(no subject)
Posted on June 20, 2003 at 09:37:32 PM by The March of Hollywood Judeocentrism

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."

Re(1): (no subject)
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 09:20:26 PM by James Jaeger

>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."

I guess they want to impress the control group.

James Jaeger

Re(2): (no subject)
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 10:30:06 PM by Mitchell Levine

Or maybe they just find it interesting and/or believe it? No, that's impossible - it must be the control group thing! Good thinking, Jim!

No Control Group in Hollywood?
Posted on June 28, 2003 at 07:21:58 PM by James Jaeger

So there's NO control group in Hollywood? Is that the way it is Mitchell?

___Yes ___No


James

Re(1): No Control Group in Hollywood?
Posted on June 28, 2003 at 09:38:51 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, Jim, because the words "control group," and "upper management" are not necessarily co-extensive.

"Control group" seems to imply something nefarious, which certainly appears to be what you believe is the case.

The truth is that the key adiministration of Hollywood isn't really doing anything demonstrably nefarious as a group. You just seem to be highly offended that many of them are Jewish. For you, that fact alone, regardless of any other factors involved, registers like some kind of crime.

It's highly offensive to see Jewish individuals being considered "guilty" of the crime of simply being a Jew. As you admit, there's no evidence that anyone is being excluded from having a career in Hollywood on the basis of not being Jewish.

The film business was started by Jews, whom lacked other avenues of opportunity, due to religious discrimination. It's unsurprising that there's lots of Jews in the business now. There's plenty of non-Jewish producers and executives.

The CEOs and presidents of the studios are the ones whom generally have the most seniority and experience like any other industry. Those are the dynamics of it. Considering how secular almost all of them are, and knowing the Jewish community as an insider as I do, I just do not believe that these guys really intentionally want to show that kind of favoritism based on simply ethnicity.

I simply find it hard to believe that this site would exist if the key Hollywood execs names were O'Connor and Flahrety. If I'm mistaken in that impression, I apologize, but that's the way it seems to me.

Of course, guys like Jenks and co. will have their own spin on this, because they believe that being Jewish really IS a crime.

Re(2): No Control Group in Hollywood?
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 03:00:03 PM by James Jaeger

Thanks for answering my question directly. I can now see better where you are coming from and why you might feel as you do. Stay with me here.

>No, Jim, because the words "control group," and "upper management" are not necessarily co-extensive.

Many people conside control a bad or nefarious thing. I believe that there is good control and bad control and that control does not necessarily have to be nefarious, as you put it.


>"Control group" seems to imply something nefarious, which certainly appears to be what you believe is the case.

Again, this is not the defalt interpretation in my mind. Control can be defined as the ability to START, CHANGE and STOP something. I agree with this basic definition, such being neutral to any qualitative considerations. Thus, the people that run Hollywood, what is called the CONTROL GROUP, have the ability to START, CHANGE and STOP movie projects, employment contracts, checks, careeres, ideas.

>The truth is that the key adiministration of Hollywood isn't really doing anything demonstrably nefarious as a group. You just seem to be highly offended that many of them are Jewish. For you, that fact alone, regardless of any other factors involved, registers like some kind of crime.

Not true. The fact that one of their characteristics being Jewish is of no importance, and is no more important than any other factor in the demographic. You are jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting the premise of the idea of diversity. This is not about Jews, it's about lack of diversity.

>It's highly offensive to see Jewish individuals being considered "guilty" of the crime of simply being a Jew.

This is something that neither John nor I feel is true, however I could say that to you a million times and it seems you don't want to acknowledge it thus you are only taking away from the FIRM site what you want to take away from it.

>As you admit, there's no evidence that anyone is being excluded from having a career in Hollywood on the basis of not being Jewish.

No, I have said that's not the way it happens but if you want to play that game, fine. Every single rejection letter written by a studio executive (and I have about 100 of these, all signed) is "evidence" that someone is being excluded.

>The film business was started by Jews, whom lacked other avenues of opportunity, due to religious discrimination. It's unsurprising that there's lots of Jews in the business now.

True.

>There's plenty of non-Jewish producers and executives.

But they don't control the biz.

>The CEOs and presidents of the studios are the ones whom generally have the most seniority and experience like any other industry.

They have the seniority because they have been there longer and they push power to each other thus excluding others by process of preemption. The record is the proof.

>Those are the dynamics of it.

And this is a CONTROL GROUP.

>Considering how secular almost all of them are,

One of John's descriptions in the demographic statement, i.e., "not very religious." We agree on that.

>and knowing the Jewish community as an insider as I do...,

Why are there insiders? Does this imply there are outsiders with respect to the Jewish community?

>... I just do not believe that these guys really intentionally want to show that kind of favoritism based on simply ethnicity.

Beliefs can be delusional.

>I simply find it hard to believe that this site would exist if the key Hollywood execs names were O'Connor and Flahrety.

It would. John made his findings on PATTERNS OF BIAS inductively, not deductively. You are being overly protective of your Jewish heritage.

>If I'm mistaken in that impression, I apologize, but that's the way it seems to me.

I can understand. Again I think you are being over protective of your heritage. I can't say I entirely blame you due to relatively recent historical events.

>Of course, guys like Jenks and co. will have their own spin on this, because they believe that being Jewish really IS a crime.

This is not my domain nor my concern. I'm sure one can find things bad and things good with every heritage.

James Jaeger

Re(2): No Control Group in Hollywood?
Posted on June 30, 2003 at 10:26:06 PM by mg

YOU SAY: "Control group" seems to imply something nefarious, which certainly appears to be what you believe is the case.

RESPONSE: If WASPS dominated Hollywood, or, worse, self-defined "Christians," Levine would be waving posters and placards decrying the "control group."

YOU SAY: The truth is that the key adiministration of Hollywood isn't really doing anything demonstrably nefarious as a group.

RESPONSE: It seems to me that Levine is a professional propagandist. Jews are a "group." There can be no debate about that to the rational mind, yet you attempt to frame the obvious into "nefarious" mist.

YOU SAY: You just seem to be highly offended that many of them are Jewish.

RESPONSE: I AM OFFENDED that so many chauvinist Jews run Hollywood. Anyone who knows the score will be "offended." It ALSO offends me that Levine FEIGNS to be OFFENDED himself, and that he declares that to note that Jews run Hollywood IS A MORAL CRIME.

YOU SAY: For you, that fact alone, regardless of any other factors involved, registers like some kind of crime.

RESPONSE: See above.

YOU SAY: It's highly offensive to see Jewish individuals being considered "guilty" of the crime of simply being a Jew.

RESPONSE: People are getting really sick and tired about hearing about Jewish "offense," which is merely a tool to protect collective Jewish power from public scrutiny.

YOU SAY: As you admit, there's no evidence that anyone is being excluded from having a career in Hollywood on the basis of not being Jewish.

RESPONSE: There IS evidence that there is nepotism and cronyism in Hollywood.

YOU SAY: The film business was started by Jews, whom lacked other avenues of opportunity, due to religious discrimination.

RESPONSE: Bullshit. Jews have always stuck together since Day One. Jews HAVE ALWAYS "discriminated," starting with the notion that they are "chosen," and all others are not.

YOU SAY: It's unsurprising that there's lots of Jews in the business now. There's plenty of non-Jewish producers and executives.

RESPONSE: Empty talk. Read the citations posted at this forum about JEWISH producers and executives.

YOU SAY: The CEOs and presidents of the studios are the ones whom generally have the most seniority and experience like any other industry. Those are the dynamics of it. Considering how secular almost all of them are, and knowing the Jewish community as an insider as I do, I just do not believe that these guys really intentionally want to show that kind of favoritism based on simply ethnicity.

RESPONSE: Birds of a feather flock together. Israel was built by many kinds of Jews, unified in a range of beliefs they have in common. These allegiances are real, and the modern state of Israel is the best example of it.

YOU SAY: I simply find it hard to believe that this site would exist if the key Hollywood execs names were O'Connor and Flahrety.

RESPONSE: Of course it would. If for no other reason than YOU (and some Jewish cohorts) would start it.

YOU SAY: If I'm mistaken in that impression, I apologize, but that's the way it seems to me.

RESPONSE: You are mistaken in just about everything you've stated at this board.

YOU SAY: Of course, guys like Jenks and co. will have their own spin on this, because they believe that being Jewish really IS a crime.

RESPONSE: No. Criticizing the Jewish Lobby is the "crime," isn't that so, Mr. Levine? You have stated that many times now. You are a two-faced, hypocritical bigot.

Re(3): No Control Group in Hollywood?
Posted on July 1, 2003 at 00:38:11 AM by Anonymous

RESPONSE: If WASPS dominated Hollywood, or, worse, self-defined "Christians," Levine would be waving posters and placards decrying the "control group."

- Untrue, I would always support the right of the people who founded the studios to run the studios. I would only protest if they practiced discrimination in hiring. As no one's ever been able to produce the name of even one person whose ever been excluded from a career in Hollywood on the basis of being gentile, there's no evidence that discrimination is being practiced now.

RESPONSE: It seems to me that Levine is a professional propagandist. Jews are a "group." There can be no debate about that to the rational mind, yet you attempt to frame the obvious into "nefarious" mist.

- Jews are a group, but it doesn't logically follow that Hollywood or its administration is "nefarious" because of that - unless your premise is that all Jews are nefarious.

RESPONSE: I AM OFFENDED that so many chauvinist Jews run Hollywood. Anyone who knows the score will be "offended." It ALSO offends me that Levine FEIGNS to be OFFENDED himself, and that he declares that to note that Jews run Hollywood IS A MORAL CRIME.

- The only evidence you have that the above-mentioned Jews are "chauvinist" is that they're Jews, which, apparently to you, is a moral crime in and of itself.

YOU SAY: It's highly offensive to see Jewish individuals being considered "guilty" of the crime of simply being a Jew.

RESPONSE: People are getting really sick and tired about hearing about Jewish "offense," which is merely a tool to protect collective Jewish power from public scrutiny.

- Therefore anything done against the Jews is perfectly moral. Good thinking!

YOU SAY: As you admit, there's no evidence that anyone is being excluded from having a career in Hollywood on the basis of not being Jewish.

RESPONSE: There IS evidence that there is nepotism and cronyism in Hollywood.

-Then simply name one person anywhere whose ever been excluded from having a career in Hollywood simply for being non-Jewish. Cones and Jaeger haven't been able to do it, so why don't you fill in? If this is really so widespread, it should be a slam-dunk.

YOU SAY: The film business was started by Jews, whom lacked other avenues of opportunity, due to religious discrimination.

RESPONSE: Bullshit. Jews have always stuck together since Day One. Jews HAVE ALWAYS "discriminated," starting with the notion that they are "chosen," and all others are not.

- This is obviously your inane argument for discrimination aimed at Jews; i.e., that it's OK to discriminate against Jews because the Old Testament says unfairly that they're the "chosen people," which has been promoted by similarly moronic individuals from time immemorial, and therefore underscores my point about discrimination forcing Jews to create their own opportunities, for example, Hollywood. Also, anyone who wishes to can convert to Judaism or follow the Noahide laws, and therefore share in "chosen-ness," as is also stated in Christian doctrine.

YOU SAY: It's unsurprising that there's lots of Jews in the business now. There's plenty of non-Jewish producers and executives.

RESPONSE: Empty talk. Read the citations posted at this forum about JEWISH producers and executives.

- Just open any copy of Variety, and you'll see the names of a billion non-Jewish producers and executives.

YOU SAY: The CEOs and presidents of the studios are the ones whom generally have the most seniority and experience like any other industry. Those are the dynamics of it. Considering how secular almost all of them are, and knowing the Jewish community as an insider as I do, I just do not believe that these guys really intentionally want to show that kind of favoritism based on simply ethnicity.

RESPONSE: Birds of a feather flock together. Israel was built by many kinds of Jews, unified in a range of beliefs they have in common. These allegiances are real, and the modern state of Israel is the best example of it.

- This is completely unrelated to the point I was making. Strive to maintain at least minimal coherency, as difficult as that is for you.

YOU SAY: I simply find it hard to believe that this site would exist if the key Hollywood execs names were O'Connor and Flahrety.

RESPONSE: Of course it would. If for no other reason than YOU (and some Jewish cohorts) would start it.

- Maybe, but it certainly wouldn't be started by Cones and Jaeger, which was my point, as you might remember.

YOU SAY: If I'm mistaken in that impression, I apologize, but that's the way it seems to me.

RESPONSE: You are mistaken in just about everything you've stated at this board.

- No, I'm not. For example, I said that you were a "sniveling, repugnant, socially retarded little evil scumbag." There you have it - absolute, undeniable self-evident truth.

YOU SAY: Of course, guys like Jenks and co. will have their own spin on this, because they believe that being Jewish really IS a crime.

RESPONSE: No. Criticizing the Jewish Lobby is the "crime," isn't that so, Mr. Levine? You have stated that many times now. You are a two-faced, hypocritical bigot.

- I'm not two-faced: I say you're an evil scumbag to your face and I say that you're an evil scumbag behind your back. No hypocrisy there!

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."

Re(1): More Jewish fraud/whores/entertainment industry
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 10:34:04 AM by Mitchell Levine

Thank you for this crucial information regarding the film industry, Herr Streicher!

Re(1): More Jewish fraud/whores/entertainment industry
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 10:27:47 AM by MG

You just gotta love anti=Semites who spend their time looking at the Forward for propaganda.

Re(2): More Jewish fraud/whores/entertainment industry
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 10:36:31 AM by mg

The above comment is yet another case of pseudonym rip-off, stealing the nomer "mg."

It's another sicko Jewish tact: because they can't reasonably argue the issues, they try to create chaos and confusion.

Bottom line: whatever the "name," read for content, not for smears and innuendo.

Re(3): More Jewish fraud/whores/entertainment industry
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 10:38:45 AM by Mitchell Levine

OK, I confess. I'm a closet Jewish Nazi. And I live for porno, which is what most of my screenplays are.

Long live Israel!

Re(3): More Jewish fraud/whores/entertainment industry
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 10:51:57 AM by Stu Harvey

Life's a bitch, eh Stuey?

Re(3): More Jewish fraud/whores/entertainment industry
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 10:38:45 AM by Mitchell Levine

OK, I confess. I'm a closet Jewish Nazi. And I live for porno, which is what most of my screenplays are.

Long live Israel!

Re(4): More Jewish fraud/whores/entertainment industry
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 08:00:03 PM by Mitchell Levine

Don't try and smear me: I never post anything without attaching my name to it, unless Win XP accidentally erases it when I back up from preview.

I Take It All Back
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 10:55:44 AM by MG (aka Moishe the Goyim)

I finally realize that I'm completely full of shit. I will be closing my website www.jewishtribalreview.org as of July 1, 2003. I apologize if my hatred of Jews has offended any of you. I take it all back.

Re(1): I Take It All Back
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 11:14:42 AM by Mitchell Levine

Alas, in a perfect world...

Re(2): I Take It All Back
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 11:20:33 AM by Mitchell Levine

Say, George.

I've got about ten minutes open next Thursday night. Bring your bull whip and some vaseline.

Re(3): P.S
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 11:29:51 AM by Mitchell Levine

Don't forget the bag of cockroaches.

Re(4): P.S
Posted on June 21, 2003 at 05:25:02 PM by Mitchell Levine

This is your idea of humor, and you wonder why you haven't made it as a screenwriter (or anything else for that matter)?

World on Fire
Posted on June 23, 2003 at 05:00:41 PM by HJ

"...Thus control groups, also known as market-dominating minorities, can lead to some very undesirable situations and much animosity from majorities. There's an excellent new book out called WORLD ON FIRE that deals with the phenomena of market-dominating minorities on both the national and global levels. Of course on a global level, the U.S. is the market-dominating minority whereas on the national level...Then at the industry level we have Hollywood with its market-dominating minority, as identified by John Cones."-JJ

I'm currently reading WOF. I came across an error and e-mailed the author. I told her that two of the ten richest Americans were Jewish.

You write, "The ten richest Americans in 2001-Microsoft's Bill
Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, Oralce's Lawrence Ellison, Warren
Buffet, Five members of the Wal-Mart founding family- are all white.
Incidentally, if Jewish Americans are viewed as an ethnic minority
in the US, they do not remotely dominate the US economy; unlike in
Russia, for example, none of the ten wealthiest Americans is Jewish.)"

I then did a bit more research and sent the following to Ms. Chua...

Ms. Chua, Thank you for you kind reply.

You wrote:
Thank you. I will make the correction in the paperback edition (coming up). Best wishes, Amy Chua

I think you’ve written an important book, but I don’t think you’ve grasped the situation in the U.S. Jews represent less than 3% of the US population and at least 35% of the richest 100 Americans. Jewish media domination has often been brushed aside as some sort of anti-Semitic canard, but it’s undeniable. I understand your husband is Jewish and realize this is a very touchy subject in the U.S., but I could see potential violence in the U.S. within the next 50 years.

Perhaps I missed it, but did you mention anything about the Russian Mafia?http://www.twbookmark.com/books/63/0316294748/press_release.html
Excerpt: As early as the 1970s, Russian Jewish émigrés, many of whom were felons and murderers in the USSR, began claiming religious refuge in the United States. With a highly organized network already in place, these brazen criminals quickly established themselves as a major criminal force in New York, Las Vegas, and elsewhere around the world.

But it was the breakup of the Soviet Union that made the Russian mob what it is today. In a weakened, impoverished Russia, the mafiya quickly became the dominant power. Today, it controls over 80 percent of Russia's banks and has siphoned off billions of dollars in Western loans and aid, almost certainly derailing the chances for a stable democracy there. Trafficking in prostitutes, heroin, and missiles, the mafiya poses an enormous threat to global stability and safety.

Jewish Americans have also played an important role in shaping two prominent gentile billionaires…

Warren Buffet

From Buffet: The Making of an American Capitalist
by Roger Lowenstein

"Aside from his civil rights concerns [Buffet joined a Jewish Country club because a local WASP club wouldn't allow Jews], one suspects that he had a feeling for Jews in particular-perhaps a subtle homage to Ben Graham [Buffet was an employee and disciple of investor Ben Graham, ne Grossbaum -"investing without Graham would be like communism without Marx- the discipline would scarcely exist.], or an identification with underdogs. Rabbi Myer Kripke, whose family were frequent guests at the Buffets; thought Buffet a "philo-Semite."



Rupert Murdoch

From Thomas Kiernan's Citizen Murdoch:

Goldenson's Jewishness also had a significant impact on Murdoch. Until then, Murdoch had known few Jews well… Leonard Goldenson finally helped Murdoch sort out his mixed feelings about Jews, though. As head of ABC, Goldenson was a major figure in New York's Jewish establishment. As well, he was an outspoken supporter of Israel, appearing frequently at fund-raising dinners and bond rallies and heading up various committees devoted to advancing the cause of Israel in the United States. He was, to put it in a phrase, a charter member of the so-called "Jewish Lobby" in America.

Murdoch, on the other hand, as publisher and editor-in-chief of the New York Post, had a large Jewish constituency, as he did to a lesser degree with New York magazine and The Village Voice. Not only had the pre-Murdoch Post readership been heavily Jewish, so, too, were the present Post advertisers. Moreover, most of Murdoch's closest friends and business advisers were wealthy, influential New York Jews intensely active in pro-Israel causes. And he himself still retained a strong independent sympathy for Israel, a personal identification with the Jewish state that went back to his Oxford days.



I also Googled Real Estate mogul Donald Bren. #43 on the Forbes list. Bren is a Jewish surname, but there was no mention of his ethnicity. However, Forbes lists the following about his Jewish partners…

Acquired sprawling ranch land 1977 with Al Taubman, Max Fisher and Herb Allen for $337 million, later bought out partners. Irvine Co. is Orange County's largest landowner, with some 93,000 acres of property.


rank
name
worth ($mil)
source

4
Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
21,900

Oracle

10
Ballmer, Steven Anthony
15,100

Microsoft

14
Redstone, Sumner M.
Viacom

15
Dell, Michael
9,800
Dell

23
Soros, George
6,900
money manager

24
Bronfman, Edgar M. Sr.
6,800
liquor

26
Broad, Eli
5,500
real estate

26
Pritzker, Robert Alan
5,500
investments

26
Pritzker, Thomas J.
5,500
investments

31
Icahn, Carl
5,000
finance

31
Newhouse, Donald Edward
5,000
media

31
Newhouse, Samuel Irving Jr.
5,000
media

34
Lerner, Alfred
4,900
banking

36
Arison, Micky
4,600
cruise ships

40
Davis, Marvin H.
4,500
oil

42
Annenberg, Walter Hubert
4,000
publishing

42
Bloomberg, Michael Rubens
4,000
financial news

47
Geffen, David
3,900
entertainment

47
Greenberg, Maurice "Hank"
3,900
AIG

rank

51
Lauder, Leonard Alan
3,500
Estee Lauder

60
Crown & family, Lester
3,000
General Dynamics

60
Lauder, Ronald Steven
3,000
Estee Lauder

60
Marcus, Bernard
3,000
Home Depot

67
Lefrak, Samuel Jayson
2,800
real estate

70
Tisch, Preston Robert
2,600
Loews Corp.

81
Perelman, Ronald Owen
2,300
investments

81
Wexner, Leslie Herbert
2,300
The Limited

85
Davidson, William Morse
2,200
Guardian Industries Corp.

85
Stern, Leonard Norman
2,200
real estate

90
Fisher, Donald George
2,100
The Gap

90
Fisher, Doris Feigenbaum
2,100
The Gap

90
Spielberg, Steven Allen
2,100
movies

90
Tisch, Laurence Alan
2,100
Loews Corp.

97
Gonda, Louis L.
2,000
AIG

97
Lauren, Ralph
2,000
Polo

Vanity Fair's 2002 annual ranking of "The leaders of the information age."

It appears that Jews represent at least 60% of the top 50. If more than one person was listed for a certain company, I checked to see if any of the group listed was Jewish. I believe the list to be 95%+ accurate...

J=Jewish
1.Sumner Redstone Viacom (J)
2.Bill Gates-Microsoft
3.Rupert Murdoch-News Corp
4.Steve Ballmer-Microsoft (J)
5.Richard Parsons-AOL Time Warner
6.Meg Whitman-EBAY
7.Brian Roberts-AT&T Comcast (J)
8.Warren Buffet-Berkshire Hathaway
9.Barry Diller-Vivendi Universal (J)
10.David Geffen-Dreamworks (J)
11.Michael Dell-Dell Computer Corp(J)
12.Mel Karmazin-Viacom(J)
13.Steve Case-AOL Time Warner
14.Steve Jobs-Pixar
15.Steven Spielberg-Dreamworks(J)
16.Nobuyuki Idei & Howard Stringer(J)-Sony
17.John Malone-Liberty Media Corp.
18.Don Logan-AOL Time Warner
19.Jeff Bewkes-AOL Time Warner
20.Jeffrey Katzenberg-Dreamworks (J)
21.Lawrence Ellsion-Oracle (J)
22.Paul Allen-Vulcan, Inc., Charter Comm.
23.Andrew Grove (J) & Craig Barrett-Intel
24.Peter Chernin-News Corp (J)
25.Michael Eisner & Robert Iger-Disney (J)
26.Bob Wright & Andrew Lack (J)-NBC
27.Tom Freston-MTV
28.Doug Morris-Universal Music Group (J)
29.Les Moonves (J)-CBS
30.Terry Semel(J)-Yahoo
31.Tom Hanks
32.Tom Cruise
33.Edgar Bronfman Jr.-Vivendi (J)
34.Ron Meyer & Stacey Snider-Vivendi, Universal (J)
35.Scott McNealy-Sun Microsystems
36.Jeff Bezos-Amazon.com
37.John Chambers-Cisco Systems
38.Herb Allen-Allen & Co. (J)
39.Oprah Winfrey-Harpo Inc.
40.Jonathan Dolgen & Sherry Lansing-Viacom, Paramount (J)
41.Rich Lovett, Bryan Lourd, Kevin Huvane, Lee Gabler (J)-CAA
42.Harvey and Bob Weinstein-Miramax (J)
43.Marjorie Scardino-Pearson P.L.C.
44.Brian Grazer (J) & Ron Howard-Imagine Entertainment
45.Norman Perlstine (J) & John Huey-Time Inc.
46.Jim Wiatt-WM Morris Agency (J)
47.Jeff Berg-ICM (J)
48.John Cally & Amy Pascal (J)-Sony
49.Joe Roth-Revolution Studios (J)
50.Ted Turner-AOL Time Warner

Re(1): World on Fire
Posted on June 26, 2003 at 08:34:17 PM by James Jaeger

>"...Thus control groups, also known as market-dominating minorities, can lead to some very undesirable situations and much animosity from majorities. There's an excellent new book out called WORLD ON FIRE that deals with the phenomena of market-dominating minorities on both the national and global levels. Of course on a global level, the U.S. is the market-dominating minority whereas on the national level...Then at the industry level we have Hollywood with its market-dominating minority, as identified by John Cones."- James Jaeger

Yes, Amy's book was very good. Do you have her email address or could you invite her to visit the FIRM site and post comments on the effects of the market-dominating minority in the Holllywood-based U.S.
motion picture industry? (http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM) You can forward this post to her if you want.


James Jaeger


P.S. Herb Alen is Jewish and I think Charlie Rose is also.

Re(1): World on Fire
Posted on June 23, 2003 at 08:29:25 PM by Jim Jenks

Good work.

But #16, Howard Stringer, isn't Jewish.

However, at #34 BOTH Meyer and Snyder are Jewish, and at #40 both Dolgren and Lansing are Jewish.

#38, Herb Allen, I'm not sure about.

All in all, the indictment remains the same, both in popular culture and Hollywood.

Re(2): World on Fire
Posted on June 23, 2003 at 10:00:48 PM by Anonymous

I wasn't sure about Stringer. I didn't have solid enough info... I found the following blurb and made an assumption. Obviously, John Zuccotti, Peter G. Peterson, and Charlie Rose are gentiles.

On Tuesday evening, May 20, 2003, the American Jewish Historical Society will present its Emma Lazarus Statue of Liberty Award to Mortimer B. Zuckerman at The Pierre in New York City. The Emma Lazarus Award has been given only ten times since the Society's founding 111 years ago.


The Co-Chairs for the Dinner are Ronald S. Lauder, Chairman, Clinique Laboratories Inc.; Peter G. Peterson, Chairman, The Blackstone Group; Jerry I. Speyer, President & CEO, Tishman Speyer Properties; Sir Howard Stringer, Chairman & CEO, Sony Corporation of America: James S. Tisch, President & CEO, Loews Corporation; Harvey Weinstein, Co-Chairman, Miramax Films; Irwin Winkler, CEO, Winkler Films; and John Zuccotti, Chairman, Brookfield Financial Properties. Emcee for the evening will be Charlie Rose.

Jewish Hypocrisy: Exhibit 942,343
Posted on June 23, 2003 at 09:58:53 PM by Moishe the Goyim

Here we have the quintessential Jewish hypocrisy and this has EVERYTHING to do with the arguments about Jewish dominance of Hollywood.

Both Jewish Supreme Court Justices (Ginsburg and Breyer) voted in favor of Affirmative Action. If a genuine multi-ethnic, multicultural balance is what these people truly desire (and not merely personal AND Jewish collective influence), one -- or both -- of the Jewish justices should step down. 2 of the current 9 Supreme Court Justices are Jewish. That's 22%. Jews are 2.5% of the American population. These two Jewish justices are clearly hindering a fair balance of multicultural power with their OWN grasp on power. This is the Jewish paradigm. If then the disadvantaged are to be promoted by points for "race," then the EMPOWERED should logically be DISempowered on the same terms.]

Affirmative Action Upheld by Split Court,
By ANNE GEARAN, Yahoo! (Associated Press), Jjne 23, 2003
"In its most significant statement about race in a generation, a divided Supreme Court allowed the nation's colleges and universities to select students based in part on race, ruling Monday that diverse classrooms mold good citizens and strong leaders. The court emphasized that race cannot be the overriding factor, but a majority acknowledged a broad social value from affirmative action — in encouraging all races to learn and work together. 'In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity,' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) wrote for the 5-4 majority. At issue was whether admissions policies that give one racial group an edge unconstitutionally discriminate against other groups. In two decisions involving the University of Michigan, the court underscored that racial quotas are unconstitutional but left room for the nation's public universities — and by extension other public and private institutions — to seek ways to take race into account ... Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer joined her endorsement of a program in place at the University of Michigan's law school. The law school uses an inexact admissions formula that gives extra consideration to blacks, Hispanics and to applicants from other groups the school says have historically suffered from discrimination. The program has produced minority enrollment of between 12 percent and 20 percent over the past decade. There is no fixed target, the school said."

Re(1): Jewish Hypocrisy: Exhibit 942,343
Posted on June 23, 2003 at 11:41:02 PM by Mitchell Levine

This is the biggest crock I've ever heard!

Have you read a copy of the Constitution? The President can appoint as many justices to the Supreme Court as he wishes. Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't an "obstacle" to anyone else. Bush has unlimited authority to nominate anyone he likes as long as Congress confirms it.

Your theory is as much bullshit as it would be to insist that Clarence Thomas be denied appointment on the grounds that Thurogood Marshall was already a justice, and blacks, whom certainly need to be legally empowered more than any other group, only make up 12% of the population. Or that the President would additionally have to appoint another white person to the Court as well to maintain "balance."

It would also imply that non-Jewish white people would have a "right" to make up 72% of the Supreme Court's bench, which is certainly not a policy designed to further multiculturalism.

This doesn't even consider the slight problem of minority groups making up less than 12% of the population not even being therefore "entitled" to a seat on the current roster at all.

By this logic, the President should always be white, because there are more white people than any other group, and a presidential seat can't be fractional.

College students aren't elected nor appointed officials; they're selected to receive an education that they pay for, and are therefore entitled to Equal Opportunity. If the colleges wish to give an added incentive to minorities to benefit from an education, so be it.

Public officials are either elected by a populace, or appointed by their elected officials. People don't have a right to be officials, only to politically compete, therefore no one is being denied a right by not serving as one.

The judgement says that "the path to leadership (should)be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals," which is what a college education has the capacity to promote. It doesn't imply that anyone has the right to be an elected official, or that not being one is a denial of any rights.

Your argument is stupid. Think before posting, if, counter-intuitively, you're actually capable of it.

Re(2): Jewish Hypocrisy: Exhibit 942,343
Posted on June 24, 2003 at 00:24:35 AM by mg

YOU SAY: This is the biggest crock I've ever heard!

RESPONSE: No small feat for someone who is buried in "crock." Please, Mr. Levine. No "definition" of "crock?"

YOU SAY: Have you read a copy of the Constitution? The President can appoint as many justices to the Supreme Court as he wishes.

RESPONSE: Hmmm. So President Clinton could have appointed 46 new justices? Or has the Great Editor Boy Genius made some kind of editorial oversight?

YOU SAY: Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't an "obstacle" to anyone else.

RESPONSE: She is in the same way that 9 white Supreme Court Justices were an "obstacle" to Jews (who politically agitated against it). For every Jew on the Supreme Court, there is not a Pakistani-American, French-American, Native American, etc. etc. etc.

YOU SAY: Bush has unlimited authority to nominate anyone he likes as long as Congress confirms it.

RESPONSE: Why belabor the obvious? Say something.

YOU SAY: Your theory is as much bullshit as it would be to insist that Clarence Thomas be denied appointment on the grounds that Thurogood Marshall was already a justice, and blacks, whom certainly need to be legally empowered more than any other group, only make up 12% of the population. Or that the President would additionally have to appoint another white person to the Court as well to maintain "balance."

RESPONSE: It is IMPLICIT in modern "politically correct" culture (which Jews were instrumental in inventing) to pay attention to all this. TOO MANY JEWS, ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, AT HELMS OF POWER. Jews aid "minorities" because it helps them to further locks on influence. Jews frame themselves as oppressed minorities even as they collect further seizures of power.

YOU SAY: It would also imply that non-Jewish white people would have a "right" to make up 72% of the Supreme Court's bench, which is certainly not a policy designed to further multiculturalism.

RESPONSE: Maybe not, but IT WOULD BE REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACY. Umm, how many Arabs are part of Israel's Supreme Court, Mr. Levine? The answer is ZERO.

YOU SAY: This doesn't even consider the slight problem of minority groups making up less than 12% of the population not even being therefore "entitled" to a seat on the current roster at all.

RESPONSE: The problem herein is a 22% representation for Jews. Which is exploitive bullshit. ONE Jewish Supreme Court Justice would be a 11%, an OVERREPRESENTATION of about 350%. Zero Jewish Supreme Court Justices would be close to 2.5% (But, hey, if it was up to me I'd give you one every few years).

YOU SAY: By this logic, the President should always be white, because there are more white people than any other group, and a presidential seat can't be fractional.

RESPONSE: Au contraire. By this logic, "whites" would be president (per your calculations) 72% of the time. What's wrong with representational democracy? Alternatively, by your "logic," JEWS would be president 72% of the time with a population representation of 2.5%.

YOU SAY: College students aren't elected nor appointed officials; they're selected to receive an education that they pay for, and are therefore entitled to Equal Opportunity.

RESPONSE: You dissimulate. You are verging off from the subject at hand: "race" and law in biasing towards "equal opportunity." My logic is valid and my point still stands. If there's a logic to provide advantage by virtue of "race," and that's LAW, then there could just as well be a DISadvantage by virtue of "race," and that would be that those who are profoundly OVERrepresented should STEP DOWN for the good of the ENTIRE community. It's moral, ethical, and intelligent. But, of course, it's bad for Jews -- MORE SO THAN ANY OTHER ETHNIC GROUP.

YOU SAY: If the colleges wish to give an added incentive to minorities to benefit from an education, so be it.

RESPONSE: Therefore, by the same logic, if colleges "wish" to give an added DISincentive to Jews who dominate so much already, so be it. We aim for a FAIR representation of the population sample, no? Jewish dominance everywhere ISN'T a true representation of "democracy." It's social engineering, expressions of $, hustling, manipulation, exploitation, networking, chauvinism, etc. ad nauseum.

YOU SAY: Public officials are either elected by a populace, or appointed by their elected officials.

RESPONSE: Yak, yak, yak. So you're the Jewish Thomas Jefferson?

YOU SAY: People don't have a right to be officials, only to politically compete, therefore no one is being denied a right by not serving as one.

RESPONSE: You fall into my trap: you illustrate my argument. These Jewish Supreme Court Justices (decisive in a 5-4 decision) voted to NOT allow racial groups to "politically compete." They give favor to "race." By the same token, same logic, they should DISfavor those who dominate way more than their proportionate share of the pie. "Shares of the pie" is the "logic" of affirmative action. NOT an open field to "politically compete."

Re(3): Jewish Hypocrisy: Exhibit 942,343
Posted on June 24, 2003 at 01:46:37 AM by Mitchell Levine

Please, Mr. Levine. No "definition" of "crock?"

- Sure: www.jewishtribalreview.org

YOU SAY: Have you read a copy of the Constitution? The President can appoint as many justices to the Supreme Court as he wishes.

RESPONSE: Hmmm. So President Clinton could have appointed 46 new justices? Or has the Great Editor Boy Genius made some kind of editorial oversight?

- Yes, you ignorant moron, the constitution establishes no limit to the number of justices on the bench or that the president can appoint.

YOU SAY: Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't an "obstacle" to anyone else.

RESPONSE: She is in the same way that 9 white Supreme Court Justices were an "obstacle" to Jews (who politically agitated against it). For every Jew on the Supreme Court, there is not a Pakistani-American, French-American, Native American, etc. etc. etc.

- No, moron, if the president wanted to appoint the above, he could as well.

YOU SAY: Bush has unlimited authority to nominate anyone he likes as long as Congress confirms it.

RESPONSE: Why belabor the obvious? Say something.

- It's not belaboring the obvious: as you've just demonstrated, you clearly didn't understand it.

YOU SAY: Your theory is as much bullshit as it would be to insist that Clarence Thomas be denied appointment on the grounds that Thurogood Marshall was already a justice, and blacks, whom certainly need to be legally empowered more than any other group, only make up 12% of the population. Or that the President would additionally have to appoint another white person to the Court as well to maintain "balance."

RESPONSE: It is IMPLICIT in modern "politically correct" culture (which Jews were instrumental in inventing) to pay attention to all this. TOO MANY JEWS, ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, AT HELMS OF POWER. Jews aid "minorities" because it helps them to further locks on influence. Jews frame themselves as oppressed minorities even as they collect further seizures of power.

- This does not change the fact that your theory is bullshit for the above reason.

YOU SAY: It would also imply that non-Jewish white people would have a "right" to make up 72% of the Supreme Court's bench, which is certainly not a policy designed to further multiculturalism.

RESPONSE: Maybe not, but IT WOULD BE REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACY.

No fool, representational democracy is when people elect leaders under the laws of the Constitution, which specifically states that racial quotas of any kind are illegal.

Umm, how many Arabs are part of Israel's Supreme Court, Mr. Levine? The answer is ZERO.

- That's irrelevant. We're discussing American, not a religious homeland. How many Jews are part of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Turkey, Egypt, and Lebanon's "Supreme Courts?" The answer is zero.

YOU SAY: This doesn't even consider the slight problem of minority groups making up less than 12% of the population not even being therefore "entitled" to a seat on the current roster at all.

RESPONSE: The problem herein is a 22% representation for Jews. Which is exploitive bullshit. ONE Jewish Supreme Court Justice would be a 11%, an OVERREPRESENTATION of about 350%. Zero Jewish Supreme Court Justices would be close to 2.5% (But, hey, if it was up to me I'd give you one every few years).

- There is nothing "exploitative" about it: the president appointed whom he wished as justices, and Congress approved it. Nowhere does the Constitution promise that exact population proportions of ethnicity have to be maintained, which would imply that people whom belong to ethnicities making up under the percentage corresponding to a single seat on the bench have no "right to representation" at all. The constitution specifically states that no religious nor ethnic test may be given for office.

By this logic, "whites" would be president (per your calculations) 72% of the time. What's wrong with representational democracy?

- Absolutely nothing, therefore, since he was our 40th president, and Jews make up 2.5% of the population, Reagan was morally bound to step down and hand over his office to a Jew.

YOU SAY: College students aren't elected nor appointed officials; they're selected to receive an education that they pay for, and are therefore entitled to Equal Opportunity.

RESPONSE: You dissimulate. You are verging off from the subject at hand: "race" and law in biasing towards "equal opportunity." My logic is valid and my point still stands. If there's a logic to provide advantage by virtue of "race," and that's LAW, then there could just as well be a DISadvantage by virtue of "race,"

-Not in the election of public officals, since that's done by either popular (or electoral) ballot, or by the appointment of those so elected. Race is by the law of the Constitution not a factor. And never will be.

and that would be that those who are profoundly OVERrepresented should STEP DOWN for the good of the ENTIRE community.

- There's no guarantee that the president would nominate another racial member, nor is he prevented from appointing any other justice of any race. You're lack of logic is staggering. .

YOU SAY: If the colleges wish to give an added incentive to minorities to benefit from an education, so be it.

RESPONSE: Therefore, by the same logic, if colleges "wish" to give an added DISincentive to Jews who dominate so much already, so be it.

Hardly. You can't discriminate against any religious group or ethnicity, but the court will allow underrepresented groups an advantage.

We aim for a FAIR representation of the population sample, no? Jewish dominance everywhere ISN'T a true representation of "democracy." It's social engineering, expressions of $, hustling, manipulation, exploitation, networking, chauvinism, etc. ad nauseum.

- all your usual antisemitic bullshit. There's no evidence that schools accept Jews for any other reasons than they do anyone else. And statistically Jewish applicants have provably higher grades, SATs, and IQ scorings per capita - and that's a matter of scientific record. Those are the elements of something called merit. Education is inherently meritocratic, and will be so as long as the grade system is used, which is always.

YOU SAY: Public officials are either elected by a populace, or appointed by their elected officials.

RESPONSE: Yak, yak, yak. So you're the Jewish Thomas Jefferson?

- No - Thomas Jefferson was the gentile me.

RESPONSE: You fall into my trap: you illustrate my argument. These Jewish Supreme Court Justices (decisive in a 5-4 decision) voted to NOT allow racial groups to "politically compete." They give favor to "race." By the same token, same logic, they should DISfavor those who dominate way more than their proportionate share of the pie. "Shares of the pie" is the "logic" of affirmative action. NOT an open field to "politically compete."

No, the logic of affirmative action is to give people a leg up at the bottom of the system, because they've been historically discriminated against. The logic of democracy is that people vote for whom they think is the best candidate, regardless of their race, and those elected officials appoint those whom they feel are best qualified, regardless of the ethnicity. Religion and ethnicity do not enter into it in any way, and will not so long as we have the Constitution. "Shares of the pie" have to be earned: a means to doing so is an education, which can be offered.

Jewish Attack on Mel Gibson
Posted on June 25, 2003 at 12:51:28 AM by Tiny Tim

This is the paradigm for the smears against Cones, Jaeger and FIRM. The Jewish community FORBIDS a wide realm of critical commentary about itself. The ADL is a $50 million Jewish police organization that seeks to undermine anyone who does anything less than KIss Jewish Butt.

The accusation of "antisemitism" is a form of totalitarian censorship:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29342-2003Jun25.html

Gibson's Jesus Pic Faces More Anti-Semitism Charges

Reuters
Wednesday, June 25, 2003; 3:39 AM


By Gregg Kilday

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Continuing to raise concerns over "The Passion," the Mel Gibson-directed film about the last days of Jesus Christ, the Anti-Defamation League of America (ADL) charged Tuesday that, based on a study of an early version of the screenplay, the project could be "replete with objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism."

The ADL embraced the findings of an interfaith committee of scholars that has raised objections to the unreleased film -- even though the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has distanced itself from the same group.

In its statement, the ADL contended that Gibson and his collaborators "must complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism. Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as 'The Passion' could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews."

"To be certain, neither I nor my film are anti-Semitic," Gibson said in a previously released statement, which his spokesman provided in response to the latest allegation.

"Nor do I hate anybody -- certainly not the Jews," continued Gibson, who is a devout Catholic. "They are my friends and associates, both in my work and social life. Thankfully, treasured friendships forged over decades are not easily shaken by nasty innuendo. Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is also contrary to the core message of my movie."

Gibson directed "The Passion," which he also co-wrote and produced through his Icon Entertainment banner, in Italy earlier this year. Filmed in Aramaic and Latin, the project stars James Caviezel as Christ and has not yet been shown to potential distributors.

The ADL first began to raise concerns about the film in March, in both a letter to the New York Times and a letter addressed to Gibson that the organization posted on its Web site.

The controversy erupted again earlier this month when a report was leaked to the media that had been prepared by scholars, associated with both the ADL and the USCCB, based on a study of an early version of the script and containing a long list of objections.

The USCCB, however, quickly dissociated itself from the report, with Mark Chopko, general counsel for the USCCB, saying: "We regret the situation has occurred and offer our apologies. ... When the film is released, the USCCB will review it at the time."

In its current statement, the ADL says it "fully stands behind" the scholars' report and raises a series of questions such as, "Will the final version of 'The Passion' continue to portray Jews as bloodthirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus?"

Myrna Shinbaum, a spokesperson for the ADL, said the group issued its first official public statement on the subject Tuesday in response to repeated press inquiries.

"When these kind of issues are raised and we feel concern, we speak out even before the film has been made," she said, acknowledging that the concerns are based on an early version of the screenplay. "We haven't seen it yet, so we can't speak to the film itself.

"In expressing our concerns," Shinbaum added, "we hope we can have a dialogue with Gibson and Icon to allay the fears of the Jewish community."

Re(1): Jewish Attack on Mel Gibson
Posted on June 25, 2003 at 06:49:21 PM by Anonymous

"The accusation of "antisemitism" is a form of totalitarian censorship"

- And, of course, that's true regardless of whether the accusation is true or not. Obviously, this implies that antisemitism is logically impossible. Good thinking!

Re(2): Jewish Attack on Mel Gibson
Posted on June 26, 2003 at 00:11:09 AM by mg

"Antisemitism" is typically the reaction among non-Jews to Jewish chauvinism, exploitation, manipulation, arrogance, power, and influence.

That is authentic Jewish history. Jewish power and influence is so enormous that the Jewish Collective has successfuly erased to the public eye that part of its collective identity that is so profoundly disturbing.

Re(3): Jewish Attack on Mel Gibson
Posted on June 26, 2003 at 05:28:20 AM by George Shelps

Jenks wrote:

"Antisemitism" is typically the reaction among non-Jews to Jewish chauvinism, exploitation, manipulation, arrogance, power, and influence.

____No. What makes it antisemitism is that you try to say that these traits typify Jews, that Jews are defined by
them.

Re(3): Jewish Attack on Mel Gibson
Posted on June 26, 2003 at 02:01:51 AM by Mitchell Levine

Of course! Blame the victim! It's the American way.

Antisemitism existed when Jews had no power, and would continue no matter what Jews did. It's founded primarily on religious antipathies, which then became translated into secular terms.

It doesn't matter what Jews do - X or not-X - it will still exist. If Jews weren't successful, assholes like you would be trying to use that as "proof" that they were just genetically inferior.

The only thing "authentic" is your bigotry.

Mitchy, self-deception called...
Posted on June 26, 2003 at 05:35:00 PM by Anonymous

"Of course! Blame the victim!" -Mitchy

Honey, denial ain't just a river in Africa...

Milty, self-deception called...
Posted on June 26, 2003 at 05:33:59 PM by Anonymous

"Of course! Blame the victim!" -Milty

Honey, denial ain't just a river in Africa...

Re(1): Milty, self-deception called...
Posted on June 26, 2003 at 07:40:31 PM by Mitchell Levine

Yes, of course, antisemitism is the Jews' fault - as well as the Lisbon earthquake, the Bubonic plaugue, Germany losing WWI, Black babies with AIDS being injected by Jewish doctors, missing children scares, etc.

And you're even quoting your line from a Jew!

Spielberg teaches tolerance
Posted on June 25, 2003 at 11:13:49 PM by Sisu

Why Spielberg promotes "tolerance."

Jews "control" the media. We are told it is an age-old anti-Semitic canard. But when is a canard just what it is... the truth?

Jewish media domination doesn’t have to be conspiratorial and nefarious. It allows Jews to effectively combat anti-Semitism. What a powerful weapon! Considering the history European Jews and Gentiles have shared-The Holocaust, Eastern European pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, ancient Rome…thousands of years of anti-Semitism, can you blame Jews for using the media to promote their interests?

Why wouldn’t such an abused group try to keep themselves safe here in the U.S. and throughout the world? It’s apparent that groups like the ADL don’t think the U.S. is safe. So, why shouldn’t one expect there to be an active campaign to mitigate anti-Semitism?

What’s the most effective way to shape public opinion? Control what people read, watch, and listen to. Also, tell them what they can and cannot say in polite society. Tell them what is good and what is evil...over and over and over. (Why, you could also mandate Holocaust education in schools)

Americans are clamoring for diversity in the highest levels of corporate America, academia, the government, and we even want more diversity on TV, but we’re not suppose to care that Jews (approximately 3% of the population) fill the majority of positions of power in many areas of the media. We’re told that they are just Americans, who happen to be Jewish, acting as individuals, "pursuing the American dream."

Is Steven Spielberg an individual just pursuing "the American dream" or is he an individual ethnic activist combating anti-Semitism? After making Schindler’s List, Spielberg established Survivors of the Shoah Foundation. He also helped fund Professor Deborah Lipstadt's defense against David Irving. So what’s next for Steve? Spielberg bought the rights to A. Scott Berg’s biography of Charles Lindbergh. But when he read Berg's biography, he was troubled by parts of Lindbergh 's life...

In February of 1999 Spielberg told the New York Times:
"We'll probably make `Lindbergh ,' but one of the reasons I've considered not being the director is that I didn't know very much about him until I read Scott Berg's book and I read it only after I purchased it, and I think it's one of the greatest biographies I've ever read. But Lindbergh 's America First and his anti-Semitism bother me to my core, and I don't want to celebrate an anti-Semite unless I can create an understanding of why he felt that way. Because sometimes the best way to prevent discrimination is to understand the discriminator."

More Spielberg on Lindbergh

"Once you commit to do a biography on an icon of a century, you have to be unflinching, you have to flesh out the entire story -- and from (Lindbergh's wife) Anne Morrow Lindbergh's point of view -- and not from Lindbergh the man," Spielberg told Variety.

Variety said Spielberg selected Meyjes for the project after reading his script for "Hoffman," (Later titled "Max") the story of a Jewish art teacher who discouraged Hitler's hopes for a career as a painter -- an event some historians have speculated helped sparked Hitler's political career and eventually the Holocaust.

He didn't know very much about Lindy until he read Scott Berg's book?

Really, that’s not what A. Scott Berg says...The following piece from New York Magazine makes it look like he wants to vilify Charles Lindbergh. Of course, Lindy was guilty of raising an anti-Semitic "canard" or two.


Lindbergh Drama Gets The Works

"...Exactly what Steven Spielberg knew and when he knew it was the question, after news circulated that the Academy Award nominated writer Paul Attanasio had withdrawn from a planned Charles Lindbergh project. Spielberg bought the rights to A. Scott Berg's Pulitzer Prize winning biography of the famous aviator before reading the book, and the story making the rounds last week was that Spielberg turned cold on the project once he realized exactly how anti-Semitic Lindbergh was. 'He did buy the rights to the book before reading the manuscript,' confirms Berg, 'because I was still working on it.' But the writer adds that Spielberg always knew about Lindbergh. 'When he and I first met, topic A was anti-Semitism,' says Berg. 'And I would say that topic Z was anti-Semitism as well.' Another source close to the project explains that Attanasio, who wrote QUIZ SHOW and DONNIE BRASCO, wanted to write a character based drama, while the director of SCHINDLER'S LIST wanted more of a 'spectacle.' Spielberg is now talking to another writer about taking over the project..."

Again, we’re told that the ethnicity of the Jewish media moguls doesn’t matter. But imagine if all of the Jewish moguls, agents, producers, editors, writers, publishers, journalists, directors, various impresarios, etc. were Italian, WASPs, or African Americans. Do you think that their ethnicity would go unquestioned? But when you’re "immune to criticism," and any dissent is met with the accusations of "hate," "anti-Semitism," and "fanning the flames of the Holocaust"...not much changes.

So, is it possible that the Jewish media elite may be individuals acting alone with the same "noble" purpose, "Is it good for the Jews?" No conspiracies, no Protocols of Zion rubbish, just individuals working to keep Jews safe, however, often to the detriment of gentiles.

From ADL website:
"Even a reputable British magazine in 1994 revived the stereotype of Hollywood in which an alleged "Jewish cabal" controls the industry. The article, in The Spectator, authored by
William Cash, a Hollywood correspondent for the conservative British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, contended that Jews have created an "invidious and protective culture" that denies employment to non-Jews."

"The Anti-Defamation League expressed outrage at the article, saying that it raised the age-old canard of Jewish control and conspiracy and was reminiscent of classic anti-Semitic propaganda of the past hundred years. "Those Jews who enter the movie industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream, not as representatives of their religious group," commented ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman."


From A certain People: American Jews and their lives today Silberman, C.E. (1985)

(p. 350) "American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief-one firmly rooted in history-that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse "gay rights" and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called "social" issues.


Spielberg biographer Joseph McBride tracks Spielberg's career from the obsessed young home moviemaker who knew at 12 he was going to make films his life's work, to the wunderkind apprentice at Universal Studios, soaking up all he could learn and dropping out of university, to his parents' dismay. He, in turn, was troubled by their divorce and by difficult days at high school, where he claims he encountered anti-Semitism -- although colleagues believe he was tormented more because he was a loner and "different."

Spielberg on using films to "educate."

"I like to think history is taught with purpose and passion, but I also feel film has a responsibility to do, ah, everything. To teach, but without preaching, to entertain, to illuminate, to reflect on events that are not taught sufficiently in school, which is why I made Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad -- but at the same time, films should only inspire students to discover an interest they never had before, so the film acts as a catalyst for discovery ... I'm always pleased when people say, 'I saw your film and I was not interested that much in the Holocaust but then I began to read Primo Levi and Elie Wiesel and all those books.' And that's what I like to hear. They're not talking about the film anymore, they're talking about all the books they've read."

Steve contributes to German student Holocaust fatigue…

Spielberg launches tolerance contest
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/entertainment/012703_en_contest.html

January 27, 2003 (BERLIN) — Director Steven Spielberg has launched a Germany-wide contest designed to promote tolerance through students' intercultural interaction.
"We've been at the brink of many world crises ever since the Holocaust, and this is one more crisis," Spielberg said at a news conference Sunday. "But the need for tolerance education has always existed."

Learning From History's Horrors

Interview with Chuck Schwartz
How goes the work for the Shoah Foundation?

Steven Spielberg: Thank you for asking that question. It goes great. We have 52,000 Holocaust survivors on tape. We have a CD ROM course on tolerance education that is being taught right now to kids in Germany. We have five states with one school in each state doing beta testing on our tolerance education curriculum and at the end of I think the experiment is over early next year and then we do a feasibility study and then we try to move our entire archive out into the public school districts to try to get teachers to mandate tolerance education right next to science and biology and a language and mathematics. We'll be happy to combine it with social science but it must be taught in schools and it must be compulsory. My whole goal now with the Shoah Foundation is to try and make tolerance education compulsory. It is so needed. All the kids need to know about racial hatred and kids should celebrate what is different among us not condemn us for the differences.

Any Comments Steve or Jeff?
Posted on June 27, 2003 at 03:22:13 PM by James Jaeger

Sisu,

I sent your post entitled, "Spielberg Teaches Tolerance" out to Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

I hope Steve or Jeff will comment here, or at least hire someone like Mitchell Levin to comment. How much is the MPAA paying you Mitchell?

James Jaeger

Re(1): Any Comments Steve or Jeff?
Posted on June 27, 2003 at 09:10:59 PM by Mitchell Levine

I went to summer camp every year until I was 16. Jewish services were held on Friday nights, and often both Jewish and Gentile campers and counselors attended. We frequently played basketball and football with Racquet Lake, the primarily gentile camp across 4th Lake. Some of my happiest memories. As far as I and the alumni know, no one was indoctrinated in any "Zionist" causes.

The reason Jewish summer camps exist and existed was not any nefarious "indoctrination," but because until at least the 70's, non-Jewish summer camps simply refused to admit Jews.

Not seeing any reason why their children shouldn't have the same opportunity to enjoy recreation in the summer, Jewish summer camps which observed the holidays, rituals, and dietary restrictions appropriate to meet their camper's needs. Most of the camps (in fact all that I know of) allowed non-Jewish campers to attend, but weren't able to provide specialized religious services. Kids did not spend their time discussing religion and politics; they spent it playing sports, waterskiing, hiking, and enjoying color war. If you don't believe me, you can go to the discussion forum archives for my alma mater, Camp Eagle Cove, and take note of the complete lack of any discussion of socialism or gentile society.

Only you could take such a wonderful experience, and try to convert it into racial propaganda.

And Jim, at least spell my name right, will you?

Re(2): Any Comments Steve or Jeff?
Posted on June 30, 2003 at 10:09:32 PM by mg

Someone say "Jewish summer camps?" :

The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography, by Stephen Steinlight, formerly Director of National Affairs at the American Jewish Committee
Center for Immigration Studies, October 2001

"We cannot consider the inevitable consequences of current [immigration] trends -- not the least among them diminished Jewish political power -- with detachment ... We Jews need to be especially sensitive to the multinational model this crowd (many of them Jewish) is promoting. Why? Because one person’s 'celebration' of his own diversity, foreign ties, and the maintenance of cultural and religious traditions that set him apart is another’s balkanizing identity politics. We are not immune from the reality of multiple identities or the charge of divided loyalties, a classic staple of anti-Semitism, and we must recognize that our own patterns are easily assailed, and we need to find ways of defending them more effectively as the debate goes on. Much public opinion survey research undertaken in recent years continues to indicate that large numbers of Americans, particularly people of color, assert that Jews are more loyal to Israel than the United States. For Jews, it is at best hypocritical, and, worse, an example of an utter lack of self-awareness, not to recognize that we are up to our necks in this problem. This has been especially true once we were sufficiently accepted in the United States to feel confident enough to go public with our own identity politics. But this newfound confidence carries its own costs; people are observing us closely, and what they see in our behavior is not always distinct from what we loudly decry in others. One has to be amused, even amazed, when colleagues in the organized Jewish world wring their hands about black nationalism, Afrocentrism, or with cultural separatism in general — without considering Jewish behavioral parallels. Where has our vaunted Jewish self-awareness flown? I’ll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one."

Re(1): Spielberg teaches tolerance
Posted on June 25, 2003 at 11:36:24 PM by Mitchell Levine

Obviously, the message here is that combatting antisemitism is a bad thing - very typical...for someone who's life's dream is to promote it!

Re(2): Spielberg teaches tolerance
Posted on June 25, 2003 at 11:56:22 PM by Moishe the Goyim

I'm sorry, Mr. Levine. But I did not post the above commentary. Others are coming to similar conclusions as I.

It's very, very good commentary. Don't you think? Nicely researched, not inflammatory. Hard for guys like you to "dis" it without seeming the propagandist that you are.

What do they call it, "food for thought" about Jewish hegemony?

Re(3): Spielberg teaches tolerance
Posted on June 26, 2003 at 02:02:45 AM by Anonymous

Like you're the only antisemitic asshole in the world?

Summer Camp & anti-Gentile bias!?
Posted on June 27, 2003 at 06:23:10 PM by Sisu

NPR's This American Life with Ira Glass
http://www.thislife.org/

The June 13-15, 2003 show: "Notes on Camp. Stories of summer camp. People who love camp say that non-camp people simply don't understand what's so amazing about camp. In this program, we attempt to bridge the gap of misunderstanding between camp people and non-camp people. Broadcast the weekend of June 13-15 in most places, or available here next week via RealAudio."

This American Life had a segment where listeners could call and leave messages about their camp experience as children. One woman called and told her
story about attending a left-wing Zionist camp in Wisconsin. One
night in the dining hall a rock came through the window and landed in
her soup. A note tied to the rock said "no Jews in Wisconsin!" The
counselors and campers started blackening their faces and posting
sentries around the camp. One night they were in the hall when
suddenly a cross was set ablaze on the campground. Men dressed in
white hoods came out of the woods and made the campers come outside.
They told the campers they shouldn't try to contact the authorities
because they were the authorities in this neck of the woods. Again
they said they didn't want Jews in Wisconsin and when one of the
counselors spoke up and said, "I'm an American, you can't treat me
this way," he was taken away by one of the hooded men. Over and over
the counselors spoke up and each on was taken away. The woman telling
the story said she was afraid to stay behind so she said, "I'm an
American…" and she was taken by the arm and walked down to the lake.
On the way the hooded person called her by her name and said, "Why can't you keep your mouth shut…" It was a counselor/adult involved with the camp. They were trying to teach the kids a "political lesson."

More on Zionist Summer Camp

Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies writes:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html

"I’ll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one." End quote. Is Steinlight a self- hating Jew?

Well, you don’t have to be a Jew from New York or L.A. to feel fear of or disdain for gentiles. The Coen brothers, born and bred in Minnesota attended a Zionist summer camp in Wisconsin. I think their portrayal of (dimwitted) gentiles in their films comes from this type of indoctrination. Interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air, while discussing his film "Fargo" Ethan stated that he thought the character Marge, viewed by host Terry Gross as having a big heart and likable, was "the bad guy" and "not given to introspection." Coen most identified with Steve Buscemi’s character Carl, a murderer, because he was "alien" and "an outsider." Coen didn’t identify with Carl’s sidekick Gaear either, because Gaear "was Swedish and in a sense connected to the region."

Here’s what filmmaker Ben Younger had to say during a roundtable discussion in 2000 for New York magazine: "I don't mean to be a naysayer, but my experience and my family's experience have taught me that it's easy to be lulled into a false sense of security. If my grandmother were in this room, she would say, well, this is exactly what they said in Germany before the Third Reich took power. Things were great; Jews were at the top of their form in finance, in arts, in culture, in publishing. But in the end, none of that mattered. End quote.

From 2.11.02 The New Yorker:

"I see were this is going" Stewart said, "You're suggesting that there is a bagel-sized chip on my shoulder? I didn't grow up in Warsaw, but it's not like it wasn't duly noted by my peers that that's who I was-there were some minor slurs."

Comedian Jon Stewart, who wears his Jewishness on his sleeve, was sometimes called "Leibotits" and "Leiboshits" by gentile peers when he was younger.

Steven Spielberg also experienced mild anti-Semitism as a teen.

Excerpts from The Guardian UK, 3.21.99, Inside the Dream Factory:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/The_Oscars_1999/Story/0,4135,36555,00.html

"…His motivation for making those earlier serious movies was simple: to be taken seriously. But Schindler's List, he says, 'is the most personal film I've ever made, because it was something I was so ashamed of.'

The 'it', of course, was being Jewish. As a scrawny kid in gentile suburbia, he couldn't stand being disliked for something he had no control over. 'It wasn't so much that I wanted to be
popular or wanted to meet girls,' Spielberg says. 'I just didn't want to get hit in the mouth.'

…The harshest killing by far befalls Private Mellish, a tough Jewish soldier who is knifed through the heart, slowly, by a German soldier who hushes Mellish like a baby as he leans on the blade. 'I made that up on the spot,' Spielberg says when I ask about it….

But why did he choose the Jewish soldier?

'Believe it or not,' he says, 'I chose the Jewish soldier because all the other squad members were
accounted for, and I'd already shot their whereabouts.' Tom Hanks, the star of Saving Private Ryan, recalls watching Spielberg shoot the scene. 'The blood drained out of my body,' Hanks says. 'I could not believe what he had done.'

Spielberg says his alter-ego in the film is Corporal Upham, the cowardly pacifist. Hanks disagrees. 'I think who Steven fantasises himself being is Mellish,' he says, 'who pulls out his Star of David, and says, "Juden, Juden", as the German POWs are going by. I think Steven, for his Jewishness, wants to be that guy who, when the time comes, can pop a guy in the mouth with the butt of his M1.'

In serious conversation with Spielberg, tolerance and intolerance are among the most common words to crop up. Despite his success, he says, he still feels like an outsider, indelibly stamped by his childhood. Indeed, his movies add up to one long argument for tolerance, a plea to accept the outsider. ET the Extra-Terrestrial has Elliott, a young loner, recognising that ET is more kindred spirit than alien. Close Encounters of the Third Kind was, above all, a quest for peace among men (and, again, aliens). More recently, Saving Private Ryan was rewritten, at Spielberg's insistence, from a swaggering Second World War movie into a melting-pot ensemble drama: the Jewish soldier, the Italian soldier, the scripture-quoting sharpshooter.

It is this morality of tolerance, his critics say, that turns his characters into stereotypes or leads Spielberg to crown the wrong heroes. Why, he was asked after Schindler's List, did he make a Holocaust film with a redeemed Nazi as its hero? Even David Geffen feels that Amistad was less about slavery than 'about white people saving black people'…
End of Guardian excerpts

In the March 2002 issue of GQ, Lucy Kaylin discusses the movies The Heartbreak Kid, Meet The Parents, When Harry Met Sally, Portnoy’s Complaint, Annie Hall, and other Woody Allen flicks in an article titled "The Revenge of the Nebbish"…She’s pissed that Jewish women aren’t objects of desire for Jewish men "in the movies." Her disdain for gentiles also oozes from the page.

Excerpts:

Nice Jewish boy bags snub-nosed cutie with combination of smarts and pluck that the bland Biffs could only dream about...So what in these movies is the appeal of the shiksa? Her looks, of course, which usually scream "Scandinavia!"...The shiksa is also seen to be wholly unencumbered by guilt, regret or deep thought. For tortured urban Jews mired in a gloomy legacy of pogroms and poverty, such a woman inspires condescension and admiration in equal measure...

...As such, film shiksas are commonly portrayed as simple, vacant vessels with sunny farm names like Annie, Kelly and Sally-ready repositories of ones hopes and dreams...Sex is the great motivator in these movies (surprise, surprise) in which shiksas are seen as something rich and valuable to be plundered...It's as if shtupping a WASP is the ultimate pay back for a cosmic,
lifelong sense of feeling excluded...Perhaps, it is to be expected from an industry heavy on horny Jewish guys...and the nebbishes tend to be positioned as cocksman...

...Perhaps, the next wave of smart Jewish guys in Hollywood will explore some fresh thematic territory. Privileged as they are and removed as the are from straight-up immigrant desperation, maybe they'll see the shiksa quest for what it is: an antiquated, hollow attempt to get over.


So, how many other Jewish filmmakers, actors, writers, directors, producers have attended Zionist or even secular Jewish summer camps? How many of them see European Americans as potential "willing executioners?"

Summer Camp & Dimwitted Shaygets
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 04:01:37 PM by Sisu

Wow, what a shock. Larry David went to Summer camp with Richard Lewis...

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk020816/et30.shtml

For the past three years, Lewis has collaborated with his childhood friend, "Seinfeld" creator Larry David, on HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm," which has just been nominated for a best sitcom Emmy Award.

Well, actually, Lewis and David were more like childhood enemies. They met at summer camp, became archrivals and used to scream and yell and beat up each other. Ten years later, both working as stand-up comics in New York, they talked it out and became buddies. "But we still scream and yell," he said.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1001/larry.david.asp

Appalling encounters with gentiles, on the other hand, are excrutiating moments of mutual misunderstanding. In one episode, David meets a charity donor named John Tyler, a pale, humorless guy who's driven up from Fullerton (a particularly bland Southern California suburb) to claim his auctioned lunch-with-the-celebrity. The scene is basically an object lesson of the mutual irritation that can happen when a mile-a-minute Jewish brain encounters an I-don't-get-it gentile from Squaresville, U.S.A.

Re(1): Summer Camp & Dimwitted Shaygets
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 05:47:16 PM by Mitchell Levine

Gentlemen, this wins the prize: this is the stupidest thread the site's ever hosted.

Congratulations!

Re(2): Summer Camp & Dimwitted Shaygets
Posted on July 5, 2003 at 00:06:28 AM by Sisu

Summer Camps (and Day Schools): Reinforcing Us v. Them

http://www.jpr.org.uk/Reports/IS|0Reports/no_2-1999/main.htm

Thus, looking at other forms of Jewish socialization to see whether they correlate with Jewish-Zionist identity, we turn to the youngsters' involvement with Jewish youth groups and participation in Jewish summer camps. Participation in these informal Jewish educational experiences is more likely to reflect the youngsters' autonomous attitudes and peer influences.

Summer camp participants express strong attachment to Israel far more than those who never attended a Jewish summer camp...Quite similar are the differences between participants and non-participants of Jewish summer camps with regard to the importance they attribute to Israel (32-point gap); to how important feeling a sense of attachment to Israel is to their own sense of Jewishness (32-point gap); to interests in visiting Israel with a teenage group


https://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/ Publications.asp?did=470&pid=1116 - 75k

Jewish educators have long believed that summer camping can serve as a critically important opportunity for socialization and education because of the intense environment that can be created at sleep-away camps.

What do diamonds have to do with the film industry?
Posted on June 25, 2003 at 01:40:35 PM by Carlos

IT'S THE SAME JEWISH ETHNOCENTRIC MONOPOLY SCAM:

Israel's diamond dealers tremble. Diamond colossus DeBeers today launches fundamental changes to $56 billion retail market,
by Nicole Gaouette, The Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2003

"It is a modern-day fortress for an ancient business. Workers arriving at the Israel Diamond Exchange pass metal detectors, guards, a photo station for visitors, then fortified doors that read their ID and let them in one by one. Inside, 900 cameras watch as they go about their day. The Big Brother trappings are necessary. In the world's largest diamond market, 20,000 people buy, sell and appraise the fiery white stones and exchange millions of dollars every day. But the fortifications don't eliminate internal threats: the odd robbery - and now a newer, more worrisome challenge. DeBeers Consolidated Mines, the colossus of the diamond world, is making changes that will radically reshape the industry. For consumers, these shifts may lead to lower prices and better guarantees of quality. For diamantaires, as these gem dealers are known, they could end a way of life ... As the largest and most influential company in the diamond world, DeBeers carries heavy clout, and the coming changes are sweeping. As of today, DeBeers becomes a private company, the most formal symbol of a meticulously planned transformation. The firm has also declared that it will soon stop acting as self-appointed industry custodian. For more than a century, the DeBeers monopoly has allowed it to keep a steely grip on the global supply of diamonds, ensuring stable prices and the organization's enormous influence. The Johannesburg-based group has also pledged to stop buying "blood" diamonds, stones sold by gem-rich African rebels to finance war, and to certify that no DeBeers stone is battle-tainted. The industry's ultimate wholesaler of unpolished stones will soon start selling jewelry under its own brand name, putting DeBeers in competition with its own customers for the $56 billion annual retail market. In July, DeBeers will unveil changes to the exclusive group of 125 merchants permitted to buy its diamonds. In Israel, five of the 30 merchants on this list are expected to lose out. "Some people are really biting their nails," says Yuval Ben Yona, an Israeli diamond merchant who says he's not worried, as his diamonds come from other sources. Most dealers 'fight, beg, borrow, and steal,' to stay part of this select club, says Ivan Solotaroff, a US-based writer who covers the diamond industry for Modern Jeweler magazine ... For centuries, the diamond business has been a family affair, one closely linked to Europe's Jewish communities ... The diamond business has expanded in the centuries since, but it is still strongly rooted in Jewish communities and families. Grandfathers, sons, and nephews - women rarely enter the trade - often work together, and that tight-knit, tradition-bound core makes the business unique. There are no written contracts. All deals - from Beijing to Buenos Aires - are sealed with a handshake and the Hebrew words mazal ubraha or "luck and blessing." Merchants often send diamonds overseas to prospective buyers, who keep the stones they want and return those they don't. Cell phones, email, and airplanes figure large in the business, but it still has an Old World ethos. Personal connections are crucial, and everyone seems to knows everyone else - or at least their uncle or father or cousin. 'Trust is crucial, which is one reason there are so many families in the business,' explains Efraim Raviv, managing director the Israel Diamond Institute in Ramat Gan, a Tel Aviv suburb. Even DeBeers, run by the Oppenheimer family, requires enormous trust of its 125 customers, or 'sightholders.'"

Re(1): What do diamonds have to do with the film industry?
Posted on June 27, 2003 at 03:35:38 PM by James Jaeger

I don't see that this post has ANYTHING to do with film reform (and undoubtedly it's not the first).

Please don't post things that don't relate to film reform. This is not a site for attacking Jews, or anyone else. If you wish to discuss issues relating to a minority-dominated marketplace, such as the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry, fine, but please keep the focus to the objectives in the FIRM Mission at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/fmission.htm

Thank you,

James Jaeger

Re(2): What do diamonds have to do with the film industry?
Posted on July 3, 2003 at 00:58:05 AM by Carlos

Hollywood is either a Jewish-centered club (exactly like the diamond industry) or it is not.

Of course, IT IS.

Re(2): What do diamonds have to do with the film industry?
Posted on July 2, 2003 at 11:58:14 PM by Pix

I don't see that this post has ANYTHING to do with film reform (and undoubtedly it's not the first). -James Jaeger

I disagree. "IT IS THE SAME JEWISH ETHNOCENTRIC MONOPOLY SCAM!"
[My comments]

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/risky_transactions.htm
Incentives toward ethnocentrism exist even in legitimate businesses, like the diamond trade [or the movie business], where lack of trust would greatly increase transaction costs.

For example, after I bought an engagement ring from a very low cost dealer (don't tell my wife), I had to pay an additional $100 or so to have a third-party appraiser spend twenty minutes peering at the diamond through a microscope to confirm that the gem was indeed the VS clarity - G color that the salesman had purported.

That's why the international wholesale diamond business is dominated by a small number of [Jews]"endogamous" (in-marrying) ethnic groups. They can do business within the group on just a handshake. [see the handshake link]

Say you sell some diamonds with microscopic flaws to your third cousin in Amsterdam but charge him for flawless diamonds. When he eventually figures out you've been cheating him, he doesn't have to go through all the bother of suing you or shooting you. He just tells your mutual relatives, and soon [You'll never work in this town again] nobody will do business with you and your children can't find spouses. So honesty is the best policy - at least toward your co-ethnics.

What does Michael Moore have to do with diamonds?
Posted on June 28, 2003 at 10:51:49 AM by Anonymous

Entertainment Weekly interview
by Daniel Fierman
November 1, 2002

EW: A film executive once told me that you had a reputation for being anti-Semitic – it had to do with Roger & Me and your supposed refusal to allow the film to be shown in Israel. Do you know what I’m talking about?

Moore: [Long pause] Right. Okay. I’m glad you asked that. Here’s what happened. In Roger & Me, [Newlywed Game host] Bob Eubanks tells a joke. He says, Why don’t Jewish women get AIDS? And I don’t want this reprinted, so I won’t say it, but it’s an anti-Semitic, antigay, antiwoman joke. So I’m out in L.A. and Rob Friedman, who was then the head of [Warner Bros. Advertising and publicity], says, "You’re not going to believe what’s going on. The Anti-Defamation League and Bob Eubanks are blasting Michael Moore for putting anti-Semitism in the film." [Long pause] A week later, Jewish weeklies across the country all run the story that the ADL sent out saying that Michael Moore put anti-Semitism in the film.

Now, I have a Jewish friend who says that his grandpa has two columns; good for Jews and bad for Jews. [Laughs] And once that appeared, it stuck in a lot of people’s minds: Roger & Me – bad for Jews. Plus at the end of the film one of the tourism ladies in Flint says, I’m going to move to Israel and maybe I’ll become the mistress of tourism. And then as a joke it cuts to the first intifada and I put up [the subtitle] "One month after Maxine arrived" – which I thought was funny, to go from war zone to war zone. So those two things got this weird vibe going, and then the film was invited to the Jerusalem Film Festival. [Sighs] I had two requests – that the film not be shown [if] people would be prohibited from seeing it because of curfews and that the film have Arabic subtitles. [The festival agreed to neither] so I said, "I am so sorry, I want to come, but I can’t. how can I if people were not allowed in because of who they were?"

EW: But why does this still have currency 13 years later?

Moore: It’s as simple as my not toeing the standard line on Israel. I would stand up for anybody who is going to be persecuted. And that position has no credibility if I won’t do it for Palestinians [as well as Jews].

Handshake Town
Posted on July 3, 2003 at 00:11:37 AM by Pix

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/movies/columns/hollywood/166/

"...the way that Hollywood has always conducted its business: This is a handshake town. Movies with $100 million budgets are routinely green-lighted as a result of static-filled, cell-phone-conducted oral agreements, scantily sketched-out deal memos, and personal relationships that began in the William Morris mailroom.

For as long as possible, for the most part, the lawyers were kept at arm's length for no other reason than that they would complicate the process. Sure, they were there to dot the i's and cross the t's. But the real heavy lifting in the negotiations was conducted by moguls and agents. For better or worse, an honor system prevailed. The guy on the other end of the telephone might be a son of a bitch, but he was your son of a bitch, a sibling in the dysfunctional Hollywood family."

This Place.....
Posted on June 30, 2003 at 01:56:04 AM by Concerned Citizen

is a fucking cesspool of hate. Y'all should just kill yourselves.

An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 2, 2003 at 07:17:42 PM by Jon Heather

Anyone can make a general, or a hateful comment, and just run. Few can back up their words.

Frankly this site backs up its words and is therefore a breath of fresh air. Finally some people who have the courage to tell the truth about what's happening in the movie industry and the incestuous little club that runs it.

Way to go Cones and Jaeger!

Re(1): An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 2, 2003 at 11:17:06 PM by LS

I second this: this site has the courage to tell the truth and is not censorial.

Re(2): An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 3, 2003 at 11:00:11 PM by an ad in la

unfortunately i have to keep a low profile because i work for a prodco that has a deal with one of the studios but i agree this site rocks. too bad no one has spoken out about the people-mostly jews-running the industry sooner and had the willingness to show what the scene is from top to bottom. the arguments here have been quite revealing and i would say society owes a debt of gratitude to this film reform site. i also might add there are some pretty pathetic people showing up here trying to argue in defense of the studios' abuses, but these people are either mostly jewish or on the take (or hoping to get on the take) with the system. pathetic and cowardly, but that’s what hollywood consists mostly of, pathetic and cowardly people and unfortunately i have to deal with these people every day. there are many cool people too you meet on a gig that feel the same way. but you just keep your mouth shut if you want to continue working so i guess to some degree i'm one of those cowardly people. well at least i said something many feel.

Re(3): An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 06:44:50 PM by mg

If we get more people standing up to tell the truth, we'll get something going.

Spread the word: time to put the Jewish clique under the microscope, the same way they've done it to everyone else.

Be sure to check out:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

for the BIG PICTURE to all this.

There are plenty of people like us, gagged by the fear of losing our jobs to the Jewish Bossman.

Re(4): An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 09:43:16 PM by Gary Hirsh

MG, the only thing you're gagged by is your own foot!

Re(5): An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 11:16:34 PM by Mitchell Levine

Gary, is this kind of thing really necessary? You're really stooping to his level.

Re(6): An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 7, 2003 at 03:37:52 PM by Gary Hirsh

Actually no, it's not really necessary. Nor is this site. I just like toying with morons. :)

Michell come join the JDL and help to clean up these dirtbags before we see another 6 million die. Force seems to be the only thing these punks respect.

Don't think that it can't happen again! This is just how it starts

Re(7): An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 7, 2003 at 09:56:28 PM by Mitchell Levine

Thanks, but I'd prefer to let the JDL die with Rubin.

Re(8): An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 08:14:47 AM by Gary Hirsh

Suit yourself. But when the shit hits the fan, and it will, who ya gonna call?

Gary's latent "willing executioners"
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 03:31:52 PM by Sisu

It is apparent that Gary doesn’t appear to have confidence in folks from the Heartland (specifically Arkansas) to do the right thing with regard to Jewish Americans and other minority groups. Of course, not all American Jews hold these views, however Jewish organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League do seem to view much of gentile America as latent "willing executioners."

Again, considering the history Jews and gentiles have shared, combating anti-Semitism seems to be a rather logical and noble endeavor. However, I would argue that the methods being used to combat anti-Semitism are based in a belief that gentile Americans pose a real threat to American Jews. This type of paranoia was exemplified in the August 21, 2000 issue of New York magazine. The magazine featured a roundtable discussion of a "diverse minyan of the city’s Jewish opinion leaders" discussing Jewish issues "in the wake of Joseph Liebermann’s historic run." During the discussion, Bust magazine editor, Marcelle Karp, stated, "Things might be different in New York and in L.A., but in many parts of America, they still hate us. They, of course, are gentile Americans. Another participant, filmmaker Ben Younger, likened pre-war Nazi Germany to the United States circa 2000. Apparently, Gary agrees with Ben and Marcelle.

Re(1): Gary's latent
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 06:56:10 PM by Gary Hirsh

I am not condemning the entire heartland of this country. I would, however, point out that most of the hate groups out there (nazi, skinheads, KKK) refer to themselves as Christians. And a large majority are in the midwest and the south.

My apologies to the state of Arkansas. I think since Bill Clinton, it has become the symbol of the redneck south, even if it does not deserve the distinction.

I don't exactly think the United States circa 2000 is similar to pre-war Nazi Germany. Believe it or not, I'm not too hung up on Nazi Germany. It was a different world then. But you can still hear the same old rhetoric. Especially when the economy is bad. As soon as people feel the pinch of a poor economy, the Jews hear about it as if it is our fault. It makes me sick to think that I am blamed for the economy because of my religion. I have been effected by it as much as anyone else. I lost my job 18 months ago, and have been getting by on the money I can scrape together fixing home PCs. Acording to this site, I should blame myself for being Jewish. Maybe there is some club for wealthy Jewish Business men, but I assure you that most ordinary Jews are not part of it. I guess you could say the same thing about the 18th and early 19th century Christian industrialists. How exclusive were they. (and their country clubs).

I guess what pisses me off the most is while I'm figuring out how I'm going to pay the electric bill this month, I end up stumbling across this twisted site. When I read garbage that claims YOU can't get a fair break because of me and my family. Well, I guess it does make me a bit militant! What do you do with someone that will not listen to reason, and feels that you are the source of their bad luck?

Everytime I hear expressions like "Jew them down", or "the Jews have all the money", it's not coming from a Buddist or a Hindu,or even most Muslims. It comes from our good old good fearing Christian brothers!

Re(2): Gary's latent
Posted on July 9, 2003 at 02:03:15 PM by Mitchell Levine

People who believe such things aren't Christians, or even gentiles - they're hypocrites.

Christ never would have taught his followers to behave that way. In fact, he specifically said to do exactly the opposite.

Re(9): An Excellent Site, This Place
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 11:49:49 AM by Mitchell Levine

Violence is no solution; it only leads to more violence.

The United States isn't Weimar Germany.

Why will the sh*t hit the fan?
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 10:37:58 AM by Tag

"But when the shit hits the fan, and it will, who ya gonna call?"

Why will the shit hit the fan?

Re(1): Why will the sh*t hit the fan?
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 07:09:38 PM by Gary Hirsh

The shit will hit the fan as soon as the first American soldier is killed defending Israel. Or more terrorist attacks blaming the US policy on the middle east. Or more web sites like this! Sure, give Israel back to the Palestinians. Of course the Arabs love Christians too, and I am sure they will treat Bethlehem and other Holy cities with the utmost respect. Who are you going to blame if they don't let you into the country to see the birthplace of Christ. Yup, it's my fault!

If it makes you feel better to think of me as the enemy, or even the devil, so be it. But don't expect me to sit back and wait for you to screw me. This generation of Jews are not as passive as you would like us to be.

Re(2): Why will the sh*t hit the fan?
Posted on July 8, 2003 at 09:05:07 PM by Mitchell Levine

Now that Sharon and Arafat seem to be sincerely engaged in peace talks, there'll be fewer opportunities to scapegoat.

Antisemitism will have to stand on its own two feet and reveal itself to the world for what it truly is, rather than use "antizionism" as a covert front.

That will make it more difficult, but there'll always be those who'll find a way anyhow.

Gentile Front Man to step down
Posted on June 30, 2003 at 10:45:57 AM by Sisu

Valenti to step down
WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - Hollywood's top lobbyist, Jack Valenti, will meet Monday with top studio executives to discuss a succession plan.

Valenti, 81, has hinted that he is contemplating stepping down as president and CEO of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, and has held discussions with studio executives for some time about planning for an orderly changing of the guard.

The names of possible successors have included Sherry Lansing, who heads the motion picture group of Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures, to President Clinton.

Excerpts from the National archives…
"Nixon then broaches a subject about which "we can't talk about it publicly," namely Jewish influence in Hollywood and the media…"That right?" says Graham, prompting Nixon to claim that Life magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others, are "totally dominated by the Jews." He calls network TV anchors Howard K. Smith, David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite "front men who may not be of that persuasion," but that their writers are "95 percent Jewish."

"And they're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff," Graham adds. end quote

Did Nixon and Graham fabricate anything?

A "canard" is a false, especially malicious, report that has been fabricated with the intention of doing harm...

From "The Rest Of Us: The Rise of America’s Eastern European Jews" by Stephen Birmingham

"Though the boardrooms of the three major networks had become largely populated by descendants of Russian Jews, the out-front faces that the public saw would be the Christian one of Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, Dan Rather, Roger Mudd, Harry Reasoner, and Howard K. Smith. As a result, the general public would not think of television as a Jewish enterprise-simply as a rich one."

Where are all the angry Hollywood gentiles?
Posted on July 2, 2003 at 10:10:42 PM by Anonymous

If what you're saying is true, why is there only one little website protesting this discrimination?

Re(1): Where are all the angry Hollywood gentiles?
Posted on July 2, 2003 at 11:19:32 PM by LS

That's a no-brainer. Because the censorial blackball is profound. Protesting Jewish domination is the key to ending your Hollywood career.

There is nothing more "offensive" to the Jewish Collective than to tell the truth about its power.

Re(2): Where are all the angry Hollywood gentiles?
Posted on July 3, 2003 at 00:06:28 AM by Mitchell Levine

Either you can take the above idiot's antisemitic point of view, or you could think logically for a moment, and:

1) Consider the millions of dollars in easy money that could be won from the deep pockets of the studios in an anti-discrimination suit

2) Open a copy of Variety and look for the names of the many, many non-Jewish producers and executives currently working in the business.

3) Wonder why nobody's ever been able to name even one person whose ever been excluded from having a career in Hollywood for not being Jewish.

4) Notice that the business was founded by Jews, and dates back to a time when most Gentiles didn't wish to work in it because it was considered "illegitimate," and realize that therefore the people with the most seniority and experience were Jewish, which is typically one of the most important requirements for being made the president of a company.

and

5) Conclude that the reason why they aren't posting more sites is because they don't believe that discrimination is happening.

Besides, if the censorial blackball is so profound, and the Jewish media machine so all-powerful, then how do you explain the ongoing career of John Cones, Esq.? No one has to make use of the services of any particular entertainment attorney. People in the business could easily just choose someone else.

Re(3): Where are all the angry Hollywood gentiles?
Posted on July 3, 2003 at 00:53:03 AM by mg

Either you can take the above obsessive Judeocentric point of view, or you could think logically for a moment, and:

1) Consider that all public discourse about Jews starts from their power to enforce (and punish those who challenge) their alleged transcendental "victimhood." It is Orwellian; totalitarian.

2) Open a copy of Variety and look for the names of the many, many JEWISH producers and executives currently working in the business (a procedure which, by the way, is FORBIDDEN by Jewish policemen like you as "ANTISEMITIC.")

3) Wonder why the Jewish Lobby is so powerful in Hollywood and Judeocentrism so dominant in American popular culture that nobody's ever been able to risk coming forward publicly to discuss whose ever been excluded from having a career in Hollywood for not being Jewish.

4) Notice that the business was founded by Jews, and dates back to Jewish antiquity when Jews networked ONLY within their community except to milk the surrounding non-Jewish communities. Modern Hollywood is a Jewish backroom situation: a club, a clique. One THAT SEEKS TO TOXIFY ANYONE WHO NAMES IT AS SUCH AND TO FORBID PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF IT. Like Mitchell Levine.

and

5) Conclude that the reason why they aren't posting more sites is because the persecution forces against them are omnipresent and overwhelming.

YOU SAY: Besides, if the censorial blackball is so profound, and the Jewish media machine so all-powerful, then how do you explain the ongoing career of John Cones, Esq.? No one has to make use of the services of any particular entertainment attorney. People in the business could easily just choose someone else.

RESPONSE: Who knows what Mr. Cones really believes? He is very, very diplomatic in what he says, and how he says it. To state things too bluntly, the way I do, would cause him the exact problems you say that he doesn't face.

(I'd also add that if you read the FIRM archives, you'll find that even stating the truths he has found in a very mild manner HAS INDEED caused him considerable problems, including the unjust accusation of "antisemitism."

Re(4): Where are all the angry Hollywood gentiles?
Posted on July 3, 2003 at 01:15:31 AM by Mitchell Levine


1) Consider that all public discourse about Jews starts from their power to enforce (and punish those who challenge) their alleged transcendental "victimhood." It is Orwellian; totalitarian.

- If it was so "totalitarian," then neither this site, nor Jenks' would exist, nor would there be any dissent at all.

2) Open a copy of Variety and look for the names of the many, many JEWISH producers and executives currently working in the business (a procedure which, by the way, is FORBIDDEN by Jewish policemen like you as "ANTISEMITIC.")

- There are many Jewish producers, but there's also many, many non-Jewish producers and executives, a fact which Jenks' ridiculous bullshit theories can't explain.

3) Wonder why the Jewish Lobby is so powerful in Hollywood and Judeocentrism so dominant in American popular culture that nobody's ever been able to risk coming forward publicly to discuss whose ever been excluded from having a career in Hollywood for not being Jewish.

- First let's see some proof that there's ever been anyone. If there ever has been, certainly you could point to someone in history denied a chance. You can't.

4) Notice that the business was founded by Jews, and dates back to Jewish antiquity when Jews networked ONLY within their community except to milk the surrounding non-Jewish communities. Modern Hollywood is a Jewish backroom situation: a club, a clique. One THAT SEEKS TO TOXIFY ANYONE WHO NAMES IT AS SUCH AND TO FORBID PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF IT. Like Mitchell Levine.

- I'm not forbidding anyone from discussing anything. The fact that I'm posting at all just encourages further discussion.

and

5) Conclude that the reason why they aren't posting more sites is because the persecution forces against them are omnipresent and overwhelming.

- If they were so omnipresent and overwhelming, Cones and Jaeger wouldn't have jobs and you wouldn't have a site.

YOU SAY: Besides, if the censorial blackball is so profound, and the Jewish media machine so all-powerful, then how do you explain the ongoing career of John Cones, Esq.? No one has to make use of the services of any particular entertainment attorney. People in the business could easily just choose someone else.

RESPONSE: Who knows what Mr. Cones really believes? He is very, very diplomatic in what he says, and how he says it. To state things too bluntly, the way I do, would cause him the exact problems you say that he doesn't face.

- Anyone who can read this site knows exactly what Cones thinks vis a vis his online book: he claims Jews are discriminating against non-Jews in Hollywood. Since no one has to use the services of any particular attorney, thus leaving Mr. Cones no recourse should his rich, connected, powerful clients decide to procure the services of another lawyer, all they would have do is just drop another attorney a retainer. Entertainment attorneys aren't exactly a rarity in Hollywood.

Re(5): Where are all the angry Hollywood gentiles?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 06:27:58 PM by mg

YOU SAY: If it was so "totalitarian," then neither this site, nor Jenks' would exist, nor would there be any dissent at all.

RESPONSE: There is NO public forum for addressing the issues I raise. Only the Internet. All other venues are emphatically policed. The Jewish Lobby is trying to police the Internet too. Let's hope they don't succeed and pathologizing all legitimate criticism of Jewry as categoric "hate."

YOU SAY: There are many Jewish producers, but there's also many, many non-Jewish producers and executives, a fact which Jenks' ridiculous bullshit theories can't explain.

RESPONSE: There are "shabbes-goys" throughout Jewish history. And, as 2.5% of the population, God help us if Jews held 100% of the Hollywood biz.

YOU SAY: First let's see some proof that there's ever been anyone. If there ever has been, certainly you could point to someone in history denied a chance. You can't.

RESPONSE: I point to the thousands of non-Jews who have aspired to a Hollywood career and have not succeeded. I point also to the fact that most of these people have never even recognized who their nemesis is because "naming the Jew" is forbidden in throughout the mass media.

Ask your average person who has tried to crack into Hollywood if they've been discriminated against. They will say yes (give me the money, Levine, and we'll do a confirmation survey for you).
But most won't even recognize that the origin of discrimination against them was the Jewish Network.

YOU SAY: I'm not forbidding anyone from discussing anything. The fact that I'm posting at all just encourages further discussion.

RESPONSE: You are attempting to toxify the issues I raise. You brand me a "Nazi," a "hater," an "antisemite," a "racist," and on and on, hoping to stigmatize free intellectual thought about the Jewish Lobby as the terrain of kooks.

The "fact that you are posting" your own responses is your attempt to muddy the waters. That's OK. The informed person will see through it. In any open discourse about Jewish power and WHO is really the biased bigot, you will lose.

YOU SAY: If they were so omnipresent and overwhelming, Cones and Jaeger wouldn't have jobs and you wouldn't have a site.

RESPONSE: I do not know the details of their career experiences. I trust they are not in the upper eschelons of any Jewish-owned entity. Judging by the FIRM archives, Cones has had one Jewish colleague (at least) turn on him for daring to raise the issues he raises.

YOU SAY: Anyone who can read this site knows exactly what Cones thinks vis a vis his online book: he claims Jews are discriminating against non-Jews in Hollywood. Since no one has to use the services of any particular attorney, thus leaving Mr. Cones no recourse should his rich, connected, powerful clients decide to procure the services of another lawyer, all they would have do is just drop another attorney a retainer. Entertainment attorneys aren't exactly a rarity in Hollywood.

RESPONSE: Only Cones knows the details of his chosen career. And the fine line he must walk in daring to raise the issue of (Jewish) discrimination in Hollywood should be obvious to anyone.

Re(6): Where are all the angry Hollywood gentiles?
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 07:08:43 PM by Anonymous

YOU SAY: If it was so "totalitarian," then neither this site, nor Jenks' would exist, nor would there be any dissent at all.

RESPONSE: There is NO public forum for addressing the issues I raise. Only the Internet. All other venues are emphatically policed. The Jewish Lobby is trying to police the Internet too. Let's hope they don't succeed and pathologizing all legitimate criticism of Jewry as categoric "hate."

- You don't engage in "legitimate criticism" of anything. You post things like "the Jews are a racist, ethnocentric band of corrupters THAT ARE GOING TO LEAD US ALL TO THE APOCALYPSE!!" and "Jews are hustlers!" which just about any reasonable person would consider a little prejudiced.

YOU SAY: There are many Jewish producers, but there's also many, many non-Jewish producers and executives, a fact which Jenks' ridiculous bullshit theories can't explain.

RESPONSE: There are "shabbes-goys" throughout Jewish history. And, as 2.5% of the population, God help us if Jews held 100% of the Hollywood biz.

- Gentiles make up a huge percentage of the producers and directors in the Hollywood system, as even a casual glance at a copy of Variety will verify. That hardly can be explained as being due to "shabbes goys." And if Jews held the entire film business the only untoward thing that would happen would be that your inane, psychotic prejudices would be further activated. However, that doesn't mean I deny the value of diversity in the film business or any other.

YOU SAY: First let's see some proof that there's ever been anyone. If there ever has been, certainly you could point to someone in history denied a chance. You can't.

RESPONSE: I point to the thousands of non-Jews who have aspired to a Hollywood career and have not succeeded. I point also to the fact that most of these people have never even recognized who their nemesis is because "naming the Jew" is forbidden in throughout the mass media.

- Moron, no matter who was in power thousands and thousands of people that aspired to careers in Hollywood would be denied, because there will always be many, many more people that want glamorous careers in the business than can be successful in the business due to the dynamics of supply and demand.
That doesn't prove that prove Jewish executives are guilty of discrimination against non-Jews in any way.

Ask your average person who has tried to crack into Hollywood if they've been discriminated against. They will say yes (give me the money, Levine, and we'll do a confirmation survey for you).

- Simply not having been sucessful in the business doesn't confirm that anyone has been denied a career based on their ethnicity. People are people, and will use any excuse to avoid having to admit that their failure was due to their own incompetence.

But most won't even recognize that the origin of discrimination against them was the Jewish Network.

- You've never been able to demonstrate any evidence whatsoever that anyone's been discriminated against. Simply posting a bunch of successful Jews in the business establishes nothing, especially when a single glance at a copy of Variety reveals the presence of many successful Gentiles as well.

RESPONSE: You are attempting to toxify the issues I raise. You brand me a "Nazi," a "hater," an "antisemite," a "racist," and on and on, hoping to stigmatize free intellectual thought about the Jewish Lobby as the terrain of kooks.

- The only thing toxifying the issues is your personality. The reason why it's considered to be the terrain of kooks is because of morons like you.

The "fact that you are posting" your own responses is your attempt to muddy the waters. That's OK. The informed person will see through it. In any open discourse about Jewish power and WHO is really the biased bigot, you will lose.

- You've never been able to demonstrate that I'm prejudiced against anyone except hate-filled, delusional idiots like you, against whom everyone should be prejudiced.

YOU SAY: If they were so omnipresent and overwhelming, Cones and Jaeger wouldn't have jobs and you wouldn't have a site.

RESPONSE: I do not know the details of their career experiences. I trust they are not in the upper eschelons of any Jewish-owned entity. Judging by the FIRM archives, Cones has had one Jewish colleague (at least) turn on him for daring to raise the issues he raises.

- In other words, you have no explanation for why they continue to have careers. Predictable.

YOU SAY: Anyone who can read this site knows exactly what Cones thinks vis a vis his online book: he claims Jews are discriminating against non-Jews in Hollywood. Since no one has to use the services of any particular attorney, thus leaving Mr. Cones no recourse should his rich, connected, powerful clients decide to procure the services of another lawyer, all they would have do is just drop another attorney a retainer. Entertainment attorneys aren't exactly a rarity in Hollywood.

RESPONSE: Only Cones knows the details of his chosen career. And the fine line he must walk in daring to raise the issue of (Jewish) discrimination in Hollywood should be obvious to anyone.

- He's not "walking a fine line," he hosts a site specifically devoted to trying to stigmatize Jewish involvement in the industry they created. It's not a well-kept secret, but he still manages to keep his career and powerful, connected client base. That should be an indication that your conspiracy theory is bullshit.