finally, to the idiot some time ago in the posts that actually perpetuated the antisemitic lie that the word "goyim" means "cattle": You should know that the canard you are helping to spread is a propaganda myth promoted almost entirely by Neo-nazi sites. "Goyim" is a Hebrew term meaning "nation" that appears in The Old Testament; i.e., the Assyrians, Hittites, and other nations beside the Israelites, and therefore, a non-Jew. Look it up. Please stop popularizing that bit of antisemitica.
Okay, thanks for the heads up on that. I will look into it and correct any misinformation that I may have put out.
James Jaeger
Re(2): RE: changing the industry
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 00:17:46 AM
by Mitchell LevineBecause, John, on the basis of what I see on the site, your real goal doesn't appear to be promoting diversity, but rather eliminating Jews. If that's not true, then why does your site attract the fan club it does? As you may have noticed, besides yourself, most of the posters are raving, delirious bigots, many of whom may be legally incompetent.
You don't find that much on sites that truly promote diversity, a cause I'd be more than happy to devote my life to. I understand that it's not your fault: It's just an indicator. No disrespect intended to you.
Re(3): RE: changing the industry
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 10:28:06 AM
by Moishe GoyimYOU SAY: your real goal doesn't appear to be promoting diversity, but rather eliminating Jews.
RESPONSE: This is the usual Jewish paradigm, and it IS stereotypical.
Look at Levine's choice of language: "eliminate Jews." Hmmm. What's the subtext to this choice of words? It's a subtle way to toxify the debate about Jewish hegemony in Hollywood, or anywhere.
It's a subversive way to restrict public discussion.
YOU SAY: If that's not true, then why does your site attract the fan club it does?
RESPONSE: The "fan club" is mostly Jews like you who pathologize ANY criticism of Jewry whatsoever (or even a handful of them) as "racism," "bigotry," and "anti-Semitism."
I don't let you get away with that.
YOU SAY: As you may have noticed, besides yourself, most of the posters are raving, delirious bigots, many of whom may be legally incompetent.
RESPONSE: Those delirious -- and delusional -- are guys like you. That said, using your form of argument (a wild smear), what is intellectually stated? Nothing.
YOU SAY: You don't find that much on sites that truly promote diversity, a cause I'd be more than happy to devote my life to. I understand that it's not your fault: It's just an indicator. No disrespect intended to you.
RESPONSE: The "indicator" is that people are getting fed up with Jewish dissimulation like yours. Jews are crammed to the top of the boat of Hollywood, and to point this out for you is "bigotry." You want "diversity," but you don't want Jews "eliminated." What a scamster! You are a defender of the Jewish Collective, and a primo manipulator in your attempt to toxify justified criticism of Jewish ethnocentric networking and racism.
Re(3): RE: changing the industry
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 03:21:40 AM
by George ShelpsJJ (Jim Jenks) is beyond the pale and beneath contempt...however,there is nothing new in the Cones/Jaeger idea that the movie industry has a large number of decision-makers who happen to be Jewish.
The studios (with the exception of Disney) were founded by Jews and I think the public is well-aware of that fact.
So why keep repeating what everyone knows??
It's like saying that the civil rights movement was founded by African-Americans and repeating that over and over and over. Why?
The ethnicity of who runs Hollywood should be of zero interest to anyone trying to enter the field of movies.
If you think you have the talent and the business sense (both are necessary), then plow ahead. If you find legally actionable discrmination, consult an attorney.
Otherwise, shut up and make movies!
Re(4): RE: changing the industry
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 10:33:42 AM
by Moishe GoyimYOU SAY: JJ (Jim Jenks) is beyond the pale and beneath contempt...
RESPONSE: You are a two-headed beast. An animal feasting in its own dung. A bat from Hell. So? That's a good argument?
YOU SAY: It's like saying that the civil rights movement was founded by African-Americans and repeating that over and over and over. Why?
RESPONSE: Mr. Shlep's ignorance is brutal. The NAACP was not founded by African-Americans. It was founded by a group of "whites," and those in control (Joel Spingarn, etc.) just happened to be Jewish. Surprise!
YOU SAY: The ethnicity of who runs Hollywood should be of zero interest to anyone trying to enter the field of movies.
RESPONSE: In the same way that ethnicity should be irrelevant to the Jewish American beacon: Israel?
Re(5): RE: changing the industry
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 06:06:06 PM
by George ShelpsYOU SAY: JJ is beyond the pale and beneath contempt... RESPONSE: You are a two-headed beast. An animal feasting in its own dung. A bat from Hell.
So? That's a good argument?
REPLY: There's no arguing with someonewhose basic premises are flawed, namely,a monolithic and negatively-biased interpretation of the Jewish concept of "Choseness.
"Jaeger and Cones at least begin with a fact, that a very large number of movie industry decision-makers are Jewish and share other cultural traits, but they don't proceed to trash Jews and Judaism as you do. I happen to think they are alarmed over nothing. Ethnic and political - social groups have always congregated. If there's no evidence of legally actionable discrimination, then each individual should proceed to write his scripts and make his movies and to hell with the political, social, religious, or ethnic status of the movie industry.
YOU SAY: It's like saying that the civil rights movement was founded by African-Americans and repeating that over and over and over. Why?
RESPONSE: Mr. Shlep's ignorance is brutal. The NAACP was not founded by African-Americans. It was founded by a group of "whites," and those in control (Joel Spingarn, etc.) just happened to be Jewish. Surprise!
REPLY: I referred to the civil rights movement as a whole, not just the NAACP.
YOU SAY: The ethnicity of who runs Hollywood should be of zero interest to anyone trying to enter the field of movies. RESPONSE: In the same way that ethnicity should be irrelevant to the Jewish American beacon: Israel?
REPLY: Israel is a nation, the movie industry is a business enterprise. In a business enterprise, money and brains ultimately trump ethnicity.
Re(6): RE: changing the industry
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 07:00:14 PM
by Moishe GoyimYOU SAY: There's no arguing with someonewhose basic premises are flawed, namely,a monolithic and negatively-biased interpretation of the Jewish concept of "Choseness."Jaeger and Cones at least begin witha fact, that a very large number ofmovie industry decision-makers are Jewish and share other cultural traits, but they don't proceed totrash Jews and Judaism as you do.I happen to think they are alarmedover nothing. Ethnic and political- social groups have always congregated.
RESPONSE: This "ethnic" group has one of the world's strongest armies, a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and hundreds of nuclear bombs. And they are leading us all to Armageddon. They also happen to dominate Hollywood. It's wake up time.
YOU SAY: If there's no evidence of legally actionable discrimination, then each individual should proceed to write his scripts and make his movies and to hell with the political, social, religious, or ethnic status of the movie industry.
RESPONSE: By your logic, if an Aryan power group builds power and takes over Hollywood, you don't care. All you care about would be sharpening your pencil. Please.
YOU SAY: I referred to the civil rightsmovement as a whole, not just the NAACP.
RESPONSE: Where do you locate the political organization origin of the civil rights movement? Also, Jews have been pre-eminent at the helm of the African-American rights movement. A Jewish former communist wrote Martin Luther King's speeches for him. Etc. Etc. Etc. YOU SAY: Israel is a nation, the movieindustry is a business enterprise.
RESPONSE: The closure? Both are Judeocentric. When Seinfeld goes over to lead in Israel's "birthday" celebration, we see a typical example of that closure.
YOU SAY: In a business enterprise, money and brainsultimately trump ethnicity.
RESPONSE: In virtually any business context, nepotism, familial networking, friendship exchange, personal associations, etc. are a foundation of tiers of power.
This is so obvious, it is laughable how you try to obfuscate it.
RE: last post
Posted on April 10, 2003 at 03:40:14 PM
by Mitchell LevineI actually meant to respond to the "What are you going to do?" thread in my last post. I apologize if that created any confusion, as my comments were directed to James Jaeger in that series of posts, and not John Cones.
Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 10, 2003 at 11:29:09 PM
by Mitchell LevineAs I mentioned, John, I was actually replying specifically to one of James's recent posts. I mistakenly mis-labeled my message, and my comments refer to Jaeger's remarks in that thread only. In general, your posts have the reasoned tone of a show business attorney, while his have that of a broadsheet from the Institute for Historical Review. That is what I am responding to, and that alone.
On the other hand, I notice that neither of you have taken up my challenge to describe precisely what means you actually recommend to address the problem of putative Jewish "over-representation" in top industry administration. From what I gather from reading James, both on-site here and elsewhere, he certainly doesn't seem to feel that the answer is simply convincing the studios to hire fewer Jews for their key posts. If I'm misguided in this judgement, I apologize in advance, but the easiest way to correct my apparent mis-apprehension would be to explicitly articulate exactly what your suggestion for a gameplan would be. I've never seen either of you discuss any concrete solution, although it is true that I haven't been able to read through the archives exhaustively.
Just to lay my own cards on the table, I would definitely like to see more diversity in Hollywood and everywhere else, regardless of my own ethnicity.
Quick question: is it you or James that refers to Judaism as a "supra-political party"? I haven't been able to find that post in a while, quite possibly because Jaeger's been banned from so many sites for what is perceived as his "hate spam."
Re(1): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 11, 2003 at 11:35:16 AM
by John ConesMitchell:
I understand. Back when I originally did the research and wrote the books on which the FIRM positions are based, the last book I wrote was entitled "Motion Picture Industry Reform". The table of contents for that book follows:
Introduction/Overview . 1
Getting Better Information (Research Projects) . . 2
Chapter 1--Competing in the Present Environment . . 3
Chapter 2--Changing the Hollywood System . . 433
Lower the Cost of Production . . . 433
The Medved Remedy Package . . . 434
The Illusory Positive Rewards of Awards Ceremonies . 436
Stop the Churning in Their Guts . . . 437
Negotiating for Third Party Collecting and Disbursing Agents . . 437
Censorship Has Never Been the Right Answer . 437Chapter 3--Organizing for Collective Action . . 443
Major Studio Minority Shareholders Group . 443
Pattern of Bias Coalition . . 443
Media Watchdog Groups . . . 444
Cultural Environment Movement . . 444
Association Study Group . . . 446
Independent Producers Association . 446
Association of Entertainment Lawyers and Accountants 449
Profit Participants' Association . . . 450
Political Activism . . . . 451
Nationwide Boycotts . . . . 453Chapter 4--Law Enforcement . . . . 455
Lobbying for Antitrust Enforcement . .455
The Application of RICO . . . . 457
A Laundry List of Possible Crimes . . . 463
Support Your Local District Attorney . . 466Chapter 5--The Legislative Remedy . . .467
Legislative Policy/Encouraging Diversity of Ideas 467
Create a U.S. Film Commission . . 470
Demand a Congressional Investigation . . 471
Lobby for a Free Marketplace, Diversity of Ideas and a Better Society . 472
Seek Strong Antitrust Laws . . . 472
Pass a Motion Picture Industry Fair Practices Act . 472
Prohibit Economic Abuses . . . 472
A Federal Anti-Blind Bidding Provision 473
Impose Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 473
Legislate for Third Party Collecting and Disbursing Agents 473
Require "Firm Term" Distributors . . 473
Eliminate Tax Breaks for the Film Industry's Rich 474
Modify the Copyright Laws . . . 474
Continue to Prohibit Block Booking, but Expand Definition 474
Eliminate Attorney/Agent Packaging and Other Conflicts of Interest 474
Prohibit All Vertical Integration in the Film Industry 474
Impose Rules Relating to Fiduciary Relationships 475
Impose a Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 476
Prohibit Studio Film Suppression . . 476
Reform the Motion Picture Ratings System . 476
Establish Affirmative Action Programs . . 477
Make Job Discrimination a Criminal Offense . 478Chapter 6--The Litigation Remedy . . . 479
Checking the Books 479
Litigation Budget 479
Turning Down the Settlements . . . 479
Publicizing Distributor Litigation . . 480
Litigation by Stockholders . . . 480
The Defamation Lawsuit 480
Class Action Lawsuits 480Summary and Conclusion 481
Appendix
The Motion Picture Industry Fair Practices Act . . A
Amendment to California Agents law . . . B
Film Industry Research Questions . . . CJohn Cones
Re(1): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 08:25:04 PM
by Jim JenksYOU SAY: In general, your posts have the reasoned tone of a show business attorney, while his have that of a broadsheet from the Institute for Historical Review.
RESPONSE: Let's see. Speakers at the Institute for Historical Review conferences have included Jewish journalist John Sack (lecturing about the censorship about his expose concerning Jewish concentration camp overseers, post-World War II), former Congressman Paul McCloskey (who sued the Anti-Defamation League for spying on him and a broad range of others), Joe Sobran (who was fired from his post at William F. Buckley's magazine for daring to criticize the Jewish community), and others. In other words, I'm sorry to tell you IHR isn't a Nazi organization. They have a right to free speech, the same as you do.
YOU SAY: I notice that neither of you have taken up my challenge to describe precisely what means you actually recommend to address the problem of putative Jewish "over-representation" in top industry administration.
RESPONSE: Public discussion about the Judeocentric takeover of popular culture. It's a democracy, right. Once we get past the endless walls of censorship by guys like you, good moral, decent people can decide how to pull the plug on the massive Jewish Lobby. I suggest if there's enough public knowledge about all this, some in the Jewish community will see the logic in stepping down vountarily. Jews are 2.5% of the American population. That percentage of power seems about right, no?
How did the Jewish Lobby overthrow the WASPS? Lawsuits, etc. But, hey, they appealed the WASP's sense of fair play and morality. That worked. Look at our culture today. But Jews? Are they going to abandon disproportionate power because it's the moral thing to do. What do you think?
YOU SAY: If I'm misguided in this judgement, I apologize in advance, but the easiest way to correct my apparent mis-apprehension would be to explicitly articulate exactly what your suggestion for a gameplan would be.
RESPONSE: Explicit: public agitation and lobbying towards creating a true democracy in popular culture. Expose Jewish hegemony in every corner of American culture, and get people talking about it. That, Mr. Levine, is what you fear. The truth out. Israel -- and all the Jewish scams surrounding it -- is working our way there.
YOU SAY: I've never seen either of you discuss any concrete solution, although it is true that I haven't been able to read through the archives exhaustively.
RESPONSE: Agitation to make ALL Americans aware that we've been hoodwinked by ethnocentric brigands. Cones and Jaeger won't put it that way, nor publicly agree with anything posted here. But once Americans are aware of what's going on in Hollywood and elsewhere, the Jewish jig is up. Again, the brutality of racist Israel (and massive Jewish American support for it) guarantees further popular investigation into the ideologies that run popular culture. And U.S. foreign policy.
YOU SAY: Just to lay my own cards on the table, I would definitely like to see more diversity in Hollywood and everywhere else, regardless of my own ethnicity.
RESPONSE: Really? Then, if you work in Hollywood, quit your job tomorrow and give it to an African-American. Period. Put up or shut up.
YOU SAY: Quick question: is it you or James that refers to Judaism as a "supra-political party"? I haven't been able to find that post in a while, quite possibly because Jaeger's been banned from so many sites for what is perceived as his "hate spam."
RESPONSE: The Jewish Collective is racist, ethnocentric band of corrupters who are driving us all to the Apocalypse. More and more Jews are stepping outside the Jewish Steamroller (Israel Shamir, Jeff Blankfort, etc.) and they are the ones who can really make the transition for Jewish hegemony into a genuine American democracy relatively painless for everyone.
Propagandists like you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Whining, whining, whining. Jews run Hollywood. You've got nothing to complain about.
RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 01:52:55 PM
by Mitchell LevineIf your cause is so urgent, John, why aren't you posting the book online?
Re(1): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 09:00:07 PM
by Jim JenksHey.
OUR book "When Victims Rule. A Critique of Jewish Pre-Eminence in America" is on-line in pdf form (at Jewish Tribal Review). There's been such a rush on downloading it that we blew out our server monthly bandwidth limit after only 10 and a half days.
As soon as we can get the text back up, we make a gift of it to you. And anyone else in the world.
Aim: get the whole world talking about how much Jews influence. What does it mean? What should we do?
Let the people decide. But, first, we've got to get past censors like you whose prime aim is to veil Jewish power and hegemony in secrecy and to toxify those who dare to speak the truth.
Cones whimps out because he's out there under his own name and has a career to lose. (There's another way Jewish censorial power is evidenced) But he's pushing the wheel in his own way.
Re(2): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 09:38:19 PM
by Mitchell LevineYes, J.J. thank you for helping clarify your "anti-bigotry" position once again!
Re(3): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 10:03:30 PM
by Jim Jenks And thank you for clarifying your "anti-bigotry." Again!Jewish bigotry in endemic to "being Jewish." The sinister part, as you know, is that most Jews go to elaborate lengths to hide their bigotry under the guise of a fake universalism. Whatever's good for Jews, that's all that matters. Look at Israel. A racist hellhole that Jewish Americans overwhelmingly love.
The Jewish "neo-cons" who mapped the invasion of Iraq were former communists -- Trotskyites. What's the common denominator, between their communist allegiance then and their right-wing "conservatism" now? Allegiance to racist, chauvinist, ethnocentric Israel. In a word, Judeocentrism.
And there you have it. Guys like you bitch and moan when anyone shines the spotlight on Judeocentric activism and the in-house Jewish clique that dominates so much.
As I say, the social and political processes are in motion (thanks to Israel) by which more and more people are starting to question the Jewish Lobby and what it means to "democracy."
Mark my words. Increased frankness about "Zionism" and the Jewish "neo-cons" who dominate American foreign policy will lead to a new openness about Jewish hegemony in places like Hollywood.
Rather than make demands of Cones and Jaeger, you'd better start practicing your defensive speeches when folks start asking YOU the right questions.
The Jewish Lobby has been on an offensive rampage for a long time now. Jewish power is peaking, in its twilight glow. Jewish Ethnocentrism is creating a broad base of diverse enemies: Islam, Christianity, African-Americans, and on and on.
Jewish identity knows nothing other than that whoever criticizes Judeocentrism is a "bigot."
Re(1): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 00:17:06 AM
by James Jaeger>On the other hand, I notice that neither of you have taken up my challenge to describe precisely what means you actually recommend to address the problem of putative Jewish "over-representation" in top industry administration.
This has been discussed. Keep reading.
>From what I gather from reading James, both on-site here and elsewhere, he certainly doesn't seem to feel that the answer is simply convincing the studios to hire fewer Jews for their key posts. If I'm misguided in this judgement, I apologize in advance,
Apology accepted. . .
>. . . but the easiest way to correct my apparent mis-apprehension would be to explicitly articulate exactly what your suggestion for a gameplan would be.
See my other post to you.
>I've never seen either of you discuss any concrete solution, although it is true that I haven't been able to read through the archives exhaustively.
True.
>Just to lay my own cards on the table, I would definitely like to see more diversity in Hollywood and everywhere else, regardless of my own ethnicity.
Good.
>Quick question: is it you or James that refers to Judaism as a "supra-political party"?
I have said that I feel that Judaism is, or functions like, a supra-national political party. Check out the American Israli Public Affairs Commission's (AIPAC) actions at http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html This article was written by two people who have been political analysts for the CIA.
>I haven't been able to find that post in a while, quite possibly because Jaeger's been banned from so many sites for what is perceived as his "hate spam."
I have not been banned from any sites. That is an untrue statement.
James Jaeger
Re(2): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 00:22:27 AM
by Mitchell LevineUh, last time I checked, Jim, there's a site that replaces every post you make with a declaration: "James Jaeger is an anti-semitic bigot..." and would often list with the title, "THE BIGGEST JERK IN THE WORLD!" The webmaster of that site told me that his was not the only site with a similar policy towards you.
Re(3): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 10:18:18 AM
by Moishe Goyim (aka Jim Jenks)YOU SAY: Uh, last time I checked, Jim, there's a site that replaces every post you make with a declaration: "James Jaeger is an anti-semitic bigot..." and would often list with the title, "THE BIGGEST JERK IN THE WORLD!"
RESPONSE: What site? Name it. What's the URL. If you can't evidence your claim, why bring it up?
YOU SAY: The webmaster of that site told me that his was not the only site with a similar policy towards you.
RESPONSE: Kind of chummy with the "webmaster," aren't you? Pop quiz: Is the webmaster Jewish? Married to a Jew? Tell the truth.
Re(4): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 09:44:45 PM BR>by Mitchell LevineSure. Just go to the misc.writing.screenplays newsgroup, and do a search on The Biggest Jerk on Earth, and you'll find Richard Milton's ultimatum. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Re(5): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 15, 2003 at 12:03:27 AM
by James JaegerMitchell,
This thread entitled "The Biggest Jerk On Earth!!!" is old news as it was originated by Andrea Bachrach August 9, 2000. Here's the originating post:
"From: andrea bachrach (bachrach@webtv.net)
Subject: The Biggest Jerk On Earth!!!View this article only
Newsgroups: misc.writing.screenplays
Date: 2000/08/09Why would anybody do studies about something everybody already knows??? The film industry was started by Jews and thrives because of them...who the hell needs to do a study??? It's a fact and we're darn proud of it!!! And a Muslim film industry??? Do Muslims believe in public entertainment??? NOT!!!!!!
Almost every country in the world has a film industry ...the industry in India is MASSIVE and very popluar, there are films made in Africa with Black actors and directors....the Chinese even have their own film industry...there are many people of many races represented in films all over the Earth you asshole!!! If you are so interested in diversity, move to Africa and steep yourself in their films!!!! The entire continent of South America is Hispanic and all the films are made by Hispanics and all the films in Mexico and Spain are made by Hispanics...why does the US also have to make Hispanic films???? Portugal and Brazil make Portugese films...Germany makes...well.... Why are you so narrowly focused and NUTS about the US film industry???? Why???? Because, like Hitler, you blame YOUR artistic failure on " the Jews"...you are just a bigot and a jerk and nobody is interested in your ridiculous studies.
"We have done a study and found that the Eath revolves around the sun and that water is made of H2O!!!!"
Dah!!!!!!!!!SickOfYourStupidSpamGirl"
I know Andrea from this NG, and as anyone can see by reading her rhetoric, she’s a little foaming at the mouth. But then what else could one expect from a PSYCHO-analyst (which she indicated to me in other posts she was).
If you care to read the complete thread, you will see that I have already addressed her "concerns" and tried to explain our mission at FIRM as something other than what she might be in delusion over.
Lastly, the Newsgroup of misc.writing.screenplays is predominately wannabe Hollywood writers, many of which are Jewish, but most of which are apologists for a system they hope to be admitted to. I have spent probably hundreds of hours arguing on this NG over the past 4 years, so if you are so inclined, you might read more of the arguments rather than just citing one thread that has little substance and simply resorts to what amounts to name-calling.
James Jaeger
Re(5): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 14, 2003 at 00:19:57 AM
by Moishe the WiseYOU SAY: Sure. Just go to the misc.writing.screenplays newsgroup, and do a search on The Biggest Jerk on Earth, and you'll find Richard Milton's ultimatum. That should tell you everything you need to know.
RESPONSE: Well, let's put on the table that that discussion group is in significant part a Jewish playpen. Jews dominate the screenplay world too, as you probably know. 70-80% of the screenplay guild by the early 1980s, as I recall (per research by Patricia Erens).
Re(6): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 14, 2003 at 01:06:50 AM
by Mitchell LevineOf course, everything you don't like must be the Jews fault! Good thinking.
Re(7): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 14, 2003 at 08:25:42 AM
by MoisheLook, my dear sir. Every one of your responses is a slander/smear of some sort. Nothing else. You're not in the habit of responding to content.
In other words, you don't seem to be able to sustain an argument without a smear as your foundation.
I've done my homework. I can back up my statements with bibliographic citations, if necessary.
Again, the screenplay world is (according to the research of Patricia Erens, for example, with the Screen Actors Guild -- it was known by a different name earlier) has been overwhelmingly Jewish. It's safe to presume that the screenplay forum you cited has a relatively significant Jewish makeup.
Re(2): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 11, 2003 at 11:00:27 PM
by Mitchell LevineOK, John, thanks for clarifying your position. Now we can begin a dialogue. Because I've only seen the chapter titles of your book, and not the text itself, I can only try to infer the gist of your proposals. Unfortunately, since I'm only the child of an attorney, and not a JD myself, I'll have to pass on commenting on a number of the points you mention there, due to my own legal ignorance. However, I think there are a few things worth discussing:
1) You repeatedly refer to antitrust laws as being somehow relevant to the motion picture industry. Although I have no formal training in legal practice, I really have to question how you could reasonably apply this to the case of the studios. Movie studios are independent businesses, and they are numerous. The entire multiplicity of these businesses compete vigorously with one another, and with the indie houses. Since they are independently owned and operated, or owned by various differing conglomerates, and not consolidated under a single corporate parent, nor related by blood like the Rothschilds, a natural conclusion would seem to be that you feel they should be divested simply because many of their CEO's are Jewish. Exclusionary laws based on religion are illegal - just as illegal as violations of Equal Opportunity legislation. What gives?
2. You mention Affirmative Action as a potential remedial strategy. Since you claim that the problem is due only to actions of a few not-very-religious Jewish males of Eastern European extraction, do you really believe that the answer would be to grant tax credits to studios whom employ non-Jewish CEOs? If not, do you have any evidence that their overall hiring practices for their entire staffs fail to meet the Equal Opportunity guidelines? Businesses overwhelmingly choose their leaders on the basis of seniority and proven effectiveness. Because Jews began the film business within the lifetimes of many people still alive today, it follows that the people with the most seniority and experience in these businesses would probably be Jewish. Are you really expecting the studios to choose less experienced execs with inferior seniority to be their leaders just because they are non-Jews? No other industry does that with their top management. If you don't believe me, try running Hoozajew on a list of commericial banking executives. Unless you can demonstrate that there are no non-Jewish producers, execs, and development associates to become tommorow's studio chiefs, how can you legitimately apply the standards of AA here, and not make similar complaints about the overwhelming domination of commercial banking by WASPs, with all of their influence? Not too many Jews get small business loans from Kuhn-Loeb. Should similar measures be taken to redistribute ranking posts in those houses to Jews?
3. The RICO statutes apply to conspiracies to operate criminal enterprises. Do you have any evidence that the different studios, all of whom compete ferociously with each other over everything from scripts purchased, to talents signed, to distibutors engaged, actually secretly conspire with one another, other than the fact that many of them are Jewish? That would seem like a very bigoted, paranoid stereotype, which I think would require some type of corroboration. Furthermore, isn't the definition of a criminal enterprise one whose central purpose is to violate the law? Even if the some of the practices you mention above are shady, the purpose of these businesses is to make movies, not to engage in illegal activities, unless filmmaking is criminal. The feds had to prove that Death Row Records was guilty of crimes like murder before they issued indictments. Does that really apply to movie studios?
4. Based on what I've seen on the site, you seem to identify the concept of freedom of speech with a "free marketplace of ideas." When you state in the above list that a possible remedy for your grievances would be to "prohibit studio film suppression," I'm wondering if I interpret your suggestion within that context?
If what you mean is that you feel that the studios aren't producing enough scripts written by non-Jewish writers, and are therefore denying freedom of speech, as you seem to imply elsewhere on the site, how is this a freedom of speech issue? Being private businesses and in no way a function of the state, studios, like everyone else, are perfectly entitled to spend their money on whatever they wish. If they don't want to make a movie, they are no way legally, ethically, or morally obligated to. No-one has a RIGHT to have their script produced, or their film released, or their release distributed. If the studios don't want to do your concept, that's why the indies exist. And even if they won't, a screenwriter has still not had any right violated. The movies may be a social institution, but they are NOT a public forum in which everyone is entitled to their 15 minutes simply because they are a citizen. There are free cable channels available for that purpose. As private businesses do, the studios choose what they think will make money. Although they cannot have absolute freedom to do whatever they wish in that regard, they do have the right, like every other business, to invest their money into what maximizes their profits, within the bounds of the law. Unless you are advocating for a systematic nationalization of the industry, why would you ever think that filmmakers "rights" have been violated by not having their films made? Democracy applies to elected offices, not commercial industries, no matter how influential they might be in the life of a democracy. That's why the Framers included freedom of the press along with freedom of speech.
5. Although this isn't referred to above,as an aside, I really have to ask if you've seriously thought through all of the "Hollywood victims" that you mention in an article on the site. For example, it IS a very unfortunate thing that attractive women come to Los Angeles, dreaming of being a star, and end up selling their bodies to pay the rent. But that hardly necessarily makes them victims of the studios. The studios never invited them to do so, nor made any promises to them, in most cases; they chose to come to Hollywood of their own free will because they wanted to(obviously I'm not referring to girls that are tragically sold into sex slavery). Do you really believe that the studios are therefore obligated to employ every single attractive young woman that moves to LA to be a movie star, to prevent them from becoming prostitutes? Should they post signs at the city limits informing girls that are only eights or nines that their services aren't required, and that they should move back to Wisconsin? There will always be a finite number of roles for actresses and an unlimited number of attractive young women who wish to be stars. This means that some will always be left out. If they prefer to sell their bodies than move back home, that's their decision, and not really the studios' fault. By any account, when it comes to casting, many will always be called, but few will be chosen. Perhaps you are thinking that it's the industry's fault for creating the social perception that being a movie star is glamorous, but, as a point of fact, being a movie star IS a glamorous and desirable occupation. Are they supposed to make it seem sick-making to discourage also-rans from chasing a star and ending up a sex worker? You certainly can't argue that the studios don't hire non-jewish attractive young women as their actresses. While I agree with your take on a few of the abuses mentioned, several of them seem to be as unfounded as that.
I support many of the points that the topics list above appear to make, and my apologies if my reasoning is hampered by my limited knowledge of the law, but I'm interested as to how you would respond to these questions.
Re(2): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 11:54:15 PM
by Mitchell LevineJ.J., you should really seek help - your pathogenic obsession with the Jews is truly beginning to overwhelm your consciousness. I really feel sorry for you, because your whole life is going to be wasted in frustration. Jews are probably the first thing you think about when you get up in the morning; what you think about in the shower; what you think about while driving to work (if you have a job and a car); what you think about when you get in bed; and what you dream about at night. You probably spend your vacations thinking about new ways to get out from under the Jews. You probably fantasize about a world without Jews, and how you'd at least get a fair shake, and obtain the recognition you so righteously deserve. It's not your fault you've achieved nothing in the world, and have no prospects to ever do so. The Jews have made it impossible. Their racist ethnocentricism has gobbled up the universe. You think about it whenever you see that kosher symbol on your food. You think about it whenever you watch television and see all those producers making more money than you do, and actually having their names on TV, getting all the attention that you crave. Everywhere, everything, it's the Jews, the Jews, the Jews. they think they're so great just because Einstein was Jewish. They're so arrogant because they started the NAACP. Why is everything Jewish when you're not! It's not fair! It's not right! It's not your fault that your name doesn't end in Berg, or Witz, or Stein, or Farb, or Man. God, how could you let all this happen! Just because the Bible says they're the Chosen People doesn't mean that you're not just as good! You think "maybe if I spend my whole life attacking Jews, somebody will pay attention to me." All day, everywhere you go, it's Jews, Jews, Jews. You think, "isn't a paranoid fantasy world where I have an objectified ego-construct to project my negative cathexis onto better than the real world where I'm a nobody and have nothing?" Why can't I go somewhere where the Jews aren't following me with their jew-morals and jew-thoughts and jew-greed and jew-lust and jew-hate and jew-wealth, and jew-racism and jew-media and jew-corruption and jew-power, and I can just be myself? I haven't done anything wrong. Why are there Jews? Why can't everyone just be a gentile, and then I could walk outside, even by daylight! The fact that most Jews don't get to be rich, or famous, or powerful, and just live their lives trying to get by is irrelevant. Without Jews, you'd be somebody! Except for the fact that you'd have nothing to do, because all you do every day is think about Jews! Collect stories about Jews who do bad things, because if a Jew does something wrong, it's all Jews fault, even if you could do that with any group of people, because there good and bad people in every social group - Jews deserve it! Point at industries that Jews have been successful in, and complain that Jews have successful businesses, and collect lists of all their names, so people will see that their names are Jewish, and know that too many Jews have been successful. They don't deserve their success, even if it was due to intelligence, hard work, and personal sacrifice - only so many Jews can be successful, otherwise they're doing something wrong! Network with other people that do the same thing and also brain-storm about what we'd even do without Jews, as it's been so long since you did something that wasn't related to Jews that you don't even know how to occupy your time without them. And if Jews complain about this grossly prejudicial character assasination, they're taking away your right to free speech, because you can't talk without condemning Jews! Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews!!!!!!
It's gotten to the point where you've forgotten that your website is supposed to be "anti-bigotry," but you still refer to an entire ethnicity of people as a "racist, ethnocentric band of corrupters who are driving us all to the Apocalypse." That's quite simply the same rhetoric that the National Socialist Front uses.
Somehow you've got the idea that my asking Mr. Cones questions is "censoring" him. Censorship is a legal denial of others right to speak, not using the right to speak yourself, withing the constitutional limits, which I certainly am. I was trying to build a civil discourse with Mr. Cones, whom has repeatedly asked you not post on his site, and all you can do is use it as another opportunity to catharitically ventilate your maladaptive personality disorder.
I'm in no way denying Mr. Cones's, or the Institute of Historical Review's, or your freedom of speech. I'm merely asking questions. They, and you, have complete freedom to answer them any way they want. No-one's going to arrest you, or exercise prior restraint against you or they.
You have no right to call me a racist, or an ethno-centric, or anything else unpleasant simply because I'm a Jew, because you don't know me or anything about my feelings on those matters. Unless, of course, you simply feel that all Jews should be prejudged in terms of your ignorant stereotypes until they prove otherwise - which is probably impossible because your rigid intolerance won't allow it. And if that's the case, then no-one can use the supposed "anti-semitic sword," against you, because you are an antisemite.
You can reach me at 212-481-5519, if you ever want to discuss this in a civil, polite manner.
Who is JJ?
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 02:58:43 PM
by James JaegerWho are you addressing when you say "JJ", James Jaeger or Jim Jenks (aka Anonymous and Moishe Goyim)?
I am not posting as either Anonymous or Jim Jenks or Moishe Goyim. This person, the author of www.jewishtribalreview.org, chooses to refrain from using his real_name because he fears reprisal from the Jewish community.
Re(1): Who is JJ?
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 03:29:51 PM
by Mitchell LevineActually, Jim, I was referring to J.J. Baker of the Jewish Tribal Review, whom is the representative of that site who usually posts as "anonymous." I was not directing my comments specifically to you. I apologize if I didn't make that clear enough.
Re(2): Who is JJ?
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 11:41:45 PM
by James JaegerYes, you have it right. JJ is JJ Baker aka Jim Jenks and Moshe Goyim.
My initials happen to be JJ as well, but thanks for clearing that up.
James Jaeger
Re(3): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 12:02:59 AM
by John ConesMitchell:
I suggest you read the book.
John Cones
Re(3): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 08:53:35 PM
by Jim JenksI'm not Cones. I'm not Jaeger.
YOU SAY: Movie studios are independent businesses, and they are numerous. The entire multiplicity of these businesses compete vigorously with one another, and with the indie houses. Since they are independently owned and operated, or owned by various differing conglomerates, and not consolidated under a single corporate parent, nor related by blood like the Rothschilds, a natural conclusion would seem to be that you feel they should be divested simply because many of their CEO's are Jewish. Exclusionary laws based on religion are illegal - just as illegal as violations of Equal Opportunity legislation. What gives?
RESPONSE: What a two-faced fraudster! How do you think all the complaining Jews in the 1920s about WASP dominance of Harvard managed to take so much of it over today, including its presidency? Therein lies your answer. Cut the dual morality, please. Every question you pose to Cones has precedent in the Jewish overhaul of WASP hegemony in America. Left and right, over, under, sideways, down. You know this.
The answer to all your whining is simply to turn the tables on Jews. Once upon a time, they DIDN'T have such power throughout popular culture (although they dominated Hollywood just about from the start). And now they do. Tra-la! The road map is written. Once the people know the full story, the Jewish house of cards will fall.
YOU SAY: ... the problem is due only to actions of a few not-very-religious Jewish males of Eastern European extraction, do you really believe that the answer would be to grant tax credits to studios whom employ non-Jewish CEOs?
RESPONSE: Cones plays it careful. The problem isn't really all this "liberal, not-very ... blah blah blah." The problem is a racist, ethnocentric Jewish Lobby/Collective that has hijacked American culture.
YOU SAY: Businesses overwhelmingly choose their leaders on the basis of seniority and proven effectiveness.
RESPONSE: Bull. When Jewish mogul Sarnoff of NBC/RCA appointed his son to follow him in controlling the companies, there were plenty of others out there who could do the job. Nepotism and mutual back-scratching is the foundation of the business world. And you know it.
YOU SAY: If you don't believe me, try running Hoozajew on a list of commericial banking executives.
RESPONSE: While anyone's at it, check out the entire Hoozajew web site to see 1) how profoundly disproportionate Jewish influence is throughout America, and 2) the web master's position about Jews.
YOU SAY: Do you have any evidence that the different studios, all of whom compete ferociously with each other over everything from scripts purchased, to talents signed, to distibutors engaged, actually secretly conspire with one another, other than the fact that many of them are Jewish?
RESPONSE: There was exactly this in, I believe, the 1930s -- an anti-trust investigation into collusion among the big Hollywood studios. Speaking of criminality, there has always been a current of criminality in the Hollywood underworld, from Bugsy Siegel on.
YOU SAY: That would seem like a very bigoted, paranoid stereotype, which I think would require some type of corroboration.
RESPONSE: The "bigot" is you. Anyone who insists upon dissimulating Jewish dominance in Hollywood is a fraudster of the first order. Shame! The FIRM web site demands democracy. The burden is on YOU to explain why we don't have that. The Jewish Lobby always tries to throw its accusers on the defensive. YOU are the bigot. YOU are the one short of morals.
Re(3): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 10:02:31 AM
by Jim JenksYOU SAY: J.J., you should really seek help - your pathogenic obsession with the Jews is truly beginning to overwhelm your consciousness.
RESPONSE: How is my "obsession" in reaction to Jewish self-"obsession" anywhere near the scope of yours? Jews are so obsessed with themselves that they built a nation from scratch to get their name in twinkle lights every moment. Sustained opposition to injustice isn't "obsessin." The struggle for justice should be as common and ordinary as the air we breathe.
YOU SAY: I really feel sorry for you, because your whole life is going to be wasted in frustration. Jews are probably the first thing you think about when you get up in the morning; what you think about in the shower; what you think about while driving to work (if you have a job and a car); what you think about when you get in bed; and what you dream about at night.
RESPONSE: Mr. Levine! You are defining Jewish identity to the minutia, and you know it. What does a male Orthodox Jew do, EVERY morning? He says a prayer thanking God that he was not BORN a goy, and he thanks God that he wasn't born a woman. EVERY DAY! And THIS is the historical foundation of Jewish identity. A little obsessive, no?
YOU SAY: You probably spend your vacations thinking about new ways to get out from under the Jews.
RESPONSE: Well, it's tough get away from them isn't it? Israelis own the three major international cruise lines. Jews own Club Med and a wide matrix of hotels and entertainment centers. If I go to Disneyland, Michael Eisner's there -- in spirit -- to greet me at the door. If I go to a sports event, yes, I'm aware that all four major commissioners (basketball, baseball, football, hockey) are Jewish ...
YOU SAY: You probably fantasize about a world without Jews, and how you'd at least get a fair shake, and obtain the recognition you so righteously deserve. It's not your fault you've achieved nothing in the world, and have no prospects to ever do so. The Jews have made it impossible. Their racist ethnocentricism has gobbled up the universe.
RESPONSE: Gosh, Mr. Levine. Well put. Although you're pushing things a bit far. Are you a convert to the cause?
YOU SAY: Everywhere, everything, it's the Jews, the Jews, the Jews. they think they're so great just because Einstein was Jewish.
RESPONSE: Your silly sarcasm highlights the genuine obsession Jews have for themselves. It's not enough to say it. We document it at our web site. There are even movments in the Jewish community today trying to steer Jews away from marrying non-Jews.
YOU SAY: Why can't I go somewhere where the Jews aren't following me with their jew-morals and jew-thoughts and jew-greed and jew-lust and jew-hate and jew-wealth, and jew-racism and jew-media and jew-corruption and jew-power, and I can just be myself?
RESPONSE: Good point. But you don't answer your own question. Where is that place, Mr. Levine?
YOU SAY: The fact that most Jews don't get to be rich, or famous, or powerful, and just live their lives trying to get by is irrelevant.
RESPONSE: Jews are the wealthiest ethnic group in America. This pattern you will find in Australia, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, and on and on.
YOU SAY: ... and know that too many Jews have been successful. They don't deserve their success, even if it was due to intelligence, hard work, and personal sacrifice.
RESPONSE: Your diatribe here is standard Jewish fare: it is as if you turned on a tape recorder to speak for you. Resistance to Jewish hegemony, racism, and exploitation signfies for you bigotry, psychological inadequacy, jealousy, etc.
On this count Jews insist upon a stereotype for themselves: they refuse to own up to the problems they have created now and throughout history with the very same obsession you displace upon me. Freud had an arsenal of concepts to describe all this. Freud, of course, was Jewish, and he fits neatly into your ranting paradigm.
YOU SAY: Jews complain about this grossly prejudicial character assasination, they're taking away your right to free speech, because you can't talk without condemning Jews! Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews!!!!!!
RESPONSE: I invite you to review the comments over the past couple years at FIRM by self-described Jews. Note how, per your own commentary here, they could have been virtually written by the same person.
This "character assasination" is, as you know, quite a tradition within the Jewish community itself. It's called Jewish "self-hatred" and it is the internal liberating force that could free you from all your Jewish-centered problems.
YOU SAY: It's gotten to the point where you've forgotten that your website is supposed to be "anti-bigotry," but you still refer to an entire ethnicity of people as a "racist, ethnocentric band of corrupters who are driving us all to the Apocalypse." That's quite simply the same rhetoric that the National Socialist Front uses.
RESPONSE: You know, if I didn't suspect that you were serious, I'd think that your commentary here is satire. The EASIEST thing in the world a Jewish apologist can do -- with no thought whatsoever -- is to write off criticism of their collective fraud as the concept of a "Nazi." It's sort of a cartoon argument. It's the argument from someone who really has nothing to say.
YOU SAY: Somehow you've got the idea that my asking Mr. Cones questions is "censoring" him.
RESPONSE: No, no. It's more complicated than that. The usual scam is to body slam the critic of Jewry into a defensive mode: "Anti-semite!" "Nazi!" You fulfill this stereotype, admirably. In may case, I can post citation after citation about collective Jewish racism and power, into infinity, and all you're going to do is lean back and press the button: "anti-Semite."
The time is coming when that's not going to do, so rather than ramble on about the personal inadequacies of those who confront you socially, politically, and ideologically, you'd better start thinking of something to actually SAY.
Your smears aren't the basis of any logical argument. They are a way to diffuse content, and subvert the critical assault Jewish ethnocentrism.
YOU SAY: Censorship is a legal denial of others right to speak, not using the right to speak yourself, withing the constitutional limits, which I certainly am.
RESPONSE: Censorship is a mainstay of the organized Jewish community, from the ADL on down. In a number of western countries, it's ILLEGAL to say that the Holocaust didn't happen. If you do say that publicly, you get fined and dragged off to jail. Now, you can say that God doesn't exist, no big deal. Now, I'll ride with current scholarship on the existence of the Holocaust, but to forbid discourse on the subject is a crime against free speech and democracy.
YOU SAY: I was trying to build a civil discourse with Mr. Cones, whom has repeatedly asked you not post on his site, and all you can do is use it as another opportunity to catharitically ventilate your maladaptive personality disorder.
RESPONSE: Mr. Levine. I think you are surely retarded. And? So? How does that enhance my argument about Jewish hegemony, power, and racism? But, hey. If you want to play the couch game, climb onto this naugahyde one, close your eyes, free associate, and I'll analyze you. $256 an hour. I'll have you leaving my office healthy, wise, and a Buddhist. But you'll have to turn in your "Israel is Heaven" fraternity pin.
YOU SAY: You have no right to call me a racist, or an ethno-centric, or anything else unpleasant simply because I'm a Jew, because you don't know me or anything about my feelings on those matters.
RESPONSE: 1) You define yourself as Jewish. 2) Jewish identity is self-defined as anti-thetical to non-Jews 3) Jewish identity is based upon racial lineage -- who's your mother? Etc., etc.
You recognize, and understand, my argument. It is not hard to grasp. Are there "Jews" that escape this pardigm of self-centered racism? No doubt. But when you announce yourself at a forum like this to defend Jewish chauvinist interests in Hollywood, you pretty much give yourself away.
YOU SAY: Unless, of course, you simply feel that all Jews should be prejudged in terms of your ignorant stereotypes until they prove otherwise - which is probably impossible because your rigid intolerance won't allow it.
RESPONSE: The foundation of my perceptions about Jewry is from years of diligent study of Jewish commentary, Jewish texts, and Jewish ethnic journals. Our web site tells all.
YOU SAY: you are an antisemite.
RESPONSE: Others who have been accused of this slur include everyone from South African archbishop Desmund Tutu to George Orwell. Jewish identity revolves around an anticipated threat from the "anti-Semitic" other, who is ultimately the non-Jewish next-door neighbor.
YOU SAY: You can reach me at 212-481-5519
REPONSE: That's a Los Angeles number, right? Have you surrendered your film job to that African-American yet?
Re(4): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 02:29:15 AM
by George ShelpsTo Mr Levine: BRAVO!
Re(4): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 00:48:51 AM
by Mitchell Levin1) Our discussion was about anti-trade, not your demented invective. As even you might realize, Harvard University is a private institution and not an entire industry, as there are other colleges not "controlled" by Jews, so antitrust legislation does not apply to it. Please stop trying to use everything as a springboard to vent your pathology.
2 As I said, please stop trying to use everything as a springboard to vent your pathology.
3. Let see, when Henry Ford did the same thing (as well as a million other CEOs of every ethnicity), wasn't he "guilty" of the same thing - OH, WAIT A MINUTE - He was anti-Jewish! I guess that gives him a free pass.
4. Hoozajew is run by a well-known white supremacist/separatist, so I guess your claim to be "anti-bigotry" at that website is kinda specious, if you're recommending it to people.
5. A lot of things happened in the 1930's that weren't right - Oh,yeah, I forgot, you don't believe that.
6. As a high-school civics class might have taught you, the democratic process applies to electing public officials, not film executives.
7. RAHOWA!!!!
Re(4): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 08:35:13 PM
by Moishe GoyimMr. Levine. "Obsession" time (pardon me for being "obsessed" with endemic Jewish obsession):
Jewish author Alfred Jospe notes that "when a male Jew is called to the Torah, he recites the traditional blessing, 'asher bahar banu mi’kol ha’amim,' praising God ‘who has chosen us from among all other nations.’ When Jews recite their daily morning prayer they say the benediction, 'she’lo assani goy,' thanking God ‘that he has not made [us] gentiles.’ When they pronounce the benediction over the Sabbath [Saturday] wine, they declare that God has chosen and sanctified Jews from all other peoples in the same way which he has distinguished between Sabbath and weekday. When Jews make Havdalah on Saturday night, they recite the traditional ha-mavdil, glorifying God for setting Jews apart from all other peoples just as He set apart the sacred from the profane and light from darkness.” [JOSPE, p. 10-11]
Re(5): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 09:13:33 AM
by Moishe GoyimYour commments are the usual Jewish bigotry. Anyone who dares to criticize the Jewish Collective that exploits democracy in your eyes is a racist.
YOU SAY: there are other colleges not "controlled" by Jews, so antitrust legislation does not apply to it.
RESPONSE: The issue is growing Judeocentric hegemony, throughout popular culture. In recent years, 6 of the 8 Ivy League colleges have had Jewish presidents. As 2.5% of the population, there's some wrong here -- per America's supposed MULTI-cultural basis.
YOU SAY: Please stop trying to use everything as a springboard to vent your pathology.
RESPONSE: I say the same to you. Your "pathology" here includes your defense of Jewish dominance and your toxification of a fair, multi-ethnic democracy. (Your take is let the "marketplace" decide everything).
Jewish identity is supremacist in nature. "Democracy," "multiculturalism," and so forth are concepts that are foreign to Jewish religious tradition (the origin of Jewish identity). Look at what Israel is for a clear example of this. Think "chosen people." Racist "apartheid." "The people who dwell alone." Etc.
YOU SAY: Let see, when Henry Ford did the same thing (as well as a million other CEOs of every ethnicity), wasn't he "guilty" of the same thing - OH, WAIT A MINUTE - He was anti-Jewish! I guess that gives him a free pass.
RESPONSE: Henry Ford recognized the growing Jewish hegemony problem back in the 1920s. Ford's political stance, vis-a-vis the Jewish Lobby, was successfully hounded out of existence by the Jewish Network (threatened lawsuits, etc.)
You will find Jewish "Henry Fords" all over the place today. Take a look at Canadian media mogul Izzy Asper, for instance. His ham-handed censorship / editorial stance on racist Israel has created outrage throughout the Canadian journalist community. Pro-Israel media giants Morton Zuckerman, Ronald Lauder, and on and on are "Henry Fords," all. Henry Ford popularized cars. These guys ppopularized ideology.
YOU SAY: Hoozajew is run by a well-known white supremacist/separatist, so I guess your claim to be "anti-bigotry" at that website is kinda specious, if you're recommending it to people.
RESPONSE: YOU recommended it to people. YOU brought it up as a source of legitimate information. YOU invited people to go examine it. Are you a Ku Klux Klan member for this?
YOU SAY: A lot of things happened in the 1930's that weren't right - Oh,yeah, I forgot, you don't believe that.
RESPONSE: Clarification, please. Or is this code for Jewish identity: anyone who doesn't go along with Jewish dominance, arrogance, and collectivist racism is a "Nazi."
YOU SAY: As a high-school civics class might have taught you, the democratic process applies to electing public officials, not film executives.
RESPONSE: ANY high school class, including examining the seeds of apples, entails the expression of democratic principles. "Take your turn in line." "Share the school tools." Etc. The ideology of America, THROUGHOUT, is supposed to be "democratic." You come through and declare that democracy is only about the mayor you voted for. Go back to school. Democacy is an ideology that is supposed to seep throughout all facets of society.
Re(6): RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 09:17:57 AM
by Moishe GoyimOh, per your racial conclusion that you ascribe to me.
Am Yisrael Chai!
Please explain the difference.
Seinfeld
Posted on April 12, 2003 at 11:20:35 PM
by Moishe Goyimhttp://www.jta.org
Breaking News: Seinfeld to honor Israel, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 10, 2003
"Jerry Seinfeld and Tony Bennett will highlight next month’s celebration in Washington for Israel’s 55th anniversary. The 'Israel@55 'gala, scheduled for May 19, also will feature singer Norah Jones and Israeli singer Achinoam 'Noa' Nini. Other performers will be announced soon, and both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President Bush are expected to attend."
Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 04:02:33 AM
by Mitchell LevineJames,
Please tell me where you could find corporations that would hire "disenfranchised" people as their CEOs in ANY industry anywhere? Unless you define "disenfranchised," like you do, as non-Jewish.
Oprah Winfrey is much too busy running her own mega-business to also run WB - which, given her status as "disenfranchised," seems to be remarkable: I guess she just made some kind of deal with ZOG, whom were nice enough to let her have her own conglomerate.
By the way, it's certainly not true that "Everybody has as much of a right to speak as they have to be heard," because the First Amendment gives you no right to be heard whatsoever. It only grants you the right to speak; to not be prosecuted for what you say. It does not mean that anyone has to listen to you, or that you have the right to have access to the mass media or press. or to inject your opinions into the "marketplace of ideas". You simply cannot be jailed for what you say, within the constitutional guidelines. That doesn't mean it's not desirable to have as many civil voices represented in the public discourse of the marketplace of ideas as is possible, but that's not the same thing as a constitutional right to be heard. Of course, there's always public access.
Also, the fact that entertainment businesses are publicly traded; i.e., subject to equity ownership, does not mean that they are subject to the same restrictions and regulations that a public institution like a government agency would be, and I think you know that. That's a sophism.
I'm sure there are Irishmen that could run movie studios just as effectively as Geffen and Katzenberg. But hiring a chief executive officer to run a media corporation, for good reason, is done on the basis of seniority and experience. Because the movie business was founded primarily by Jews, within the lifetimes of many people still alive today, it's unsurprising that many of the people with the most seniority and experience in the studios are Jewish.
There ARE successful non-Jewish execs, and more of them today than in the Golden Age of the studio system. That's because, as older Jewish executives are dying off, they're not always being replaced with Jewish counterparts. I have no reason whatsoever to think that trend won't continue and expand.
Equal Opportunity legislation pertains to overall hiring patterns. If not having a minority CEO alone made you a violator, than 95% of all corporations would be guilty. If your reply is that they should be held to be guilty on that basis, why exactly is it you are singling out film studios specifically when the vast majority of corporations would then be criminals - other than the fact that they won't greenlight your pet dog blockbuster?
And how much experience in Hollywood could you really have, if you don't perceive money to be the prime motivation behind decision-making, despite Mr. Cones's assertions? You were certainly very quick to throw around that "cattle" thing without the slightest amount of validation, just because it suited your prejudices - are you really sure you've vetted the former accurately?
I'm sure you are not interested in the ethnic composition of the police force: you don't perceive it as "Jewish". If the same percentage of the police force that is now Irish were Jewish, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
About the status of your presences' welcome in various newsgroups, you can see my other post.
RE: Changing Hollywood
Posted on April 13, 2003 at 10:46:46 AM
by Moishe GoyimYOU SAY: By the way, it's certainly not true that "Everybody has as much of a right to speak as they have to be heard," because the First Amendment gives you no right to be heard whatsoever. It only grants you the right to speak; to not be prosecuted for what you say. It does not mean that anyone has to listen to you, or that you have the right to have access to the mass media or press. or to inject your opinions into the "marketplace of ideas".
RESPONSE: Herein lies the Jewish subversion of democracy. Democracy infers a free exchange of ideas. The "founding fathers" hadn't envisoned the mass media system that manipulates public opinion.
Jews have an increasing stranglehold on the conveyors of public opinion: this mass media. They bought it. They network among each other to maintain it. They shove others aside, except those who echo the pro-Israel Jewish line. Israeli-born Chaim Saban is even negotiating to by one of the largest media conglommerates in Germany.
YOU SAY: You simply cannot be jailed for what you say, within the constitutional guidelines.
RESPONSE: In this country, no. Not yet. But concepts of "free speech" are changing. In a variety of western democracies it is a crime to say the Holocaust never happened. A crime punishable by fines and imprisonment. Think what you like about the Holocaust, but talk about power!
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |