FIRM Discussions June 15, 2003 - June 20, 2003
Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?
Some of my best friends... Posted on June 15, 2003 at 05:39:20 PM by Stu Harvey are Jew-hating garbage just like ME. Re(1): Some of my best friends... Posted on June 15, 2003 at 08:52:53 PM by Mitchell Levine Apparently, according to the Whois database, you should be able to reach him at 313-942-1126, the administrative number registered with the Jewishtribalreview.org domain. Quote from Asimov Posted on June 19, 2003 at 12:31:59 AM by John Cones " . . . it is more important to be human and to have a human heritage . . . it is wrong for anyone to feel that there is anything special about any one heritage of whatever kind. It is delightful for human beings to exist in a thousand varities . . . but, as soon as ony one variety is thought to be more important than any other, the ground is laid for destroying them all." Consistent with this quote from Issac Asimov, we at FIRM seek to encourage more diversity in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry. People who hold themselves out as being special and superior to others cannot possibly expect to be admired by those who are arbitraryly excluded from positions of power in the industry. John Cones Re(1): Quote from Asimov Posted on June 19, 2003 at 10:41:17 PM by Mitchell Levine Mr. Cones, as has been repeately pointed out to you, you've never demonstrated that anyone's ever been excluded from positions of authority in the business on account of their ethnicity. Please tell me of anyone you know of in the studios whom is continuously overlooked for placement as president of a studio, despite their superior qualifications, simply for not being Jewish. It's not enough to accumulate names of media bosses whom ARE Jewish - to prove your case, you have an affirmative duty to demonstrate positive evidence of active exclusion, since you are charging the current studio heads with a criminal conspiracy. No one has to prove they're innocent, and simply being Jewish and a successful film executive is not a crime anyhow. For example, to successfully convict her of securities fraud, it's not enough for prosecutors to show that Martha Stewart is a successful female entrepreneur whom experienced an amazing run of luck on the markets: they have to clearly demonstrate that she acted on inappropriately obtained information from Sam Waskal, and therefore violated the SEC's statutes. What qualified, sufficiently experienced individual has been passed over to run the organizations demonstrably because of their race? If this phenomenon is truly so pervasive, you must be able to come up with at least one name. It is not enough to show that there is a concentration of Jews in a purported "control group." It additionally has to be shown that they excluded equally qualified, experienced candidates and therefore unlawfully obtained their jobs. You've never done that, and it's exceedingly unlikely you ever will, let alone provide any evidence that Equal Opportunity legislation's been violated by them. Because of that, you have no case. All you can do is make emotional appeals to prejudice. And you know it. By the way, if you're so concerned about diversity, why don't you spend more time trying to convince your rich, powerful, connected client base to hire more minorities for their companies, provide minority internships and production financing, and so forth? If you are, why aren't you more vocal about it on the site? We'd all be fascinated to hear about it! I'm sure it would greatly complement Jaeger's initiative to provide Palestinian filmmakers more exposure through his Video-on-Demand project! Re(2): Quote from Asimov Posted on June 20, 2003 at 00:35:25 AM by George Shelps Re Mitchell Levine's response to John Cones: "Well said." Re(3): Quote from Asimov Posted on June 20, 2003 at 01:02:43 AM by Mitchell Levine Thanks, George. As you may have noticed, Cones never replies to the arguments, however. Re(4): Quote from Asimov Posted on June 20, 2003 at 10:15:55 AM by George Shelps Thanks, George. As you may have noticed, Cones never replies to the arguments, however. ___Yeah, I noticed that. He simply restates his case and then departs. But as you said, he and Jaeger have failed to give an example of one individual who was denied access to the movie industry because he wasn't Jewish or because he/she didn't fit their "control group" profile. Furthermore, neither of them (nor the odious Jenks) has proposed a remedy for this supposedly deplorable situation of lack of diversity. They duck that option---because the answer would have to lie in some form of a government-enforced quota in the Hollywood executive suite, and even though they might like that result, they don't dare come out and say they're for it. As you pointed out, we have anti-discrmination laws on the books and I challenge Cones and Jaeger to attempt to use the existing laws to further their cause of diversity. Re(5): Quote from Asimov Posted on June 20, 2003 at 12:01:45 AM by Mitchell Levine I'd really feel sorry for all those Palestinian middle-managers stuck as VPs of Development, always having to trudge home to 1/2 acre A frames in North Hollywood after wiring their paychecks to their families in the Occupied Territories, frustrated because they never get hired as President/CEOs of their entire entertainment groups. Having to sit in their single-unit above- ground hot tubs and feel impotent because their superiors in the Jewish Control Group won't give them full executive authority to green-light the projects by Hamas and the Jihad that the public would really want to buy tickets for by the millions if it weren't for the hegemony of the dominant ethnicity and their propaganda machine, must be a very marginalizing experience. I think anyone would understand that sense of denial. To be trapped as a second-rate six figure -earning grey suit with a corner office, instead of having the command of presence that should obviously be everyone's birthright, is clearly a fate worse than death. It's a good thing Jaeger's really walking the walk by championing their cause and making Video-on-Demand a conduit for their work. Otherwise, someone might get the idea that the only changes he was looking to make in Hollywood was to make it more profitable for him! Of course, I understand it's not really about money though. A False Burden Posted on June 20, 2003 at 12:31:02 AM by John Cones Mitchell: It is really quite silly of you to pretend that you have the authority to determine for me what is or is not the standard regarding a burden of proof on a matter of discussion. I do not have a burden to demonstrate that any particular individual has been discriminated against, or to meet any of the other false standards you so arrogantly have set forth. As you know, I am not the District Attorney. I am not the state or Federal Attorney General. I am not the head of the Equal Employment Commission. I do not have subpoena power to investigate such matters. Further, we are not in a court of law. And, even if what is happening in Hollywood is not against any existing law, the law neeeds to be changed, because the lack of diversity at the top at the Hollywood studios is not good for the country. It weakens our democracy to have any significant communications medium dominated by less diverse voices. I, on the other hand, have never pretended to be more than I am -- a researcher who conducted some extensive research on questions relating to what really is going on in Hollywood. I've made the results of that research available and have yet to see anyone who has provided any evidence to refute the conclusions drawn. All I see is the repeated attempt to shift attention from the statements made by name- calling and staw man arguments like you've made here. You've set up a series of false burdens that are not mine to meet. John Cones Re(1): A False Burden Posted on June 20, 2003 at 06:20:32 PM by George Shelps I, on the other hand, have never pretended to be more than I am -- a researcher who conducted some extensive research on questions relating to what really is going on in Hollywood. I've made the results of that research available and have yet to see anyone who has provided any evidence to refute the conclusions drawn. All I see is the repeated attempt to shift attention from the statements made by name- calling and staw man arguments like you've made here. You've set up a series of false burdens that are not mine to meet. __You're ducking the question. What remedies do you suggest? It's an important question because it goes to the heart of the objections that many people---particularly Jews--have to FIRM---which is that your views implcitly seem to be suggesting some form of repressive government action to "correct" the situation and eliminate the "control group." It's dishonest to refuse to address this issue--as both you and Jaeger you do. Re(1): A False Burden Posted on June 20, 2003 at 06:21:50 PM by Mitchell Levine That's not true, John - you do have a burden of proof: the burden to meet the standards of rational debate, and that's the only authority you have to impress. If you can't meet that burden, than your arguments lose credibility. No one is going to disbar you (or at least I can't) for not meeting this standard, they will simply reject those arguments as insufficient to prove your thesis, and they'll have legitimate grounds to do so. It's true that you're not the DA, but, then again, the forum in question is not a court of law, but the marketplace of ideas, and the judge doesn't sit on a bench and bang a gavel; it simply demands that those standards of logic and proof that reasonable people require to give credence to an idea be applied. If you're going to make claims, you'd better back them up, or your arguments won't hold water. If you say that, for instance, an evil conspiracy to exclude minorities has taken place, than any reasonable individual is going to expect that you can identify someone, anyone really, that's ever been excluded. Otherwise almost any logical thinker will begin to doubt the potential validity of what you have to say, and will be justified in doing so. You don't need to be appointed to the Brethren to understand that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You haven't provided it. If I'm wrong, then you should have arguments to demonstrate that too, and why my "straw man" arguments are mistaken. That fact that you simply refuse to reply to them, rather than refute them, which would end all further debate on them, creates the suspicion that you are just avoiding what you cannot meet. What this is about is not WHO's correct: it's about what's correct. I'm not criticizing you or your character (unlike the case of Jenks), or calling you any names. I'm simply demanding that you prove your claims. You claim to be a researcher, for example, and perhaps that's true - but I'm not disclaiming the factuality of those specific items of information you report (although I do have some questions regarding these), I'm arguing that they do not support the conclusions you draw. That's a perfectly reasonable argument to make, and if you can't find a logical answer to its points, then why should anyone should continue to accept your theory? On the grounds that anything done by Jews must somehow be evil without need for sufficient proof?Now I'm not saying that is the tacit basis of your assertions, but irrationality and bigotry have a long history together. Drawing on classic antisemitic stereotypes like Jews considering themselves "special" and superior to others by implication doesn't do much to dispel that impression I'm completely willing to concede I'm wrong if you can prove it - and I freely admit that in my role as a writer, I do not possess the industry and legal knowledge that you and Mr. Shelps do. But it will require a logical argument from you to deny my objections. That you just will not present. If your theories can't be supported by rational arguments, than all you are is a propagandist. Many reasonable arguments have been made here to refute your conclusions, and your only attempt to defend them has been to dismiss the arguments as "straw." I'm NOT in any way implying that you are incapable of defending your views, only pointing out that you have consistently refused to do so. The stregth of democracy is in the Constitution, which is what you would need to amend to establish your new vision of "democracy," one certainly nothing like what the Founding Fathers described. I wonder if you mention any of this when you counsel your rich, p Re(1): A False Burden Posted on June 20, 2003 at 06:30:18 PM by Mitchell Levine That's not true, John - you do have a burden of proof: the burden to meet the standards of rational debate, and that's the only authority you have to impress. If you can't meet that burden, than your arguments lose credibility. No one is going to disbar you (or at least I can't) for not meeting this standard, they will simply reject those arguments as insufficient to prove your thesis, and they'll have legitimate grounds to do so. It's true that you're not the DA, but, then again, the forum in question is not a court of law, but the marketplace of ideas, and the judge doesn't sit on a bench and bang a gavel; it simply demands that those standards of logic and proof that reasonable people require to give credence to an idea be applied. If you're going to make claims, you'd better back them up, or your arguments won't hold water. If you say that, for instance, an evil conspiracy to exclude minorities has taken place, than any reasonable individual is going to expect that you can identify someone, anyone really, that's ever been excluded. Otherwise almost any logical thinker will begin to doubt the potential validity of what you have to say, and will be justified in doing so. You don't need to be appointed to the Brethren to understand that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You haven't provided it. If I'm wrong, then you should have arguments to demonstrate that too, and why my "straw man" arguments are mistaken. That fact that you simply refuse to reply to them, rather than refute them, which would end all further debate on them, creates the suspicion that you are just avoiding what you cannot meet. What this is about is not WHO's correct: it's about what's correct. I'm not criticizing you or your character (unlike the case of Jenks), or calling you any names. I'm simply demanding that you prove your claims. You claim to be a researcher, for example, and perhaps that's true - but I'm not disclaiming the factuality of those specific items of information you report (although I do have some questions regarding these), I'm arguing that they do not support the conclusions you draw. That's a perfectly reasonable argument to make, and if you can't find a logical answer to its points, then why should anyone should continue to accept your theory? On the grounds that anything done by Jews must somehow be evil without need for sufficient proof? Now I'm not saying that is the tacit basis of your assertions, but irrationality and bigotry have a long history together. Drawing on classic antisemitic stereotypes, like Jews considering themselves "special" and superior to others, by implication, doesn't do much to dispel that impression I'm completely willing to concede I'm wrong if you can prove it - and I freely admit that in my role as a writer, I do not possess the industry and legal knowledge that you and Mr. Shelps do. But it will require a logical argument from you to deny my objections. That you just will not present. If your theories can't be supported by rational arguments, then all you are is a propagandist wearing the guise of a researcher and reformer. Many reasonable arguments have been made here to refute your conclusions, and your only attempt to defend them has been to dismiss the arguments as "straw." I'm NOT in any way implying that you are incapable of defending your views, only pointing out that you have consistently refused to do so. The stregth of democracy is in the Constitution, which is what you would need to amend to establish your new vision of "democracy," one certainly nothing like what the Founding Fathers described. I wonder if you mention any of this when you counsel your rich, powerful, highly connected clients about their film industry investments? Don't worry, it's rhetorical - I wouldn't ask you to break privilege. Do Your Research Posted on June 20, 2003 at 08:18:34 PM by John Cones Mitchell and George: There you have it! The two of you just want to complain without really knowing exactly what you are complaining about. If you had done your research you would know that I devoted an entire chapter on explaining why I did not make the accusation that a conspiracy was involved and why a conspiracy was irrelevant to my other conclusions about Hollywood. But, you still make the false accusation that I've somehow suggested a conspiracy. In addition, you do not seem to be aware that I wrote an entire book exploring various possible remedies to the problems my research disclosed about Hollywood, but you want me to take the time to restate that lengthy discussion on this forum. You are wasting my time. John Cones Re(1): Do Your Research Posted on June 20, 2003 at 09:06:04 PM by mg Me too. My time is too much wasted here. I have plenty else to do. I could spend the rest of my life refuting -- point by point -- these guys' whines. I'll continue to post relevant news articles and -- in conjunction with our own web site, Jewish Tribal Review -- any half-wit will be able to grasp what the problem here is. It is elemental. Levine and Shelps are lackies to the current power elite. One, Levine, as some kind of screenwriter, is even emblematic of the problem. A Jewish screenwriter! Imagine it! Something rare! Something he earned 100% by raw talent! No doubt! Like all the rest of the Jewish Legion that rules that roost! Pure talent, all! Re(2): Do Your Research Posted on June 20, 2003 at 11:40:30 PM by James Jaeger I agree. Neither Levin or Shelps have taken the time to read and understand the research either Cones or Jenks have done on their respective subjects> They (Levin and Shelps) they are both just shooting at the hip. Thus, to continue debating with either of them is a total waste of time. This is why I have not been present very much in this series of arguments. I have attempted to post some serious items regarding the film industry, like my post on Microsoft v. Hollywood, but these have been all but ignored. Further, I am accused of not providing any solutions and John is accused of have a "burden of proof" on what should be plain to all but a mOron. At the end of the day, it's people like Shelps and Levin who really have little concern about actually reforming the movie business, a goal that we take seriously at FIRM. James Jaeger The March of Hollywood Judeocentrism Posted on June 20, 2003 at 09:37:32 PM by Annon http://www.msnbc.com/news/921494.asp?cp1=1 Demi Moore, Kabbalah recruiter, MSNBC, June 5, 2003 "Ashton Kutcher isn’t the only thing that Demi Moore is wrapped up in these days. Moore is so immersed in Kabbalah that a source says the comeback diva was trying to convert co-workers on the set of the upcoming 'Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle.' ‘She was singing the praises of [Kabbalah] to anyone who would listen — and some who wouldn’t,' says the source. 'She was encouraging people to take classes and read up on it.' The study of an ancient form of scholarly Jewish philosophy has become all the rage among celebs, and its followers including Madonna, Roseanne, and Courtney Love." More Jewish fraud/whores/entertainment industry Posted on June 20, 2003 at 10:20:33 PM by Michael Friedman http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.06.20/news14.html German Communal Leader Probed After Drug Bust, By NATHANIEL POPPER, [Jewish] Forward, June 20, 2003 "Germany's most prominent Jewish leader is under investigation after police found cocaine in his apartment and office last week. Reports on the scandal have since associated Michel Friedman — vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, as well as a television talk show host — with prostitution and a crime ring, in addition to drug use ... Friedman's life had, to this point, been a success story; the son of parents saved by Oskar Schindler, he grew up to become an important political figure and an outspoken Jewish personality in Germany. But the current investigation threatens to bring his tale to an ugly denouement. Police raided Friedman's home and offices in Frankfurt last Wednesday and found three packets of cocaine, none of them large enough to warrant Friedman's arrest, but together enough to initiate an investigation. On Friday, Björn Retzlaff, a spokesman for the Berlin Justice Department, confirmed reports that police had obtained a warrant after Friedman's name arose during the investigation of a criminal ring that was smuggling prostitutes from Ukraine. Retzlaff stressed that Friedman is not under suspicion for involvement in the smuggling. But in an article on Monday, the newsmagazine Der Spiegel reported that investigators have evidence of Friedman ordering prostitutes under the name Paulo Pinkel. Der Spiegel also said that two Ukrainian prostitutes independently told investigators that Friedman had asked them to use cocaine with him. As head of the Central Council, Friedman, 47, holds a prominent communal position. Religious life in Germany is much more centralized and hierarchical than in the United States and, consequently, the council members, and Friedman in particular, have a level of influence held by no corresponding figure in the United States. Friedman has thus far declined to comment on the scandal. This reti- cence is uncommon behavior for a man who is famous for the confrontational style he employs on his popular television talk show 'Vorsicht Friedman!' — 'Look Out, Friedman!' — which has been canceled for the rest of the season. In an interview with the Forward last year, Friedman said, 'I love to bother politicians during the interviews; they just hate it and it creates some animosity, no doubt.' His rambunctious style has generated no shortage of enemies. In recent years his security detail has been as large as that of the German chancellor. It was his forthrightness that provoked the ire of Mölleman, a leader, until recently, of the neo-liberal Free Democratic Party. In the days leading up to last September's parliamentary elections, Mölleman distributed eight million pamphlets that accused Friedman, a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union, of provoking antisemitism in Germany with his 'intolerant and spiteful style' ... Ironically, some in the Berlin Jewish community are bristling at possible hints of antisemitism in the media circus surrounding the investigation of Friedman, one of the most visible and outspoken opponents of racism and antisemitism in Germany." [Bolton is, of course, Jewish. What's wrong with Iran? Is a threat to ISRAEL:] Military action against Iran an option: US official The United States reserves the right to take military action against Iran over its nuclear program, a senior member of the US administration said, but added that any such move was "far from our minds" at present, ABC, June 20, 2003 "John Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, told BBC radio that military action was a last resort but insisted that Iran could not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Interviewed on the BBC's Today program, Mr Bolton said that US President George W Bush 'has repeatedly said that all options are on the table. But that (military action) is not only not our preference, it is far far from our minds.' Pressed on whether military action remained a possibility, Mr Bolton said: 'It has to be an option.' 'Nuclear weapons are incredibly dangerous and when you couple the Iranian nuclear program with their aggressive efforts to expand the range of their ballistic missiles, they are bringing more and more of our friends and allies within range,' he said."
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |