FIRM Discussions April 22, 2003 - April 22, 2003
Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?
Re(3): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 08:45:27 PM
by Moishe G.YOU SAY: (Moshe) who does not even have the courage to use his real name ...
RESPONSE: My name is George Sand. Think about it. Walt Whitman, Edgar Allen Poe, on down wrote under pseudonyms.
There is even an entire Jewish tradition of CHANGING their names, so you don't know they're Jewish. Ask Sumner Redstone, (born Murray Rothstein), the head of Viacom Please direct your curiosity about names to him.
I have more courage tossed out with the daily overflow than you have in a lifetime glued to Jewish Butt.
YOU SAY: Whose arguments are formulated in vain of a bad high school debate team
...
RESPONSE: That's at least a tier up than someone who avoids debating me. Know anyone like that?
YOU SAY: with points that rise slightly higher than “I’m rubber your glue.”
RESPONSE: Say, since you're taking this discourse to new heights, can we play the "scissors, rock, paper game?" If you don't know it, hopscotch will do. I've heard about jacks too. Nintendo?
YOU SAY: I thought you both said he does not speak for you?
RESPONSE: I don't. But I guess if you walk into the room after swimming in a cesspool, you don't need everyone in a crowd to tell you to try water next time. My single observation will do.
The obvious just needs be stated once, not sung from the rooftops. Or even tattooed on your nose.
YOU SAY: Anyone that disagrees with you must be “ignorant” and not understand what you are trying to say.
RESPONSE: You ARE ignorant. You've even admitted you haven't read the facts and arguments at this web site. With that as your base, what do you think you're trying to accomplish here? (Other than to be a hero to Jewish ethnocentrism and sell some old screenplays?)
YOU SAY: You can not grasp that they have a different point of view.
RESPONSE: If you demand that the earth is flat, it's your right to say it. But condemning others who actually think about things because you need censorship isn't very logical.
YOU SAY: Maybe if my statements are causing you “harassment” that shows some insecurity in you beliefs.
RESPONSE: How come the spine of all the critics against the premises of FIRM are personal attacks? That's primitive. Can you step up a few rungs, from a growling amoeba to a chirping cricket?
Re(3): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 09:17:14 PM
by James Jaeger>I am disappointed you did not what to address any issues I put forth.
Dennis, you put forth so many issues I don't know where to begin. Why don't we start over. Tell me what it is that you like or object to as far as FIRM's Mission Statement and let's focus on that. What I'm doing with MEC or my personal views on Judaism let's leave aside as that's not what this discussion forum is for.
So, what is it you disagree with as far as Film Reform is concerned? Do you disagree with the idea of diversity at the top? Do you agree or disagree that there is too much violence in the movies? This has been one of my main issues. How do you feel about the union and the catch 22 that exists? What about the creative accounting and the current distribution paradigm? I would MUCH rather discuss these issues and how they can be improved than just sitting here arguing about Jews. If you want to do this, let's. But otherwise, my time is extremely short these days. I actually AM spending more time on filmmaking than on arguing about film reform.
James
P.S. Dennis, how do you and I know each other? Did/do you work for Global Crossing and we spoke some while back?
Re(4): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 23, 2003 at 01:04:46 AM
by Dennis Hartwig>“Dennis, you put forth so many issues I don't know where to begin.”
I am sorry I overwhelmed you.
>“What I'm doing with MEC or my personal views on Judaism let's leave aside as that's not what this discussion forum is for.”
These are not your personal views on Judaism this is the dogma of MEC. Your site is full of Jewish propaganda. Why do you not want to discuses such a large portion of your doctrine?
>“…what it is that you like or object to as far as FIRM's Mission Statement and let's focus on that.”
I think you know what my objections are. Let me be very clear.
1# Your Jewish views are not helping filmmakers.
2# You have not acted in any sort of positive way to achieve any of your “Mission Statement” goals.
A. CONDUCT RESEARCH: Any useful research you have done is buried by Jewish Propaganda.
B. SEEK EQUITY: How many less homogenous films have you maid?
C. STRIVE FOR DIVERSITY: Where is your production company?
D. EDUCATE: Once again all you are doing is spreading conspiracy theories and any other message gets lost.
E. PROMOTE FAIR TRADE PRACTICES: Outside of talk (this includes your books and website) what are you doing to accomplish this?
F. SHARE INFORMATION: You can share all of the information in the world but unless you act it is worthless.
G. ADVANCE THE STATE-OF-THE-ART: Once again, your site is full of half measures and unfulfilled actions.
Re(5): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 23, 2003 at 10:57:51 AM
by George ShelpsMr Hartwig, having known James for years and being a shareholder in MEC, I concur with the points A-G. At some point, the issues of FIRM overshadowed the mission of MEC.
Mr. Jaeger refused your business proposal, he does so with every proposal that I have known to cross his desk...
MEC needs outside capital and outside partners, but Mr Jaeger doesn't want to have to listen to anyone but himself.
Re(6): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 00:12:30 AM
by Eugene Jaeger>Mr. Jaeger refused your business proposal, he does so with every proposal that I have known to cross his desk...
Maybe Mr. Jaeger refused Mr. Hartwig's business proposal because he didn't wish to get involved with GLOBAL CROSSING, you know the company whose stock went from over $30 a share to about 2 cents a share almost over night (or soon after the world found out what caliber of executives they had working for them). Is this the kind of business partners you would have MEC involved with? Obviously it is if you sympathize with Mr. Hartwig's points on this issue.
An Open Letter to Mr. Hartwig
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 00:01:09 AM
by James Jaeger>These are not your personal views on Judaism this is the dogma of MEC.
That's preposterous. Find the word Jew in even one book I have written or at even one place in the MEC websites where it’s not referencing the demographic of the Hollywood-based control group. Matrixx Entertainment, as an entity, is not concerned with the issues of FIRM. I, and others in the company might be interested in such issues, and tangential issues, but the company is not, and neither are its stockholders. As you can see right here, Mr. Shelps is a stockholder and he holds views different than mine in some places, views similar to mine in other places and views identical in still other areas. Over the years MEC has employed and worked with people of all backgrounds, including Jews. It has also worked with many Christians, Scientologists, Atheists, men women, African Americans, Whites. We have no concern for a person's ethnic background or any other identity at MEC. I personally accept each and every person at face value, whether they are Jewish or not. The only place one could say MEC and FIRM are more related is in the view that distribution needs to be cleaned up. If you read a book called FATAL SUBTRACTION you will know what I mean. To this end, MEC is trying to DO something about the situation by piloting a new distribution paradigm as related at http://www.mecfilms.com/mid, rather than just TALKING about it at FIRM.
>Your site is full of Jewish propaganda.
Give me a URL where there is "Jewish propaganda" in the MEC websites. You’re full of horseshit.
>Why do you not want to discuses such a large portion of your doctrine?
This is not our doctrine. Please stop saying slanderous things.
>>“…what it is that you like or object to as far as FIRM's Mission Statement and let's focus on that.”
>I think you know what my objections are. Let me be very clear. 1# Your Jewish views are not helping filmmakers.
I have no "Jewish views" nor does MEC. This is a straw argument Dude. One of FIRM's views, as set forth by John Cones in his research, and one which I, not MEC, personally agree with, is that the top-echelon of the MPAA studio distributors are not diversified enough as they have been run by a control group consisting of predominantly liberal, not-very-religious Jewish males of European heritage for 90-some years. Note, no one is saying that "Jews run Hollywood" -- we are saying that Hollywood is run by Jewish males, who are not very religious, liberal, and who are of European heritage. So what's the beef? This is an observable fact that needs to be addressed, given one has respect for a free marketplace of ideas in a democratic society.
>2# You have not acted in any sort of positive way to achieve any of your “Mission Statement” goals.
Not true.
>A. CONDUCT RESEARCH: Any useful research you have done is buried by Jewish Propaganda.
False. The entire FIRM site represents the largest body of research and argument on the Internet as such relates to both the subject of diversity and many other aspects of film reform. All of this is related, however you are not expected to know any of this as it seems you haven't read very much of John's works or the FIRM site. Instead you continue to use the Jewish word in an attempt to discredit FIRM and or its supporters. You seem to be wise enough to refrain from calling me and John anti-Semitic because you are probably aware that we would just cite you for yet another attempt to thwart serious discussion by use of the “anti-Semitic Sword.” (See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/shields.htm) You are doing the same thing however by the constant references you make to "Jewish propaganda" ad nausium.
>B. SEEK EQUITY: How many less homogenous films have you maid?
No films on Maids yet, but that's a good idea we'll keep in mind. We have optioned over 100 screenplays from writers all over the world and I will assure you these screenplays are in general much more diversified (less homogeneous) than those you will find Hollywood green lighting.
>C. STRIVE FOR DIVERSITY: Where is your production company?
MEC is diversified as I tried to relate above. FIRM is calling for more diversity in the top ranks and this call pulls in people such as yourself who are Hollywood apologists or Jewish paranoiacs.
>D. EDUCATE: Once again all you are doing is spreading conspiracy theories and any other message gets lost.
False. Straw argument. You are misrepresenting FIRM and me and MEC and then using that basis to substantiate your "argument." No where in FIRM do WE sate that there are any conspiracies, however the US Supreme Court DOES state that the film industry is a conspiracy. Ask John for the reference.
>E. PROMOTE FAIR TRADE PRACTICES: Outside of talk (this includes your books and website) what are you doing to accomplish this?
We are working hard to pioneer a new paradigm of distribution. See http://www.mecfilms.com/mid.
>F. SHARE INFORMATION: You can share all of the information in the world but unless you act it is worthless.
You're just randomly throwing mud on the Mission Statement hoping it sticks. By now I realize you have no intention of seeing anything positive in FIRM, MEC or me. You're just a garden-variety suppressive person bent on destroying any betterment activity you come in contact with probably because you have deep-seated failed purposes in your own life and you feel the need to dramatize them on me and others. Get some help. Obviously you ARE the one that was trying to raise money from me several years back when you were working with Global Crossing at a time when it was going down the tubes for all manner of unethical business practices. Maybe this experience is to blame for the fact that you seem to be a computing psychotic at this time so why don’t you take a look at yourself and you own situation/motives instead of projecting everything on me, MEC and FIRM.
>G. ADVANCE THE STATE-OF-THE-ART: Once again, your site is full of half measures and unfulfilled actions.
More mud . . .
James Jaeger
Re(1): An Open Letter to Mr. Hartwig
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 01:36:20 AM
by George ShelpsWhile Mr Hartwig is incorrect when he says that as a corporate entity, MEC is concerned with the issues of FIRM, but since MEC is totally controlled by Mr Jaeger, his own personal interest and involvement in FIRM amounts to the same thing.
The whole idea of a "Hollywood control group" is a red herring, a diversion from the mission of MEC which once was to (a) make films and (b) innovate new paradigms of distribution.
Re(1): An Open Letter to Mr. Hartwig
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 07:42:41 PM
by Moishe GoyimI don't know anything about the arguments here about business dealings between Mr. Hartwick and Mr. Jaeger, which seems to be the origin of Hartwick's anger with FIRM.
But I'd like to point out that the firm Hartwick apparently worked for, according to these exchanges, was Global Crossing. If this is the same Global Crossing that has been in the news for fraud and collapse lately, the founder and head of Global Crossing is Gary Winnick. Winnick is Jewish and by the late 1990s was the richest man in California.
These discussions lend themselves to more and more intrigue as various people surface to attack FIRM.
So is Hartwick an apologist for Winnick too? How close was he to the big boss? Is Hartwick Jewish? Even if not, how much of his personal progress has been linked to the corrupt Global Crossing engine?
And if Hartwick insists that complaints of an enormous "Jewish" presence in Hollywood are bogus, and Jewish power was a thing of the 1950s, how come the head of the company he worked (works?) for is Jewish too?
Re(2): An Open Letter to Mr. Hartwig
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 07:48:11 PM
by Moishe GoyimFROM JEWISH TRIBAL REVIEW:
In 1999, the richest man in Los Angeles was also Jewish, Gary Winnick (worth over $6 billion). "Winnick is the fastest among today's top entrepreneurs to make his first billion dollars. He did it in a breathtaking 18 months." [TUGEND, 10-1-99] Syndicated columnist Richard Reeves calls the first time he ever saw Winnick "one of the most disgusting events I've endured in many years of watching the way the world works." Because Winnick had paid a sizeable sum for a Democratic Party fundraiser, he was afforded time to speak to the crowd. "This egomaniac," wrote Reeves, "who could afford the tab got up and rambled on about how rich and daring he was and how great his kids were." Then he put a cap with his telecommunications company's logo (Global Crossing) on the head of Secreatry of State Madeline Albright. "It made you cringe to be a citizen of the world's greatest democracy," wrote Reeves. "But that's the way it works these days." Winnick's company expected to lay 100,000 miles of fiber-optic cable to 27 countries and 200 cities by mid-2001. He has pleged $40 million to start an institute named after himself in Israel. "He also funds other pro-Israel programs."[MOTHER JONES, 5-3-01]
Re(5): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 23, 2003 at 10:57:51 AM
by George ShelpsMr Hartwig, having known James for years and being a shareholder in MEC, I concur with the points A-G. At some point, the issues of FIRM overshadowed the mission of MEC.
Mr. Jaeger refused your business proposal, he does so with every proposal that I have known to cross his desk...
MEC needs outside capital and outside partners, but Mr Jaeger doesn't want to have to listen to anyone but himself.
Re(6): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 00:12:30 AM
by Eugene Jaeger>Mr. Jaeger refused your business proposal, he does so with every proposal that I have known to cross his desk...
Maybe Mr. Jaeger refused Mr. Hartwig's business proposal because he didn't wish to get involved with GLOBAL CROSSING, you know the company whose stock went from over $30 a share to about 2 cents a share almost over night (or soon after the world found out what caliber of executives they had working for them). Is this the kind of business partners you would have MEC involved with? Obviously it is if you sympathize with Mr. Hartwig's points on this issue.
Re(7): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 00:47:29 AM
by Mr. HartwigI have never worker for or had any association with Global Crossing and neither does any one who works for me. Before I started my company I was a trader for Chatfield Dean and Company for ten years. I do not know why you people keep bringing up Global Crossing. You are as confused about this as you are confused about…..well I guess everything.
I am not upset that you turned my offer down. As a matter of fact I made more money because of it. You are the ones that lost out. I just want you to stop sending me your emails. I don’t want to hear loser justification anymore. I am to busy making real changes.
PS Mr. Jaeger’s saying FRIM is not part of MEC is the biggest lie since Clinton was in office. You have to go threw MEC site to get to FIRM’s.
Re(7): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 01:28:55 AM
by George ShelpsI doubt that Global Crossing had anything to do with it. I know from Mr James Jaeger's own statements to me that he is opposed to allowing partners or investors in who will have real input into MEC.
Re(7): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 02:35:47 AM
by Mr. HartwigLet me clear one more thing up. I never wanted to have any ownership in MEC nor did I want to have any influence over it. All I was asking was for MEC to consult with the partnership and MEC could end this corporation at any time. I never asked for any stock or interest in MEC. I also never asked for any money. I was going to pay MEC for helping the partners produce films. MEC would have been paid $47,500 just for sowing up at the first partnership meeting. MEC would also have been paid tens of thousands more for any further consulting or producing of films. If my company would have failed MEC would not have lost anything and would have kept their fee.
Re(7): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 02:32:12 PM
by George ShelpsMaybe Mr. Jaeger refused Mr. Hartwig's business proposal because he didn't wish to get involved with GLOBAL CROSSING, you know the company whose stock went from over $30 a share to about 2 cents a share almost over night (or soon after the world found out what caliber of executives they had working for them). Is this the kind of business partners you would have MEC involved with? Obviously it is if you sympathize with Mr. Hartwig's points on this issue.
___________________________________
Mr Hartwig has disclaimed any involvement with Global Crossing.
After all the years that MEC has been in business, no sigificant strategic alliances have been formed and no feature films have been produced and no inroads have been made into creating an internet distribution channel that handles feature films.
Mr James Jaeger's ideas were ahead of their time, but he seems to have decided to pursue a quixotic and useless scheme of railing at the MPAA system--instead of creating a profitable business.
Mr Jaeger has told me on numerous oocassions that he doesn't care about money or profit, that he admires a socialist like Michael Moore, and, thus, it seems consistent for him to be engaging in fruitless debate instead of making movies or capitalizing MEC.
It seems to me that--on the face of it--he should have tested the waters of Mr Hartwig's proposal.
Re(8): An open letter to Mr. Jaeger:
Posted on April 24, 2003 at 07:59:16 PM
by Moishe GoyimHartwick complains about "courage" when people choose not to use their real name when criticizing the Jewish Lobby.
This is why is it wise to be anonymous when daring to bring up even the slightest criticism of Jewish influence in Hollywood. It doesn't matter how you phrase it, how careful you are, and how far backwards you fluff things in raising the issue of Jewish power.
It is an absolute taboo.
Guys like Hartwick will be in your face, trying to harrass you in any way possible -- attacking your integrity, attacking your business, etc. etc. etc.
A Tale of Two Companies
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 09:22:43 PM
by Dennis HartwigA Tale of Two Companies:
The following is not so much a tale of two companies; it is a tale of optimism vs. pessimism.
Before I begin telling this story I must first clear a few things up.
I to believe there are problems with the current system. In an industry that is more and more competitive it is hard to convince studios to take risks. In a world of $100 million plus films, just one failure can bankrupt the company. This means opening weekends mean everything. Every week there is a new blockbuster opening and the turn over is just a matter of weeks. Smaller films are pushed out and do have the time they need to find their audience. Of course there are many more problems such as the MPAA and the Hollywood Unions to name a few. But the lack of financing and distribution are the most injurious.
Your Jewish Conspiracy is nothing more than a Red Herring taking focus away from the real problems. To further this argument not one of Entertainment Weekly's top five people in the annual list of the 100 most powerful people in entertainment are Jewish. The top five are: Tom Hanks, John Calley & Amy Pascal, heads of the allied Sony and Columbia film studios; CBS president Leslie Moonves; Kaz Hirai, head of Sony's U.S. video game unit; and Barry Meyer & Alan Horn, heads of the Warner Brothers film studio. Steven Spielberg is the only Jewish person in the top ten. In the entire list of 100, only about ten percent are Jewish. Most of which are entertainers such as Adam Sander and Jerry Seinfeld.
You and John Cones have been asleep at the wheel for so long you have not realized the world has changed since the old studio days of the 1950’s and 60’s. Hollywood is a global market. Three of the top five studios are now owned by foreign companies.
Another myth that must be dealt with is that films are art and artists have the right to express themselves. Films are not art, they are investments and making films is an earned privilege. This is a fact that filmmakers must first accept. It is not about race, politics or religion. It is about money. Making money is the ONLY motivation of a Hollywood studio and money is blind to religion. It is the audience that determines which films are successful and which ones are not. Any studio that does not recognize this fact will not be in business for very long. The audience has the real power. It is this power that we must tap into in order to be successful in change.
First you need to change the dynamics of the relationship between the filmmakers and the studios. This can be achieved by changing the way films are financed. Instead of this power being concentrated in the hands of a few we must make these investments available to individual investors.
Second we need to give the audience an alterative to what is currently being offered. This will be accomplished by attracting new and exciting filmmakers, offering them a creative alternative to the current system.
Third we need to create new distribution methods. The international box office is now larger than the domestic and home video sales larger that both. We now have more ways to distribute films than ever before, with more and more methods and markets opening every day. We need to take advantage of these markets in every way possible.
Now back to the story.
Let me begin by telling you what it is that I do. I created a Venture Capital firm to raise money for independent films. I do this by establishing General Partnerships. I then contact individual investors by phone and persuade them to invest. These funds are pooled to finance Independent Films. The partnership then creates these films from script to screen. Of course this is the short account.
About 18 months ago I approached Mr. Jaeger and MEC with an opportunity (of course had I know of your current beliefs I would not have made this offer). This opportunity was to head up the production of the partnerships films and manage their day to day operations. MEC was not required to invest any capital, to the contrary we where going to pay MEC $45,000 just for the use of their name as the “Pro Tem Managing Partner.” Mr. Jaeger turned this offer down. In his rejection email he said: “I cannot get involved with your business plan as my advisors want me to stick exclusively with the MEC business plan we have gone to great expense to develop.” I do not know who these advisors where or if the stock holders where made aware of this offer but I moved on with no hard feelings.
Since those 18 moths have passes we raised over 1.8 million dollars. MEC lost out on over $100,000 in bonuses and hundreds of thousands more in producing fees, plus a portion of any profits. Along with the financial losses MEC lost out on the opportunity to produce two feature films. With in the next year we plan to raise an additional 4 million dollars and produce 5 more films. I am not saying that I have achieved complete success, but at least we are heading on the right track. I do not bring this up to rub your nose in our success, but to show you what may have been. I also want to show you that success is obtainable as long as you stay optimistic.
Mr. Jaeger goes on to say in his rejection letter: “I'm very sorry to have to relate this to you and wish you well in your equity raise. If you are ever able to invest in the MEC business plan as we have worked it out, please feel free to consider us once again. We are not trying to be difficult or inflexible, but when you have seen as many business get financed and fail as I, and my associates, have seen over the past many years, you would probably opt to proceed in a similar fashion (and even with this, the odds are that we will fail as well).” All valid points, but I am afraid you have lost your way to such a degree that you have stop taking risks all together.
Any investor that has read your propaganda on your website would not come near you with a nickel, nor would any filmmakers with real talent. I do not want to see you lose out on any more opportunities because of misguided beliefs. With all of the time you are wasting by spreading half baked ideas you could make real change. You must first focus on the real problems.
I agree debate is very important but not at the expense of action. It is not enough to say there is not adequate diversity in Hollywood. You must create diversity. We can not afford to sit around wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting for us.
Sincerely,
Dennis Hartwig
Re(1): A Tale of Two Companies
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 10:45:37 PM
by Mitchell LevineI an thoroughly disgusted that the International Jewish conspiracy has registered this unprecedented failure.
I assure you that we will be doing everything in our limitless power to ensure that Barry Diller, Michael Eisner, Mike Ovitz, David Geffen, Jeff Katzenberg, and Joel Silver will once again rise to their former status of absolute, unyielding mega-dominance. You Goyim may think you're on top now, but karma's a boomerang!
An Ideal Scene
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 01:50:33 AM
by James JaegerMy current idealism is a lot broader than my previous idealism, possibly along the following lines:
THE WORLD'S FEATURE FILM INDUSTRY: A PLACE WHERE ARTISTS, TECHNICIANS AND ADMINISTRATORS CAN COME TOGETHER AND CREATE ENTERTAINING AND EDUCATIONAL MOTION PICTURES UPON AN HONEST AND OPEN PLAYING FIELD, A FIELD WHERE DIVERSITY, ORIGINALITY AND MUTUAL RESPECT ARE THE ORDER OF THE DAY, AN INDUSTRY WHERE NO POINT OF VIEW IS SUPPRESSED BY VESTED INTERESTS OR ADULTERATED BY CRASS COMMERCIALISM, AN INDUSTRY WHERE ANY AND ALL MAY FREELY SHARE THEIR UNIQUE VISION OF REALITY UPON THE SILVER SCREENS OF EXISTENCE.
James Jaeger
Re(1): An Ideal Scene
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 05:39:52 AM
by George ShelpsIf you believe that, develop your company, repay the shareholders by realizing your mission, and stop associating with JJ.
Re(2): An Ideal Scene
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 09:23:24 AM
by Moishe G.YOU SAY: If you believe that, develop your company, repay the shareholders by realizing your mission, and stop associating with JJ.
RESPONSE: JJ has never even met Mr. Jaeger. His "association" is the same as JJ's with you, Mr. Shelps: This message board, the Internet.
I am "associated" with you in the same way even as you read this.
There is no club, no pact, nothing. Jaeger isn't a clone of anyone. He's a free agent, the same as you. He doesn't necessarily agree with everything I say, and why do you infer so?
The free exchange of ideas is a cult for you?
The only way to sever my "association" with YOU is to censor me from this discussion group. Is that how you work?
Re(2): An Ideal Scene
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 10:29:48 PM
by Dennis Hartwig>If you believe that, develop your company, repay the shareholders by realizing your mission, and stop associating with JJ.
I am glad to see that you have not given up on your friend, but you also need to cut off debate with this individual (JJ). I know it is hard not to comment on ignorant remarks of a misguided person, but it is like masturbating with a cheese-grater (slightly amusing but mostly painful). You are an intelligent person there are many other places for debate where you can truly help individuals.
Re(3): An Ideal Scene
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 03:08:14 PM
by George Shelps >JJ has never even met Mr. Jaeger. His "association" is the same as JJ's with you, Mr. Shelps: This message board, the Internet.Untrue. He's been sending me information about you privately over the last two years.
Re(3): An Ideal Scene
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 10:49:55 PM
by Moishe GoyimYOU SAY: I am glad to see that you have not given up on your friend, but you also need to cut off debate with this individual (JJ). I know it is hard not to comment on ignorant remarks of a misguided person, but it is like masturbating with a cheese-grater
RESPONSE: Thank you for insights into your S&M activities. If you are familiar with "masturbating with a cheese-grater," perhaps you know something about copulating with a blueberry pop-up in a toaster? Or is the kinkiness of cheese and masturbation what interests you? A fetish for Swiss cheese? Or are you hooked on American?
YOU SAY: You are an intelligent person there are many other places for debate where you can truly help individuals.
RESPONSE: It seems as though a bonafide Clown Club is making a pact through the Internet. My only question: do you all have red noses?
If you think you're informed, challenge me.
Anyone can throw mud from a passing plane.
Re(4): An Ideal Scene
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 09:10:06 PM
by MoisheI repeat:
JJ has never even met Mr. Jaeger. His "association" is the same as JJ's with you, Mr. Shelps: This message board, the Internet.
Well, if you really want to spill the beans, why not mention the fact that the reason I treat you so harshly is that we've have Internet exchanges before, in what you call "private," and you've grossed me out with your allegiance to chronic, narrow-minded, third-degree ignorance.
Reading your arguments is kind of like sorting through baby drool spilled on the floor. I mean, someone's got to pay attention to it.
I might add that having a "private" conversation with you on the Internet is sort of like getting bitten from behind by an angry chicken.
Reading your commentaries was when I realized you are a certified descendent of Elmer Fudd.
OK. Maybe that's too harsh. Let's just say a spiritual cousin.
Re(4): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 07:08:23 PM
by George ShelpsHey, name one person who has been "shafted by the intrinsics biases of Hollywood."
Re(5): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 18, 2003 at 07:21:23 PM
by Moishe the GoyimArthur Fornduck.
Re(6): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 19, 2003 at 11:17:38 PM
by George ShelpsArthur Fornduck????
Perhaps you can induce ol' Art to post here and tell his story?
Re(7): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 08:45:39 AM
by MoisheI think I could dangle out a twirling nightcrawler on a string and you'd bite for it.
Please think one time.
Re(8): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 01:07:46 PM
by George ShelpsI know it's hard but try to restrain your general crudity and creepiness.
Your standard response to any disagreement with your premises on this discussion board is cheap sarcasm.
And then the posture of a "free speech martyr."
Apparently, you think you can say the most scurrilous things about Jews and no one should be permitted to call you on this tactic.
Let me tell you, pal, free speech is a two-way street.
Re(9): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 05:07:24 PM
by Moishe G.YOU SAY: I know it's hard but try to restrain your general crudity and creepiness.
RESPONSE: One of us is an intellectual "Hunchback of Notre Dame." The things you say remind me of that dried goo stuff a snail leaves when it crawls along a flat surface.
YOU SAY: Your standard response to any disagreement with your premises on this discussion board is cheap sarcasm.
RESPONSE: Not so. I use sarcasm and satire when I get exasperated with ignorance. I tire of posting bibliographic citations here that can be read at: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org
YOU SAY: And then the posture of a "free speech martyr."
RESPONSE: I hear your high-pitched squeaking clearly in the peanut gallery, next to Bozo the Clown: "Crucify him!"
YOU SAY: Apparently, you think you can say the most scurrilous things about Jews and no one should be permitted to call you on this tactic.
RESPONSE: I haven't said anything "scurrilous." What I offer is based upon years of research about this.
YOU SAY: Let me tell you, pal, free speech is a two-way street.
RESPONSE: Let's hope so! Are you intentionally satirizing yourself? "Free speech is a two-way street." It better be! You state your views and I state mine.
You are telling me something I don't know?
Re(10): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 11:54:06 PM
by George ShelpsYour bibliographic "citations" are merely a collection of the worst things said by or about Jews.
The word for that type of research is "propaganda."
You can dredge up this kind of thing about any ethnic group.
Re(10): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 06:07:21 PM
by Mitchell Levine"What I offer is based upon years of research about this."
Like the man said, J.J.: "a truth that's told with bad intent/ beats all the lies you can invent."
Since the only thing you seem to have any currency with is anti-Semitic propaganda, like your site, it's probably unlikely you'll place the quote, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Re(11): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 09:26:06 PM
by Moishe GoyimYOU SAY: Like the man said, J.J.: "a truth that's told with bad intent/ beats all the lies you can invent."
RESPONSE: "The man who hides behind the veil / barks the most, to no avail."
Not bad for five seconds worth of my thought, huh? Shall we move on to limericks?
Now, in the spirit of rhymes and ditties and so forth, am I going to bear the brunt of your "anti-Semitic" accusation for daring to quote the following Yiddish folk sayings? [KUMOVE, S., Schocken, 1985]
"One need never suspect a Jew -- he surely is a thief." [p. 139]
"It's good to do business with a thief." [p. 233]
"If you steal -- you'll have." [p. 233]
"What is smaller than a mouse may be carried from a house." [p. 233]
"Petty thieves are hanged, major thieves are pardoned." [p. 233]
"A thief gives handsome presents." [p. 230]
"Before a thief goes stealing, he also prays to God." [p. 231]
"Better with a hometown thief than a strange rabbi." [p. 231]
"Thieve and rob if you must but be honorable." [p. 232]
"God protect us from Gentile hands and Jewish tongues." [p. 196]
"Live among Jews, do business among the Goyim." [p. 143]
"If you steal enough eggs, you can also become rich." [p. 249]
"A fool gives and a clever person takes." [p. 106]
"Always take -- if you give me, I'll go away, if not, I'll stay." [p. 106]
"Always take!" [p. 106]
"The goy is treyf [forbidden] but his money is kosher [acceptable]." [p. 126]
"Offer a Jew a ride and he throws you out of your own wagon." [p. 45]
"A sense of justice we want others to have." [p. 127]
"Money rules the world." [p. 179]
"Money is the best soap -- it removes the greatest stain. (p. 179)
"Gold shines out of the mud." [p. 179]
"Gold has a dirty origin but is nevertheless treated with honor. [p. 180]
"The world stands on three things: on money, on money, and money." [p. 180] [All from KUMOVE, 1985]
YOU SAY: Since the only thing you seem to have any currency with is anti-Semitic propaganda, like your site, it's probably unlikely you'll place the quote, but that doesn't make it any less true.
RESPONSE: I am "placing" exactly the above quotes for you with bibliographic reference (Shocken Books is also a Jewish publisher). Are they any "less true" because I tell them to you and not a rabbi?
Re(12): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 09:48:01 PM
by Mitchell LevineSorry, but the correct response is: "It is right/It must be so/Man is made for Joy and Woe." [Auguries of Innocence, v.52-3]
Not only couldn't you just admit you didn't know, you even falsified a quote. Very indicative of your "passion" for honesty and accuracy.
"To see the world in a grain of sand..."
Re(12): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 00:02:01 AM
by George ShelpsThe fact that you found some hostile and ugly Yiddish folk-sayings means nothing.
I wonder what anti-white sayings you can find among African-Americans and vice versa.
You simply wish to focus on the worst when it comes to Jews, but when I ask to name one example of someone who could tell a story about how they were kept out of the film business because they weren't Jewish, you can't do it.
(I'm not Jewish and I have nothing to gain from "defending" them. But there is need of reform in the film business. And to deflect things in the direction of crass anti-semitism is a stupid and senseless waste of time.)
Re(13): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 20, 2003 at 10:46:51 PM
by Moishe GoyimYOU SAY: Sorry, but the correct response is: "It is right/It must be so/Man is made for Joy and Woe." [Auguries of Innocence, v.52-3]
RESPONSE: ???? A poetry contest? "How public like a frog!" (Emily Dickinson)
YOU SAY: Not only couldn't you just admit you didn't know,
RESPONSE: What on Earth are you talking about?
YOU SAY: you even falsified a quote.
RESPONSE: What on Earth are you talking about? It seems that you've finally flipped out.
YOU SAY: "To see the world in a grain of sand..."
RESPONSE: "... is to find even there the Jewish hand."
You know, Mitch (may I call you Mitch?), I'm almost beginning to like you. Anyone quoting poetry can't be TOTALLY berserk and paranoid.
But, alas. I think I'll soon turn to other things and allow you (eventually) the Last Word. (Maybe).
Re(13): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 00:58:55 AM
by Moishe G.YOU SAY: The fact that you found some hostile and ugly Yiddish folk-sayings means nothing.
RESPONSE: "Nothing?" Really? Is that what you thereby ascribe to the Yiddish folk tradition? Sounds to me like you're a bigot who doesn't appreciate the value of other cultures.
YOU SAY: I wonder what anti-white sayings you can find among African-Americans and vice versa.
RESPONSE: Maybe so, but they certainly don't mean "nothing." They mean a great deal. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find a parallel folk tradition that echoes the self-assessment of those quaint Yiddishisms. I remind you that these Jewish sayings were, per your conception, "anti-Jewish." But they were in-house understandings, created by Jews as an oral tradition.
YOU SAY: You simply wish to focus on the worst when it comes to Jews, but when I ask to name one example of someone who could tell a story about how they were kept out of the film business because they weren't Jewish, you can't do it.
RESPONSE: I have posted, for example, the interesting text of Daniel Noble. Which you completely ignore.
YOU SAY: (I'm not Jewish and I have nothing to gain from "defending" them.
RESPONSE: Married to one? Dating one? Working for one? Contract with one?
YOU SAY: But there is need of reform in the film business. And to deflect things in the direction of crass anti-semitism is a stupid and senseless waste of time.)
RESPONSE: Of all the people I've debated on the Internet, you're as dull-witted and intellectually sloth-like as they come. I rank you a 2. (Above a 1 because you apparently know how to type).
Mr. Levine at least uses some big words once and a while.
Re(14): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 00:10:24 AM
by Mitchell LevineThe point is that you got the quote wrong: It was from William Blake's Auguries of Innocence, and you misidentified it with something completely extraneous.
Re(14): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 01:42:35 AM
by George Shelps>I have posted, for example, the interesting text of Daniel Noble. Which you completely ignore.
I ignore it because the screenplay was not produced. It is very easy to get a screenplay read in Hollywood, if you have an reputable agent. But being Jewish is not going to be the decisive factor in getting the script produced.
YOU SAY: (I'm not Jewish and I have nothing to gain from "defending" them.
RESPONSE: Married to one? Dating one? Working for one? Contract with one?
None of the above.
YOU SAY: But there is need of reform in the film business. And to deflect things in the direction of crass anti-semitism is a stupid and senseless waste of time.)
RESPONSE: Of all the people I've debated on the Internet, you're as dull-witted and intellectually sloth-like as they come. I rank you a 2. (Above a 1 because you apparently know how to type).
Oohh, you're so hurtful, wah, wah, wah!
Re(15): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 00:42:07 AM
by Moishe G.The point is that I made up some doggerel (NOT the Yiddish stuff) and you were completely oblivious to what was in front of your face. You were framing your quotes as a quiz?
By the way, William Blake (like just about every other non-Jew of influence in human history), true to Jewish defensive form, has ALSO been accused of "anti-Semitism" by an obsessed Jew:
Jewish professor Karen Shabetai looks with concern as she scans his work for anti-Semitism, foregrounding the usual categorical, angelic Jewish innocence as the lens before her:
"Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno stressed the and lack of purpose of anti-Semitism' for often its targets interchangeable according to circumstances.' This underlying of anti-Semitism comes close to what occurs in Blake. Blake's shifting attitude, marked by shrill moments of intense hostility [against Jews], bespeaks at the very least classic symptoms of anti-Semitism ranging from demonological superstitions inherited from the Middle Ages to resentment and anxiety about the Jews as the chosen people. More importantly, Blake's anti-Semitism, while greatly at odds with his largely humanitarian program, casts a shadow -- a haunting specter, perhaps -- upon this received wisdom." [SHABETAI, p. 149]
The point I'm making to you, repeatedly, which you refuse to confront, is that Jewish Obsession dicates that virtually ANYONE who looks at Jewry cross-eyed is an "anti-Semite." Jewish condemnation includes me, Jaeger, Cones, and just about any famous "goyim" you care to bring up -- like Marilyn Monroe and William Blake. It is a crazed Jewish net; it is totalitarian, and it toxifies just about anybody -- including the good, the just, and the humane -- as evil.
The accusation of "anti-semitism," as I have repeatedly underscored to you, is the foundation of modern Jewish identity. Without it, Jews would have to invent it. Which they -- and you -- often do.
We are approaching the day (largely thanks to Israel) when this accusation won't stick, because Jews will finally have to take honest responsibility for what they are, what they do, and what they think.
Re(16): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 09:45:48 AM
by George Shelps>The point I'm making to you, repeatedly, which you refuse to confront, is that Jewish Obsession dicates that virtually ANYONE who looks at Jewry cross-eyed is an "anti-Semite." Jewish condemnation includes me,
The "anti-Semite" epithet is overdone, I agree. But just as some paranoids have real enemies, some people really are Jew-haters, and you're one of them.
Cones and Jaeger would be wise to dissociate themselves from you ASAP.
Jaeger, Cones, and just about any famous "goyim" you care to bring up -- like Marilyn Monroe and William Blake. It is a crazed Jewish net; it is totalitarian, and it toxifies just about anybody -- including the good, the just, and the humane -- as evil.
--------
In your case, the toxification is justified.
Re(17): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 06:42:28 PM
by Mitchell LevineUm, if the question is: Was William Blake anti-Semitic?; the only possible answer is "yes."
For example, he wrote:"
Jesus turned the devils into swine So to tempt the Jews to dine Since then the pig has got a look For which a Jew could be mistook."
That, of course, was typical for a gentile of his day, and even Marilyn Monroe's day. But that didn't stop her from converting. Even though Blake was a rabid bigot, I still like his verse anyhow.
Re(18): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 07:50:36 PM
by George ShelpsUm, if the question is: Was William
Blake anti-Semitic?; the only possible answer is "yes."
For example, he wrote:"
Jesus turned the devils into swine So to tempt the Jews to dine Since then the pig has got a look For which a Jew could be mistook."
That, of course, was typical for a gentile of his day, and even Marilyn Monroe's day.
__You know, Mitchell, that kind of statement ranks with some of the worst of JJ's. I grew up in the l950s and never heard one anti-semitic word in our house, in our school, or in our church.
But that didn't stop her from converting.
___Uh, I believe she converted in order to marry Arthur Miller, whom she later divorced.
Re(19): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 10:09:37 PM
by Moishe the GoyimMr. Shelps! There's life in you! The first wise thing you've said (to some degree).
YOU SAID: You know, Mitchell, that kind of statement ranks with some of the worst of JJ's. [Throwing Mr. Levine my way isn't wise, but ... ] I grew up in the l950s and never heard one anti-semitic word in our house, in our school, or in our church.
RESPONSE: Listen, Shelps. I've been arguing this ALL the time! Mr. Levine's categorical toxification of an entire class of people (non-Jews) is part of Jewish identity. The accusation of "anti-Semitism" virtually defines modern Jewish identity. Here Levine is throwing it into your face, so you've got to suddenly face it.
I'm sorry if you are convinced that it is ME who is a bigot for stating this. But, alas, what I state is true. Popular Jewish convention about the non-Jewish "other" has always been a form of bigotry.
Jewish convention holds that all of history was "anti-Semitic." And that includes entire cultures, entire people, to the present day. As Levine decides, non-Jews are categorical bigots, from William Blake's era to Marilyn Monroe's.
Mr. Shelps. You'd better be careful, because once you get into any kind of contest with Levine, YOU are going to be accused of being a latent "anti-Semite." Mark my words.
I am fighting this. I have studied Jewish convention for years. And, like it or not, Mr. Levine's commentary here is the ESSENCE of the problem: JEWISH bigotry.
Is EVERY SINGLE JEW walking around with one head, thinking the exact same thing? No. But there are conventions that dominate the Jewish community. And Levine's comments about Blake, Monroe, and generic non-Jews are COMMON!
I argue for a fair look at both sides of the fence: Jewish and Gentile. Were Jewish saints throughout history? Hardly.
YOU SAID: Uh, I believe she converted in order to marry Arthur Miller, whom she later divorced.
RESPONSE: Very true. Very good point.
The more Levine talks, the more he confirms parts of my arguments.
Re(19): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 21, 2003 at 09:51:14 PM
by Mitchell LevineGeorge, did you grow up in the 18th century?
Re(20): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 00:57:48 AM
by George ShelpsGeorge, did you grow up in the 18th century?
___No, did you?
The 18th century was the Age of Enlightenment, when America was born, where Jews (like Haym Solomon) were among the original American patriots.
Your brush is much too broad. And you extended the charge to the l950s, the Age of Marilyn Monroe when you wrote:
"That, of course, was typical for a gentile of his day, and even Marilyn Monroe's day."
This is not accurate. And it extended my immediate family. I never heard one single anti-semitic slur from friends or in school or anywhere...and I led a very typical middle class existence.
I see that JJ has used this as an opportunity to try to draw me into his ranks. It won't work.
Re(20): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 00:33:44 AM
by Mitchell LevineI don't understand why you're both getting your knickers in a twist: If you reason logically, my point was that anti-Semitism was MORE common in the past then it is today.
George, you weren't born during the Restoration, so why would William Blake's sentiments be representative of your familys'?
And no one in their right mind would ever consider you a "latent" anti-Semite given the ideology exemplified by your posts on this site and your own, Jenks. Including Mr. Shelps. You are an aggressive, tireless anti-Semitic propagandist, that would love to see constitutional imprimatur given to religious discrimination.
On the basis of his posts on the site, I have no reason whatsoever to consider George to be bigoted in any way; in fact, he appears to be admirably tolerant. But, needless to say, J.J. won't let an opportunity to spread hate and derision go untaken.
Of course Jews have not been saints throughout their history, but your doctrine seems to be that if a gentile does something wrong, it's just that individual's fault. However, if a Jew does something wrong, it's all Jews' fault. Simply because someone Jewish may have committed some offense at some point, does not mean that all Jews everywhere should be considered liable. But you do. That's what's wrong with you.
Re(20): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 00:43:22 AM
by George ShelpsListen, Shelps. I've been arguing this ALL the time! Mr. Levine's categorical toxification of an entire class of people (non-Jews) is part of Jewish identity. The accusation of "anti-Semitism" virtually defines modern Jewish identity. Here Levine is throwing it into your face, so you've got to suddenly face it.
___I don't "suddenly face it." I have always been quite aware of this type of overstatement. It has been directed at me in my own associations.
I'm sorry if you are convinced that it is ME who is a bigot for stating this.
___I don't disagree with you because you're bigot (though you sound like one), I disagree with you because you single out the Jews for expressing this fear of the "other," and don't care to acknowledge that every single ethnic group does the same sort of thing. It's not an exclusively Jewish thing. So singling this group out is unfair. That's where your bigotry lies.
And it's also misleading as far as Hollywood is concerned. It's not the problem there. The problem lies in the escalating costs of film, the collapse of the infrastructure and its move to Canada, the shady accounting practices, the wasteful distribution practices, the often-poor exhibition policies. etc etc.
But, alas, what I state is true. Popular Jewish convention about the non-Jewish "other" has always been a form of bigotry.
Re(21): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 02:18:15 AM
by Mitchell LevineAll I meant was that it was still common during the '50s; i.e., stronger than it generally is today. Nothing more, nothing less. My apologies for any unintended inference.
Re(21): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 09:38:23 AM
by Moishe G.YOU SAY: I see that JJ has used this as an opportunity to try to draw me into his ranks. It won't work.
RESPONSE: The more Levine says, the more he'll give his ethnocentrism away, as you see. It has nothing to do with me.
Levine exemplifies the problem -- in some ways -- of Judeocentrism, that which is also part of the Hollywood hierarchy.
Re(22): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 03:06:33 AM
by George ShelpsAll I meant was that it was still common during the '50s; i.e., stronger than it generally is today. Nothing more, nothing less.
---------------------------------------I guess it was still present in the 50s, maybe even common. I just didn't see it myself. I didn't see it in the 60s or the 70s either. I guess I've been fortunate, but anti-semites like JJ have been rare in my experience.
We were taught in church that although Jews accepted Jesus as a great teacher, they did not believe he was God. And that was the extent of the Church teaching on Jews. (I'm an Episcopalian)
Where JJ and Jim Jaeger and John Cones all go wrong is the false application of democracy to the private business sector. Democracy is a method of electing representatives for a government. Nothing more than that. It doesn't apply anywhere else, certainly not in business or the arts.
Only when there is legally actionable discrimination in the workplace can the machinery of government be brought to bear. And that should done with caution.
I agree with you that JJ's views imply using government power for religious discrimination. What other remedy does he cite---continual ranting?
Finally, I do not believe that Cones and Jaeger are anti-semitic. But by associating themselves with JJ, they risk being tainted by him.
Re(23): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 09:44:10 AM
by Moishe G.YOU SAY: Finally, I do not believe that Cones and Jaeger are anti-semitic. But by associating themselves with JJ, they risk being tainted by him.
RESPONSE: You are calling for censorship here. That's democracy? How does Cones "associate" with me? Where is Jaeger my "assoicate?"
I post facts here that you should know. In a free exchange of ideas, you, Mr. Shelps, are no less "assoicated" with me.
Your version of "democracy" seems to call for censorship.
Perhaps you'd like to see me jailed for having the guts to tell the truth?
Re(24): Hollywood's Arabs
Posted on April 22, 2003 at 01:01:41 PM
by mitchell levine"YOU SAY: Finally, I do not believe that Cones and Jaeger are anti-semitic. But by associating themselves with JJ, they risk being tainted by him.
RESPONSE: You are calling for censorship here. That's democracy?" "
As we've discussed before, censorship is when the government exercises prior restraint to prevent you from speaking, or when they arrest you when you have spoken.
George is NOT engaging in censorship; he is using his own freedom of speech to express his beliefs concerning Jaeger and Cones actions. That freedom is just as constitutionally protected as yours.
Unless you have evidence that Mr. Shelps is a secessionist looking to foment a communist revolution, or a monarchy, you have no evidence that he's "anti-democratic."
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |