Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 4, 2003 at 07:13:01 PM by John Cones

Oh my George. You're so assertive!

Re(1): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 5, 2003 at 01:30:35 AM by George Shelps


Soooo Demanding

Posted on July 4, 2003 at 07:13:01 PM by John Cones

Oh my George. You're so assertive!

___Yeah, condescending ad hominem crap
like that is usually the best you and
Jaeger can do.

Re(2): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 5, 2003 at 11:18:37 PM by John Cones

George:

Two words for you -- anger management. You certainly have posted a lot of hateful messages here. That's not good for you. Why don't you just pack it in. You're not our target audience. You won't convince us and we won't convince you. That's why I've never taken you seriously. I am glad, however, to know that we agree that Hollywood needs reforming, and that you working on it. Good luck!

John Cones

Re(3): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 01:23:52 AM by George Shelps


Two words for you -- anger management.

___Stupidity does make me angry, yes.
So do bigots like Jenks.

You certainly have posted a lot of hateful messages here. That's not good for you.

___More condescension. Both you and Jaeger use it frequently as a substitute
for thought and logic.

And as for "hateful messages," I'm not a patch on Jim Jenks, whom you slap on the wrist once in a while and whom James encourages.

Why don't you just pack it in.

__Nope. Jaeger use to send me endless
e-mails and he used to taunt me about
my refusal to post on FIRM.

So now I'm posting on FIRM.

Diversity time, fellas!!


Your not our target audience. You won't convince us and we won't convince you.

___I'm not trying to convince you, I'm
countering you for the purpose of detoxifying your message for other readers.

That's why I've never taken you
seriously.

___Then stop responding to my posts.

I am glad, however, to know that we agree that Hollywood needs reforming, and that you working on it. Good luck!

____I recommend that Mr. Jaeger turn his company into a real one by doing something besides FIRM. You're wasting
his time. As a shareholder in his
company, I object to his focus on FIRM, which I trace to your influence.

Re(4): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 08:44:19 PM by James Jaeger

>___More condescension. Both you and Jaeger use it frquently as a substitute for thought and logic.

Why do you always bring me into it George? It seems like what a lot of this boils down to is that you're angry at ME.

>And as for "hateful messages," I'm not a patch on Jim Jenks, whom you slap on the wrist once in a while and whom James encourages.

I don't encourage Jim Jenks (aka Moshe the Goyim aka MG). I simply feel his research has not been provided a platform by the (major) book publishers and the media and therefor, when this happens, it's the responsibility of smaller publishers, producers and media outlets to make sure the free flow of ideas flow in a democratic society so that all considerations may be examined and argued. You're not against that are you George? I'm sure the tolerant guy you are, you can tolerate, and even applaud, diverse ideas, even ideas you disagree with, such as Jenk's.

>>Why don't you just pack it in.

>__Nope. Jaeger use to send me endless e-mails and he used to taunt me about my refusal to post on FIRM.

To use one of your favorite words, George, "lie," -- that's a lie. I never taunted you. Wrong word. I encouraged you to post in public because I felt the subject we were trying to hash out, film reform, was important enough that it should not be sequestered to the back channels of an email discourse.

>So now I'm posting on FIRM.

Whereas I agree with John's observation that we will probably not change each other's views on this, I DO applaud you for posting at the FIRM site as, by doing so, you may be helping this movement better-frame the issues.

>Diversity time, fellas!!

Bring it on baby! One thing I really miss about LA is all the different people everywhere. When at a cocktail party or an industry function there were always people of every imaginable race, religion, POV, heritage present. It's not like that as much in the Philadelphia area.

>>Your not our target audience. You won't convince us and we won't convince you.

>___I'm not trying to convince you, I'm countering you for the purpose of detoxifying your message for other readers.

Detoxifying? Oh, so our diverse view is suddenly toxic?

>>That's why I've never taken you seriously.

>___Then stop responding to my posts.

You know you would HATE that George.

>>I am glad, however, to know that we agree that Hollywood needs reforming, and that you working on it. Good luck!

George is not working on reforming Hollywood in any way I can see because he's spending all his time trying to reform ME.

>____I recommend that Mr Jaeger turn his company into a real one by doing something besides FIRM.

I have directed 2 documentaries and one promo piece since the beginning of this year and am currently writing and directing a TV commercial that will air on CNN, FOX NEWS and MSNBC in about 3 - 4 months. Would I rather be directing or producing a feature? Sure, but Hollywood keeps saying "NO" to every screenplay and treatment I have sent them for 15 years. So maybe I'm your "one" case you so endlessly challenge be brought forth. Currently I am trying to get our TESLA project funded. We announced the development of this in the Hollywood Reporter 2 years ago, and have been announcing it in every issue of the Hollywood Creative Directory where Matrixx Entertainment is listed. But now, after a trip out to Hollywood in November, I find out that a number of major producers and a major studio still don't want to give us a development deal because that major studio says that THEY have a Tesla project in development and that Robert Z. is slated to direct it. Seems to me that the way Hollywood plays the game is they let you throw ideas and screenplays at them for 15 years and then as soon as you finally get a project that they like -- they steal it from you. And of course the classic way this is done is to tell you they "already have it in development." You can't win unless you're already in the CONTROL GROUP loop as a participant. I might add, I AM happy this CONTROL GROUP finally let a good friend of mine in. I won't mention the name of the picture because of who might be reading this, but I am VERY happy he got on the picture as a producer as he really deserved it as he's a very hard-working and ethical guy. And, oh by the way, he is or was Jewish -- more specifically, he's from Israel. Now here's where the real horror comes in for the Hollywood Control Group -- this guy and I have rapport and he has hired me on pictures before, so there's a possibility that he might hire me again, possibly into a producer unit on a major gig sometime in the future -- so, in essence, he would be letting a "raving anti-Semitic, jack-boot, Nazi" into the movie industry.

>You're wasting his time.

I haven't been able to spend as much time at this discussion because I have been on those productions and in post. George, you send me a check for $500,000 for the production budget of FAIR WEATHER FRIENDS (see http://home.mecfilms.com/dna/indev/prjhome.htm) I won't be ABLE to spend any time on FIRM as I'll be on the set, in post or at the markets every day for about a year.

>As a shareholder in his company, I object to his focus on FIRM, which I trace to your influence.

After I read John's book, THE FEATURE FILM DISTRIBUTION DEAL (a book you probably haven't even read), I realized that what Max Youngstein and Lee Garmes were telling me about the movie biz were true. Thus it was actually a cumulative influence, plus my own experiences over 15 years, that led me to the conclusion that some activism was in order.

Now I admit, if I was in the position of a major director by now, making large amounts of money, etc., I don't know if I would have the courage to be involved with something like FIRM -- thus in some ways I can't blame all of you who are in such a position for remaining silent. On the other hand, if I were a major director or star who had had a full career in the business and was ready to retire, I might be willing to come forward and substantiate the claims made in connection with FIRM.

Look at it this way, it IS inevitable that what we are disclosing to the public will sooner or later come to light, thus celebrities that have the courage to speak out may eventually enhance their legacy. It will probably only take one (1) celebrity to be on some national program and mention the FIRM URL (http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM) and then millions of people will be able to suddenly get all the information they need to comprehend and address the issues in a peaceful and democratic manner. But maybe the public will visit the FIRM site, study what is presented and then dismiss or curse us. If this happens, I for one will acknowledge that THIS democratic nation has spoken its mind and it does not desire the flavor of ice cream FIRM has offered. But I will at least feel that I have done my duty as a filmmaker to inform and a citizen to be concerned and the People have spoken. Okay, fine, this is what life is all about, living it, experiencing it and then sharing what you believe with others even if they disagree with your version of reality.

On the other hand, if that celebrity is to draw attention to the FIRM site and the public then understands and applauds the efforts here, that celebrity may be seen to have delivered a valuable service to his or her nation -- to the idea that in order for a democracy to function it needs a free flow of ideas, ideas not subject to the domination of ANY narrowly definable group.

James Jaeger

Re(4): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 06:55:10 PM by mg

Shelps is a zealot. A bigoted, Christian Zionist fanatic. His "hatred" precedes all his discourse here. He "hates" discussion of Jewish influence because his religious (and economic) conviction is that the Jewish Road is the way to go.

Re(5): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 09:03:54 PM by George Shelps


Shelps is a zealot. A bigoted, Christian Zionist fanatic.

__False. I believe the Jews should have
a homeland in the Middle East,yes, but I also believe in the two-state solution
and the "Road Map."

His "hatred" precedes all his discourse here. He "hates" discussion of Jewish influence because his religious (and economic) conviction is that the Jewish Road is the way to go.

__That's just one of your lies.

I am in favor of diversity, but I don't believe in quotas and I don't believe there is a "control group."

An influential group of executives?

Yes.

Controlling access to the movie business?

No.

And you have never proved the latter, because you've never named one person who was kept out of the business because they didn't conform to the "control group's" mind-set.

Re(6): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 07:09:05 PM by James Jaeger

>And you have never proved the latter, because you've never named one person
who was kept out of the business because they didn't conform to the "control group's" mind-set.

And what's that "mind-set" George?

James

Re(7): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 08:23:33 PM by George Shelps


>And you have never proved the latter, because you've never named one person
who was kept out of the business because they didn't conform to the "control group's" mind-set.

And what's that "mind-set" George?

___Whatever you think is the mind-set
associated with the paradigm you ascribe to the group "in control" in Hollywood.

You've never given one example of a
talented individual who was kept out
of Hollywood because he didn't share
the "control group's" values or ethnicity.

Re(6): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 09:43:45 PM by mg

YOU SAY: False. I believe the Jews should have a homeland in the Middle East,yes, but I also believe in the two-state solution and the "Road Map."

RESPONSE: This is all pablum. Western Jewry stole the Palestinian homeland. People who weren't Jews lived in that area tens of thousands of years before Abraham was even born. The "Road Map" is a Judeocentric game to bilk the poor Palestinians out of as much as possible. Jewish dominance of the mass media expedites this, politically.

YOU SAY:
I am in favor of diversity, but I don't believe in quotas and I don't believe
there is a "control group."

RESPONSE: You "believe" what you believe the same way you believe in Jesus or, for that matter, the Good Tooth Fairy.

YOU SAY: An influential group of executives? Yes.

RESPONSE: Even a five-year old would realize that if this "influential group of executives" were overwhelmingly Muslim, or senior citizens, or men, or transvestites, or whatever, would be of PROFOUND consequence in what came out of Hollywood, and who worked there.

YOU SAY: Controlling access to the movie business? No. And you have never proved the latter, because you've never named one person who was kept out of the business because they didn't conform to the "control group's" mind-set.

RESPONSE: Our web site exhaustively documents the obvious: the atheistic, materialist, anti-Christian, pro-Jewish evidence of the Jewish Network of Hollywood.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

Your are just an old fashioned lackey. A sycophant. A Christian Zionist shill for the Jewish Auctioneer that runs the scheme.

Re(5): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 07:27:59 PM by Mitchell Levine

Calling you on your hate-filled antisemitic arguments by pointing out their logical flaws DOES NOT constitute bigotry in any way. The only thing "fanatical" about Mr. Shelps is that he persists in exposing you for the idiot you are, regardless of the fact that he's already done it exhaustively.

Re(6): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 08:36:17 PM by mg

You, Levine, are the greatest "hater" on the board. You "hate" "anti-semites." And that means anybody who criticizes Jewish power and influence, whether me or Cones or anybody else. You loathe the truth. And you ardently seek to veil the truth with smokescreens, fog, and your vomitous verbiage.

Traditional Jewish ideology condemns ALL non-Jews as latent "Jew-haters."

Re(7): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:09:07 PM by Mitchell Levine

Bullshit! Antisemites are by definition bigots, and therefore should be deplored. For example, you're one.

And I've never met anyone who believed that all non-Jews are to be condemned as "latent Jew-haters." Your irrational hatred of people who don't share your ethnicity makes it impossible for you to gain any perspective on what actual Jews think.

All you can do is mouth antisemitic bromides and post links to online news sources, which you typically don't even read thoroughly enough to realize they don't support your intended bigotry.

Re(8): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:17:22 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Bullshit! Antisemites are by definition bigots, and therefore should be deplored. For example, you're one.

RESPONSE: "Antisemites" may be fairly defined these days as people Jews hate. Period. From the Left wing, Right wing, from the Black community, Muslim community, white community ... anyone, anywhere.

YOU SAY: And I've never met anyone who believed that all non-Jews are to be condemned as "latent Jew-haters."

RESPONSE: Look in the mirror. And read some Jewish history (see our web site).

YOU SAY: Your irrational hatred of people who don't share your ethnicity

RESPONSE: Naked, naked lie. Please cite a sample of something like this I've stated. You're really an underhanded snake, Levine.

YOU SAY: makes it impossible for you to gain any perspective on what actual Jews think.

RESPONSE: Want to know what Jews think? See the Jewish Tribal Review. Or, better yet, visit the Anti-Defamation League web site.

YOU SAY: All you can do is mouth antisemitic bromides and post links to online news sources, which you typically don't even read thoroughly enough to realize they don't support your intended bigotry.

RESPONSE: Nope. Sorry. You need to take one of your pills again and lie down. The only time a source I post doesn't support my argument is when YOU post it under MY name. You've done it more than once and it's quite disgusting. It's the only way you think you can get an edge in these arguments: fantasy.

Re(9): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:27:13 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, antisemites are defined as those who hate Jews, and I've never said that all non-Jews are "latent Jew-haters." For example, I'm married to one. I've merely said that you're an active, raving, delirious Jew-hater.

Examples of things you're said that demonstrate irrational hatred include "the Jews are a racist, ethnocentric band of corrupters THAT ARE GOING TO LEAD US ALL TO THE APOCALYPSE!" and pretty much everything else you've ever posted.

I've never posted under any name other than my own, except "anonymous" when backing up from a post preview has accidentally erased my screen name, as the IP addresses listed will establish.

Re(10): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:38:48 PM by mg

YOU SAY: No, antisemites are defined as those who hate Jews, and I've never said that all non-Jews are "latent Jew-haters."

RESPONSE: Read your history. Modern Jewish identity is founded on the premise of the "anti-Semite," real or imagined.

YOU SAY: For example, I'm married to one. I've merely said that you're an active, raving, delirious Jew-hater.

RESPONSE: Fine. I merely say that you're an active, raving, delirous Jewish fanatic.

YOU SAY: Examples of things you're said that demonstrate irrational hatred include "the Jews are a racist, ethnocentric band of corrupters THAT ARE GOING TO LEAD US ALL TO THE APOCALYPSE!" and pretty much everything else you've ever posted.

RESPONSE: There is wisdom in that phrase. Plenty. Racist Israel is leading us all to the Apocalypse. But my statement has NOTHING to do with an obsession with my own ethnicity, which you claimed I proclaimed. I notice you carefully avoided posting evidence of the lie your aimed at me. So you concede that you are a liar. Thank you.

YOU SAY: I've never posted under any name other than my own, except "anonymous" when backing up from a post preview has accidentally erased my screen name, as the IP addresses listed will establish.

RESPONSE: Then you must be in cahoots with another moral con-man. In any case, I post intelligent arguments, as you know. Children sometimes post bogus posts and attribute it to me. I have said as much. You're not very interested in the veracity of whatever you say.

Re(11): Soooo Demanding
Posted on July 6, 2003 at 10:51:39 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, modern Jewish identity is founded on having Jewish parents and/or possibly, but not necessarily, believing in Judaism. Resistance to slander should be fanatic.

Unless you're Jewish, which is awfully hard to believe, your obsessive antisemitism IS irrational hatred of those who don't share your ethnicity; i.e., non-Jewishness. No lie there.

The Klu Klux Klan have more intelligent arguments than you do. At least they aren't typically pseudo-intellectuals that constantly shoot their mouths off on subjects they clearly do not understand.

Jewish Threats of Violence Halt Screening of Film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 04:57:06 PM by mg

Note the material at this Australian film screening web site about the cancellation of the David Irving film.
And why. (An article about Jewish censorship of this film was posted earlier):


http://www.muff.com.au/main_start.htm

Re(1): Jewish Threats of Violence Halt Screening of Film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 06:29:49 PM by mg

Note also the Australian Jewish organization (which was one of the official protesters of the Irving film) has succeeded in placing a film from Israel INSTEAD of the Irving movie.

This is the Jewish Lobby's paradigm: toxify criticism as "antisemitic" and then replace information with its own.

The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 06:16:11 PM by Moishe the Goyim

1) The Simon Wiesenthal Center has a film production division.

2) It has contributed to the avalanche of films about the Holocaust and has won academy awards for documentaries.

3)The Wiesenthal is a vast propaganda and lobbying agency whose main purpose is to fight "antisemitism."

4) The Wiesenthal Center is getting 30% of this year's state of California Arts Council (yes, "art!) budget for Jewry's socialization progams against antisemitism. (Note: the Wiesenthal's new branch in Jerusalem is built on an ancient Muslim cemetery).

5) Calif. Gov. Gray Davis is a sycophant for Jewry (Read the article in the [Jewish] Forward about his relationship to the Jewish community.

The following story about the Jewish Lobby's gouging of California's "arts" budget is OBSCENE:



http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/32/news-morris.php

Shipwrecked Swimming with sharks in a sea of arts funding,

Shipwrecked.Swimming with sharks in a sea of arts funding,
by Steven Leigh Morris, LA Weekly, JUNE 27 - JULY 3, 2003

"Dark clouds loomed over the Arts Alive rally, staged on behalf of the California Arts Council (CAC) last Wednesday afternoon at Santa Monica's 18th Street Arts Complex. As part of an attempt to redress a state deficit estimated at $38 billion, Governor Gray Davis has proposed dismembering the arts council with a 73 percent funding cut. Davis' proposal is the latest in a series of surgical strikes on the CAC budget, which, at $19 million earlier this year, would be slashed to $5 million under the new proposal, according to CAC's Adam Gottlieb. As an illustration of the climate change in arts funding, the entire proposed $5 million arts council budget equals the amount given to a single grant recipient in 1995: the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance. Furthermore, in what's become a growing scandal, funds allocated for the museum's "Tools for Tolerance" program (which trains educators and police on "diversity issues") are a budget "line item," meaning that it's pre-allocated every year by the governor (with legislative approval) - bypassing the peer-review process of other grants. And though the museum's CAC grant has dwindled over the years, its portion of the state arts budget stands to be 30 percent ($1.5 million) of the entire CAC allocation currently proposed by Davis. Besides the issue of fairness, this proposal begs the question of what a program educating kids and cops about diversity, however meritorious, is doing in an arts budget. (The governor has gone on record defending the museum's line item as an imperative after 9/11.) The museum's good fortune is as much a testament to the lobbying power of the Wiesenthal Center's dean, Rabbi Marvin Hier, as to the much larger social agenda of privatizing public services. For more than a decade and a half, Hier has had powerful backers among both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, from former Governor Pete Wilson and former Democratic leader Willie Brown, to President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who invited Hier to briefings on the war in Iraq. That one private museum should continue to receive such disproportionate public funding is particularly troubling in an era when federal tax cuts are driving many states toward bankruptcy and the public services they provide into oblivion. Meanwhile, according to 2001's Federal 990 Forms, filed on the center and its related activities, Hier draws an annual salary of more than $400,000 (not including pension benefits) - up from $225,000 in 1994. His wife, Marlene, serving as membership director, receives $244,000, while a son, Alan Heir, is paid $107,365 for fund-raising activities and another son, Rabbi Aron Hier, associate director, makes $76,018. Obviously, a private institution can pay its staff what it pleases, but since the center can afford such extravagant revenues for its administrators, detractors question the need of the museum to singularly gobble up 30 percent of the state's already gutted arts budget when, last week across town, money problems compelled the county Natural History Museum to fire 23 full-time and part-time specialists and employees."

Re(1): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 06:22:23 PM by mg

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/searchview.php?id=8226

The First Jewish Governor, Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, March 8, 2002

"No, [California governor] Gray Davis is not an Anglo marrano, a hidden, closeted Jew. He is, on paper, a Catholic, but his political career
has been shaped, and largely financed — as much as any statewide politician
including our two Jewish women senators — by the Los Angeles Jewish community. Where did it all start? Carmen Warshaw, the former Democratic national committeewoman for California and major donor to Jewish causes, claims she first singled out the lean, ambitious young man more than three decades ago. From the beginning, she could see two overwhelming characteristics that define Davis to this day — a driving, cold-blooded ambition and the calculating smarts to achieve it. The Jewish community, Warshaw suggests, represented the primary vehicle for Davis’ strategy. 'His only interest was money,' she recalls. 'He played golf all the time at Hillcrest. You
saw him all the time. He was known as the man who came to cocktails and
didn’t stay for dinner.' Davis’ fixation on the Jewish community was a
natural one, says one former top aide. As an aide to former Gov. Jerry
Brown, Davis had been introduced to many of the major rainmakers of the
Democratic Party, a considerable proportion of them Jews from the worlds
of real estate, law and entertainment. When he finally won elective office,
it was from a heavily Jewish Westside district that normally would send
a landsman to Sacramento. But, Davis made sure not to be stranger to the
community. 'Gray went to more bar mitzvahs and weddings than most rabbis,' recalls this aide. 'He didn’t do it because he was Jewish — he isn’t —but because that’s where the money was.' And that’s where much of Davis’ money still is."

Re(2): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:17:54 PM by Ralphie

Didn't you post this before? Like every comedian, you eventually have to get some new material.

"Victim status and immunity to criticism."
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 01:04:10 PM by Shoah Business

Former Israeli Foreign Secretary Abba Eban once observed: "There's no business like Shoah business." Two important books, published in the last couple of years, can help us better understand the prominent position the Holocaust has captured in the American consciousness.

The first book is Peter Novick’s The Holocaust in American Life, and the second is Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry. Novick’s more scholarly work caused quite a stir, but Finkelstein has been called a "self-hating Jew" by many of his critics. Finkelstein’s more provocative work heavily cites Novick’s book, yet Novick has called it "trash." I’d recommend reading Novick’s book first, followed by Finkelstein’s. You can decide if Finkelstein’s interpretation of Novick’s work is really off the mark.

Novick's main points are that the promotion of the Holocaust has served several specifically Jewish interests: particularly support for Israel, combating anti-Semitism and now promoting multi-culturalism. Finkelstein's point is that it's not about money, it's about more money, and the real victims aren't getting it. Both books are also very critical of Elie Weisel’s role in the promotion of the Holocaust as a unique event "beyond understanding."

Genocide and violent ethnic conflict have been a part of human history from the beginning of time. Just look back at the last century- Rwanda, Armenia, and the tens of millions killed in the name of communism- the killing fields of Cambodia, China, the Ukraine and Russia.

If you travel to our nation’s capital any time soon, you will notice that there still isn’t a memorial museum for WWII veterans in Washington. Nor is there a museum for African American slaves or Native Americans, but there is one for European Jews. In his book, Finkelstein quotes Israeli writer Boas Evron, "Holocaust awareness is actually an official, propagandistic indoctrination, a churning out of slogans and a false view of the world, the real aim of which is not at all an understanding of the past, but a manipulation of the present."

In many parts of the country, Holocaust education is a mandated curriculum. I don’t think school children should be subjected to the psychological conditioning or brainwashing process which Holocaust education entails. I would suggest that the above-mentioned books should also be required reading for teachers (and parents) who are going to take part in local Holocaust education training.

In addition to the overall rubric of "man’s inhumanity to man," the primary purpose of such an education is to ingrain sympathy for Jews as a means of preventing a future Holocaust. But, should an 8 year-old American boy or girl be made to feel guilty about their German or Polish heritage?

American students could eventually suffer from Holocaust fatigue. In a February 28, 2000 article for Time, Michael Blumenthal described, unsympathetically, the "Holocaust fatigue" of teenage German students as "their sense of having the Holocaust perpetually rammed down their throats by teachers and administrators at every turn."

Dialogue is essential, not indoctrination. We need to discuss the prominent position the Holocaust plays in American life, as well as the role Jewish media elites play in that promotion. However, these are extremely emotionally charged issues. The easiest way to silence dissent in today’s society is to immediately call whomever you’re disagreeing with a hatemonger, a racist, or an anti-Semite.

Currently, there seems to be no meaningful dialogue occurring in this country. If anything, there is only a monologue. Why? Finkelstein identifies two dividends Jewish American’s enjoy courtesy of the promotion of Holocaust awareness- "victim status and immunity to criticism."

No one in America should be beyond criticism, and no one in America should be afraid to express his or her opinion about sensitive issues.

Re(1): "Victim status and immunity to criticism."
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 03:54:23 PM by Dag

How did this European event come to loom so large in American consciousness?

A good part of the answer lies in the fact -- not less of a fact because anti-Semites turn it into a grievance -- that Jews play an important and influential role in Hollywood, the television industry, and newspaper, magazine, and book publishing worlds. Anyone who would explain the massive attention the Holocaust has received in these media in recent years without reference to that fact is being naive and disingenuous. This is not, of course, a matter of any "Jewish conspiracy" -- Jews in the media do not dance to the tune of "the elders of Zion." It's not even a matter of Jews in the media per se, which is an old story, but of what sort of Jews. Beginning in the 1970's, a cohort of Jews who either didn't have much in the way of Jewish or were diffident about voicing the concerns they did have came to be replaced by a cohort that included many for whom those concerns were more deeply felt and who were more up-front about them. In large part the movement of the Holocaust from the Jewish to the general American arena resulted from private and spontaneous decisions of Jews who happened to occupy strategic positions in the mass media.-Peter Novick, author of The Holcaust in American Life

Re(1): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 10:31:56 PM by Gary Hirsh

These are impressive numbers for one family. It would be interesting to know how these administrative salaries compair to other institutions of similar size.

Re(2): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 10:42:36 PM by mg

Your comments are intended as evasive humor?

Read the piece a few more times and try real hard to understand what the author is saying.

Re(3): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 10:57:39 PM by Gary Hirsh

Not at all. Just curious. That's okay isn't it? The numbers would have more meaning if we could compare them to several other organizations. Not just the one across town. I'm not trying to be evasive, in fact the exact opposite.

You're the one that wanted a civil conversation. Perhaps if you just read my question as it was without putting your own spin on it, it would have been clearer to you.

Re(4): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 11:00:00 PM by mg

Civil, yes.

No opinion about the fact that a Jewish Lobbying organization eats up 30% of the state of California's "arts" budget?

The Hier family exemplifies the old icon of the Jewish huckster, which is exactly what their organization seeks to toxify as a "stereotype."

Are they doing a good job?

Re(5): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 11:13:31 PM by Anonymous

See this is what I am talking about:

mg: The Hier family exemplifies the old icon of the Jewish huckster, which is exactly what their organization seeks to toxify as a "stereotype."

What's with the Huckster comment? Is that really necessary. Do you want to go back to name calling and labling?

30% does seem high. I would like see what the reasoning is behind it. Maybe it has something to do with the amount of visitors they get. Maybe not, I don't know.

You seem to get upset that I want to know more about these things.

Re(6): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 11:28:51 PM by mg

I only get upset when you (or anyone) tries to skirt the ESSENCE of these news items.

If you are interested in investigating further, more power to you and I respect that.

Does a man making nearly half a million dollars (not including his family) off the "Holocaust industry" not strike you as unethical?

And, is the ESSENCE of what I stated above not TRUE, that Hier's aim is to destroy the "stereotype" of Jewish hucksterism which he seems to be MAINTAINING.

Why does this statement offend you?

Re(7): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 00:00:49 AM by Gary Hirsh

mg: I only get upset when you (or anyone) tries to skirt the ESSENCE of these news items.

- The essence as you see it. I have a different opinion. Why would that upset you.

I think calling it the "Holocaust Industry" is a little insensative. If a man is doing good work at a very high level, why shouldn't he get paid well for it. There are many people running charitable and non-profit organizations that are well paid.

Is it fair for a baseball player to make 15 million a year when the average guy can't affort to take his kids to the game. That's unethical.

Ken Lay destroying the retirement dreams of so many of his employees, that's unethical (and illegal).

The statement offends me, because you can attempt to make your point without it. Stereotypes are destroyed when people stop referring to them

Re(8): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 00:06:27 AM by mg

No. Forbidding discussion of "stereotypes" doesn't end them. Only when there is no evidence of "stereotypes" do they finally recede.

Please read Norman Finkelstein's book entitled THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY. It's very good. Although it might "offend" you.

Hier is just one of many of a long line of Jewish (yes, Jewish) exploiters of the "Holocaust Industry" that have come under attack (even by Jews). (Read for example the editor of Commentary's views about the subject. He did a two-part story the exploitation of the Holocaust.

Re(9): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 01:20:58 AM by Mitchell Levine

"Hier (sic) is just one of many of a long line of Jewish (yes, Jewish) exploiters of the "Holocaust Industry" that have come under attack (even by Jews). (Read for example the editor of Commentary's views about the subject. He did a two-part story the exploitation of the Holocaust."

If they're "exploiting" the Holocaust, then what the hell is Irving doing?

Re(10): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 09:20:33 AM by mg

What? Irving is challenging Holocaust dogma. As is Finkelstein, in a different way.

Agree with them or not, in a free society they have the right to be heard.

Re(11): The arts, a Jewish propaganda agency, and film
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 08:32:45 PM by Mitchell Levine

He's not "challenging Holocaust dogma," he's explicitly denying that the Holocaust occurred, or, in the case that he's proven wrong about that, affirming that it was justified.

MG the Philosopher
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 08:19:02 PM by Anti-MG

Quotes directly from MG posts. Remember folks these quotes are his idea of civil discussion:

1. Another typical Jewish response, so stereotypical. "What? Me, a Jew, has power? Gosh! Not so!"
2. Jewry is at the apex of this "hard, ruthless and unfair" world.
3. They (Jews) seek to blame everyone for their own course which has always led to Jewish racism, exploitation, networking, and corruption.
4. Gosh. You must be a professional Jewish clown, smile painted from lip to belly-button.
5. Eaten any Palestian babies lately?
6. Yak, yak, yak. So you're the Jewish Thomas Jefferson?
7. Jews have gravitated over history to all the seedier sorts of exploitations.
8. Is your FIRST language Hebrew? Or Yiddish?
9. Wow! An insightful statement. And even ethical. Perhaps you were drunk when you wrote it?
10. You EXEMPLIFY the neurotic Jewish maniac who thinks a Jewish brain is God's gift to mankind and that "editing" is the key to knowledge.
11. I suspect you are a squid with melted sandstone for a brain, and you may take that as literally as you'd like. Or are you not human because you are the Jewish Batman?
12. Sharansky isn't a corner bagel pusher.

Re(1): MG the Philosopher
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 10:22:52 PM by mg

These quotes are mostly satire, humor, and sarcasm, excerpted from contexts of ridiculous nemeses.

If you're putting together a greatest hits album, you have my blessing.

If this is the best muckraking you can do on me, I think I'll run for President.

True Stories of Hollywood Stars
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 09:10:16 PM by R. Brando

Tales from the Left Coast:
True Stories of Hollywood Stars and Their Outrageous Politics
By James Hirsen

Scroll down to order

FREE OFFER – Get "Tales from the Left Coast" FREE, Click Here

Hardcover

It’s about time someone popped the balloon on Hollywood’s elitist liberalism. Most of us are aware of it, but for the first time James Hirsen, a NewsMax.com columnist, uncovers just how blatant – and ultimately dangerous – that bias is for our country.

In his sensational new book Tales from the Left Coast: True Stories of Hollywood Stars and Their Outrageous Politics, Hirsen strips Hollywood’s phony façade and shows Tinseltown naked as it really is: a gathering place of anti-American snobs, who hate Republicans, President Bush, Christians – and even their fellow actors who dare oppose Hollywood’s liberal agenda.

Tales from the Left Coast is making waves because it names names: Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Julia Roberts, Susan Sarandon . . .and many others.

In Tales from the Left Coast you’ll learn the shocking truth about . . .

The movie star who wanted to trade Bill O’Reilly, America’s favorite "No Spin" doc, for terrorist Osama bin Laden.
The outrageous stunt pulled by Barbra Streisand at the 1992 inauguration of her idol Bill Clinton – it even shocked Hillary Clinton.
Which Hollywood stars openly embrace Castro, and which one said he was used by the dictator?
Who are the secret conservative actors in Hollywood and why must they stay "in the closet?"
The real story behind the Left’s targeting of Mel Gibson for his upcoming movie on the death of Jesus.
New revelations about George Clooney, Al Franken and Michael Moore.
Why is the partnership of Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon a marriage made for Hollywood?
When did a Hollywood actress give up pork because she was told that kids and pigs share something special?
How Charlotte Ross, Alicia Silverstone, Christina Applegate, supermodel Carré Otis and other stars publicly expose their bodies in the name of "serious political activism?"
How Hollywood bigwigs used America’s 9/11 tragedy to line their pockets?
Hollywood’s "eco-baloney": After reading this you’ll understand why your children think you are a war criminal if you kill rats and cockroaches.
Talk dynamo Dr. Laura calls Tales "a stinger of a book" that reveals "the shenanigans of Hollywood’s Leftist Elite."

Syndicated columnist David Limbaugh says Tales is "compelling, persuasive and one of the funniest conservative books to hit the market."

And Fox News’ Mancow says Hirsen’s book reveals what "the criminal liberal media refuses to print!"

Tales from the Left Coast is already rocking the media halls of power and infuriating liberal Hollywood. You’ll be shocked by what you learn.

In Tales from the Left Coast, author and political commentator James Hirsen digs deep into the liberal underbelly of Hollywood to reveal how biased politics have corrupted the entire entertainment industry. Hirsen uncovers some of the most ridiculous, infuriating, and damning political stunts pulled by celebrities of yesterday and today, and he traces the tangled web of influence the Hollywood elite have over politicians in Washington, D.C.

Re(1): True Stories of Hollywood Stars
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 09:15:17 PM by Mitchell Levine

Why exactly is it wrong for celebrities to be liberals? Just because you're a conservative?

A Great Site!
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 09:13:06 PM by Anonymous

Keep up the good work. The FIRM site is fabulous.

The Jewish World of Sergei Eisenstein
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 10:19:48 PM by Moishe the Goyim

The Jewish world of Sergei Eisenstein, THE Soviet movie director and a base in world cinema history books:

Bergan, Ronald. Sergei Eisenstein. A Life in Conflict. The Overlook Press, Woodstock, New York, 1999.

Eisenstein's father was Jewish; his mother was not.


p. 7, "I began my search for Eisenstein in England, to which he paid a short visit in 1929, where I studiously combed through the Ivor Montagu collection (Montagu was an English Marxist friend of Eisenstein's who invited to lecture in London and was with him in Hollywood) ... I felt just as far away from Eisenstein as I sat in the library of New York University, off Washington Square, where I perused the many folders of the Jay Leyda collection. Leyda, who studied with Eisenstein in Moscow, and was an assistant on BEZHIM MEADOW, did more than anyone else to defend Eisenstein's reputation in the USA."

p. 8, "In Gothenburg, I was hoping to meet, for the first time, Naum Kleiman, Pera Attasheva's heir and the man who had spent most of his life preserving Eisenstein's memory in the Eisenstein Museum."

p. 11, "Kleiman was following the tradition set by Eisenstein when he got the Austrian-born Edmund Meisel to write the pulsating scores for THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN and OCTOBER."\

p. 10, Eisenstein's father: "famous Riga architect."

p.19, "Mikhail Osipovich [Eisenstein's father] was a powerful, stocky man with a Kaiser Wilhelm moustache, who came from a family of German-Jewish origin which had been baptised and assimilated into Russian society."

p. 23, "The sado-masochistic streak in S. M. Eisenstein's character, and a mordid fascination with martyrdom, especially that of St. Sebastian, so prevalent in gay icongraphy, dates back to his childhood reading ..."

p. 32, "Down with the Jews,' says the sneering bourgeois in Odessa in THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, suggesting that he was typical of the attitude held by his class during the Tsarist regime. Of course, the proletariatian population react violently to this remark and attack the man. This sequence was obviously influenced by Eisenstein's friend, the Jewish writer Isaac Babel ... Eisenstein learned to use Yiddish slang and Yiddish humour."

p. 32, "There was also a risky and risque Jewish joke that [Russian Jewish filmmaker Sergei] Eisenstein liked to tell. Stalin, who was receiving important visitors from Poland, decided to present them with a large painting entitled LENIN IN POLAND, which he wanted done in a few days by a Jewish artist he particularly admired. When he was informed that the artist had been deported to a labour camp in Siberia, Stalin demanded his immediate release. The poor emaciated man was flown to Moscow, given a good meal and accommodation, and instructed to paint the picture. Stalin and his Polish guests gathered on the great day of the unveiling of LENIN IN POLAND, but when the painting was uncovered, it revealed a man and a woman having sex. Even worse, the man was recognisable as Trotsky [who, of couse, was Jewish] and the woman as Lenin's wife. A shocked Stalin turned on the little Jewish artist, demanding, 'But where is Lenin?' 'In Poland,' replied the man shrugging."

p. 33, "Eisenstein's semi-Jewishness is rarely mentioned in his own writings, nor in much that has been written about him. Nor did he ever seem a victim of overt anti-semitism in the Soviet Union -- suspect comrades were often referred to pejoratively as 'cosmopolitans.' According to Herbert Marshall, the English film historian, 'All the Soviet Jewish directors had to keep silent in order to survive and this included all the leading directors -- Roshal, Kozintsev, Trauberg, Zarkhi, Heifitz, Vertov [Dziga Vertov; born Denis Kaufman], Room, and Romm' ... In July 1941, with the Soviet Union at war with Germany, Eisenstein was wheeled out as a Soviet Jew to speak on a radio programme to America, 'To Brother Jews of All the World.'



p. 88, "The real beginning of [Eisenstein's] cinematic apprenticeship" was with film editor Esther Shub.

p. 103, "Alexander A. Livitsky, one of the most senior Soviet cameramen, had begun filming with Eisenstein in Leningrad when differences led to their rupture."

p. 115, "[S]ince THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN was first shown, audiences have believed that the scenes on the Odessa Steps is a faithful reconstruction of an actual event. There was no massacre on the Odessa Steps. When THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN was finally shown in Atlantic City, an elderly Jew came out of the cinema distraught and weeping. The manager of the theatre, concerned, asked the Jew if he had been in Odessa in 1905 or had lost family in the massacre. The man admitted that he had been on the steps, not as a victim but as a volunteer Cossack in the Tsar's army. He explained that it had taken twenty years and one Soviet film to open his eyes to the tragedy in which he had participated. Such was the power of Eisenstein's invention."

p. 120, Eisenstein was homosexual.

p. 143, [Eisenstein] met and became friendly with the [Jewish] Austrian writer Stephan Zweig ... Eisenstein knowing that Zweig was close to Sigmund Freud, asked about 'the great man from Vienna.' Eisenstein [was] an avid reader of Freud ..."

p. 155, Hollywood mogul Joseph Schenck invited Eisenstein to Hollywood [Schenk was the brother-in-law of Buster Keaton].

p. 157, "The third son of the second Baron Swaythling, the Jewish Montagu developed a lifelong commitment to left-wing politics at Cambridge. In 1925, with Sidney Bernstein, he founded the Film Society in London with the aim of showing the German and Russian films which were excluded from distribution."

p. 161, Obsessed with homosexual daydreams, Eisenstein "visited the psychoanalyst Dr. Hanns Sachs, a disciple of Freud ... Eisenstein also visited the INSTITUT FUR GESCHLECHTS WISSENSCHAFT (The Institute of Sexual Science) under the directorship of Magnus Hirschfeld, where sexual 'abnormality' was analyzed."

p. 188, "Finally, towards the end of April, Paramount's Vice-President, Jesse L. Lasky, turned up in Paris with a proposition from his studio. This was largely due to the diplomacy of Ivor Montagu, who had gone to Hollywood a few months earlier to use his contacts to get Eisenstein work there ... The fifty-year-old Lasky ... was accompanied by a couple of other big guns, Alfred Kaufman, general manager of the studio, and Richard Blumenthal, an executive producer ... Several possible subjects were suggested by Lasky including the Dreyfus affair [the theme of antisemitism], a film on Emile Zola [Zola's famous book about Dreyfus and antisemitism was called "I Accuse."]

p. 190, "Major Frank Pease, self-styled 'professional American patriot,' led the campaign against Eisenstein's presence in America, denouncing him as part of a 'Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy to turn the American cinema into a Communist cesspool' ... At Major Pease's instigation, the Fish Committee, the forerunner of the post-war UnAmerican Activities Committee, visited Hollywood later in the year in order to investigate Communist infiltration of American cinema."

p. 191-192, Eisenstein remembered little of the speech [to Paramount licensees at a convention in Atlantic City], only that it seemed a success because as he descended the platform he felt a heavy slap on the back -- 'the highest sign of affection from the natives, delivered by the towering, thin figure of Sam Katz, the head of world distribution for Paramount-Publix as it was then."

p. 192, "Back in New York, he had lunch with Otto H. Kahn, the millionaire and financial director of Paramount, at his Italianate palazzo on Fifth Avenue. Kahn pointed out a portrait of a bearded man above the fireplace.'Recognise the brushwork?' he asked Eisenstein, who replied that he did not. 'Only a Jew can paint a face with such subtlety,' he proudly exclaimed, adding, as if an afterthought, 'Rembrandt.'" [NOTE: Rembrandt of course wasn't Jewish, but painted many wealthy Jews of his time.]

p. 192, "Also present at the lunch was Kahn's daughter and Horace B. Liveright [also Jewish], the publisher who had promoted the careers of younger writers ..."

Re(1): The Jewish World of Sergei Eisenstein
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 10:46:56 AM by George Shelps

What's your point in this Eisenstein
post? Eisenstein's mother wasn't Jewish and his father converted to Christianity....

Re(2): The Jewish World of Sergei Eisenstein
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 11:05:57 AM by mg

Ostrich, get your head out of the sand.

Why does the "point" always elude you? The "point" is Eisenstein's Jewish network. Even in Russia, the film world has been dominated by Jews.

Eisenstein apparently identified politically with international Jewry, and his climb to recognition and success in the film world, internationally, was Jewish-centered.

Think about it. But don't pop any veins.

Re(3): The Jewish World of Sergei Eisenstein
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 04:20:10 PM by George Shelps


Ostrich, get your head out of the sand.
Why does the "point" always elude you?

The "point" is Eisenstein's Jewish network. Even in Russia, the film world has been dominated by Jews.

__No, you're totally ignorant of Soviet
film history. Eisenstein was blacklisted for years and was allowed
to make ALEXANDER NEVSKY only if he
submitted to Communist Party control.

Then when the second part of IVAN THE
TERRIBLE came out, he was again
blacklisted and the film was not released until ten years after his death.

The motion picture industry in the Soviet Union was dominated by Josef
Stalin--who was an anti-semite.

pt1:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 04:28:21 PM by mg

Well, Gosh, Shelps. You know your history so well! Stalin was "antisemitic." This is Jewish conviction. And here's some information about the Jews who surrounded Stalin, the "antisemite" (and this is just an excerpt I've got about the subject):


In 1923, notes Isaac Deutscher, "a triumvirate, composed of Stalin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev, formed itself within the Politbureau ... Between them, the three men virtually controlled the whole [Communist] party and, through it, the Government ... Zinoviev was, in addition, the President of the Communist International." [DEUTSCHER, p. 255] Amidst intrigue and power struggles within the communist movement, however, by 1927 Kamenev and Zinoviev "at last threw in their lot with Trotsky." [DEUTSCHER, p. 307] Trotsky, an enemy of Stalin, was "the founder and builder of the Red Army," [DEUTSCHER, p. 192] and once the "number two man next to Lenin. " [NEW ENCYC BRITTANICA, p. 945] He was also Jewish, born Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev, notes Arkady Vaksberg, "alone formed the 'leadership nucleus' and had every reason to expect to inherit the mantle of leadership from Lenin. The man closest to the 'troika' (Trotsky-Zinoviev-Kamenev) after [Yakov] Sverdlov's death was Grigori Sokolnikov." [VAKSBERG, p. 19] All five of these men poised to rule Russia were Jewish. Kamenev once told Trotsky (his brother-in-law) [WALSH, p. 440] that "It will be enough for you and Zinoviev to appear together on the platform in order to reconquer the whole party." [DEUTSCHER, p. 308] It didn't work out that way. Stalin proved to be a more ruthless and/or shrewd leader in the struggle for power.

Nonetheless, Jews were very well represented in the Soviet system under Stalin. As Isaac Deutscher notes,

"Jews were quite prominent in [Stalin's] entourage, though far less
so than they had been in Lenin's. [Max] Litvinov stood for over a decade
at the head of the Soviet diplomatic service; Kagonovich was to
the end Stalin's factotum; Mekhlis was the chief political Commissar
of the army; and Zaslavsky and Ehrenburg were the most popular
of Stalin's sycophants. Yet he was not averse from playing on
anti-Jewish emotions when this suited his convenience. During
the struggle of against the inner-party oppositions his agents made
the most of the circumstance that Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev,
and Radek were of Jewish origin." [DEUTSCHER, p. 605]

"Lev Mekhlis," notes Louis Rapoport,

"would become Stalin's secretary and one of the most despised
men in Soviet history ... Immediately after the Revolution, many
Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new
government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of
Jewish origins ... Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects
of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists'
vow to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution --
partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet
administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization
drives that followed." [RAPOPORT, L., 1990, p. 30]

The Soviet Union's leading communist newspaper was Pravda. It's "leading staff members," Yakov Khavinson and David Zaslavsky, were Jewish, as were the Soviet Unions ambassadors to the U.S., Maxim Litvinov and Ivan Maisky, who were recalled in 1943. [VAKSBERG, p. 260, 139]

In 1994, Russian-born (and raised) Jewish author Arkady Vaksberg wrote a book entitled Stalin Against the Jews. Its fundamental thesis is that Stalin was a fanatical anti-Semite. (Louis Rapoport's Stalin's War Against the Jews reflects the same theme). The fact that many Jews (including millions of others) died under his direction is beyond question. And Stalin's actions in later life reflect his suspicions of the loyalty of many in the Jewish community. But the fact that Stalin was nonetheless surrounded by Jews everywhere in positions of high power (Lazar Kaganovich, Pyatnitsky, Fillip Goloschekin "and many others who were made part of the ruling circle") [VAKSBERG, p. 20] is described by Vaksberg as "camoflauge" for the Soviet leader's hatred of Jews. [VAKSBERG, p. 27] Yet Vaksberg's own evidence to portray the Russian Jewish community as solely victims consistently deflates the premise of Stalin's enduring anti-Semitism.Vaksberg assails Stalin as a singularly rabid, irrational Jew-hater even while stating that "the people who surrounded Stalin and who had rendered him service in the twenties and thirties were mostly Jews" [VAKSBERG, p. 35] and conceding that Jews especially close to Stalin like Emelyan Yaroslavky (Mines Gubelman), Moisey Gubelman, Lev Mekhlis ("Stalin's right hand man"), [VAKSBERG, p. 23] Lazar Kaganovich and Isaac Mintz all survived Stalin's declared "anti-Zionist" purges.

"Why did Stalin, as an anti-Semite," wonders Vaksberg, "have two Jewish secretaries -- Lev Mekhlis and Grigori Kanner?" [VAKSBERG, p. 27] Why too, we might add in turning Vaksberg's facts to different theses, whenever Stalin went on a vacation, did Lazar Kaganovich, a Jew, take over running the government? [VAKSBERG, p. 51] And why, we might add, if Stalin was so all-encompassingly hateful of Jews, did he entrust his life to a Jewish bodyguard, Matyas Rakoszy? [VAKSBERG, p. 40] (Another Jewish Stalin bodyguard, son of a rabbi, and "protege of Nikita Khruschev," was Alexander Contract, who started out in the NKVD -- later the KGB. Contract even saved the life of future Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin). [O'DWYER, T., 7-6-98] And if Stalin was singularly focused in his alleged hatred of Jews, why did his "personal corps of physicians" include "Drs. Weisbrod, Moshenberg, and Lev Gigorievich Levin?" [RAPOPORT, L., 1990, p. 37] Even prominent non-Jewish Communist Party officials (and close associates of Stalin's social circle), President Mikhail Kalinin, Bukharin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Andreyev, Poskrebyshev, and Rykov, all had Jewish wives. Stalin's own daughter Svetlana Allilueva had an affair with Jewish screenwriter Alexei Kapler; she later married Grigory Morozov (Moroz), also Jewish. [VAKSBERG, p. 138; RAPOPORT, L., 1990, p. 208] The fact that Stalin reportedly did not approve of these men is routinely explained by Jewish scholars as anti-Semitism. Stalin's sister-in-law (eventually imprisoned) by his first wife was also Jewish. So was one of his daughters-in-law. And there is controversial testimony that Stalin even had a Jewish mistress, Rosa Kaganovich. [RAPAPORT, L., p. 46, 241] [ROTHMAN/LICHTER, 1982, p. 94]

Over a hundred Jewish generals also served in Stalin's Soviet army, including the chief of the Soviet Air Force at the start of World War II, General Jacob Smushkevich. [GOLDBERG, M. H., 1976, p. 78]

"It seemed," says Louis Rapoport,

"there were Jews wherever [Stalin] looked. His loyal tin soldier, Marshal
Voroshilov, was devoted to his Jewish wife, Catherine. Marshal Bulganin
was also happily married to a Jew, Nadezhda. Politburo member Andrei
Andreyev, who fell from grace in 1950, was married to Dora Khazan, and
Kaganovich the Jew was married to Maria, also one of the tribe.
Malenkov, who was suspected of being a bit of a philo-Semite, had a
Jewish son-in-law, as, it was said, did Khrushchev. The up-and-coming
Leonid Brezhnev was said to have a Jewish wife." [RAPOPORT, L.,
1990, p. 208]

[Continued]

Re(1): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 04:29:46 PM by mg

Stalin's alleged fanatical anti-Semitism had further curious twists. "Another non-Jew not only helped create Israel," notes M. Hersch Goldberg, "but saved it. Incredible as it may seem, that man was Joseph Stalin. The tale of Stalin's role in helping create and then insure the early survival of Israel has been little told; and on those occasions when it has been mentioned, there has been no satisfactory explanation for it." This includes the fact that in 1947 the Soviet Union publicly supported the creation of a Jewish state, and was the second country (after the U.S.) to recognize its establishment. Stalin also initially supported Israel in its war of independence against the Arabs and supported Israel with shipments of arms through Czecheslovakia. Even the Soviet delegate to the United Nations, also President of the Security Council, was of Jewish heritage -- Jacob Malik. [GOLDBERG, M. H., 1976, p. 220-224] It would seem that if Stalin was truly overwhelmed with feelings of irrational anti-Semitism, Jewish power within his own government had overwhelmed him.

From the start of his argument about Stalin's single-minded hatred of Jews, Arkady Vaksberg marks the early struggle for power between Stalin and Trotsky-Zinoviev-Kamenev-Sikolnikov: "All four men whom Stalin perceived as his rivals in the struggle for power were Jewish. Each of them, especially Trotsky, naturally had a large number of allies in higher eschelons of power who could influence the distribution of posts and positions and the political clout and popularity of candidates. There was a certain ethnic 'imbalance' here too." [VAKSBERG, p. 19]

As normal in Jewish scholarship (framing Jews as victims even as they act as oppressors), Vaksberg even makes the preposterous claim that the reason Jewish commanders ran 11 of the 12 major Gulag Archipelago concentration camps (including the director of them all, Matvei Berman, who also headed the slave labor project that built the Belomar-Baltic Canal) was that Stalin wanted to make Jews look bad, and foment anti-Semitism. "It could not," he insists, "have been sheer coincidence." [VAKSBERG, p. 98] Maybe not. But other possible reasons are too profoundly troubling for Vaksberg to consider.

Jews were also everywhere prominent in Soviet secret police organizations. "From the beginning," writes Benjamin Ginsberg, "the Soviet state relied upon military, police, and security services to sustain itself, and Jews were active in these agencies. ... Jews ... staff[ed] and direct[ed] the coercive instruments upon which the state relied to control its citizens." [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 30] Genrikh Yagoda, for instance, was the Soviet Chief of the Secret Police in the 1930s. A pharmacist, he specialized "in preparing poisons for his agents to use in liquidating Stalin's opponents." [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 31] "Yagoda was the man Stalin trusted most within the repressive aparat without which no totalitarian regime can exist," says Arkady Vaksberg, "The Soviet version of dictatorship and Stalin personally would not have survived without the 'faithful watchdogs of the revolution' and their 'punishing swords.'" [VAKSBERG, p. 36] Yagoda's brother-in-law, Leopold Averebakh was the "chief supervisor of Party purity in Soviet literature." [VAKSBERG, p. 35]

Re(2): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 09:02:41 PM by Mitchell Levine

Apparently Jenks' busy schedule of evil proselytizing doesn't allow for much time to read new releases (or anything else that contradicts his bigoted worldview). If he had he would be aware of Harcourt Press' Stalin's Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors by Jonathan Brent & Vladimir Naumov:

"Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin: the undisputed leader of the USSR for almost a quarter of a century. Stalin’s reign was said to be one of the darkest periods in Soviet history. In the 1930s he began a series of bloody purges to consolidate power, and later again during 1948-53 he unleashed another reign of terror where multiple executions were the order of the day and none, not even his closest associates, were spared. Of the various purges and plots planned by him, the last perhaps was the dyelo vrachey or the Doctors’ Plot. This preplanned conspiracy against the top Jewish doctors of the Soviet Union was aimed to "show" that Jews in the highest positions of power were spies in the USSR and were being used in a grand plan by the enemies of socialism to destroy the Soviet state. Farfetched as it may sound, it did unleash an anti-Semitic campaign that led to executions of doctors, artists, poets and writers after false accusations of treason had been made against them.

In Stalin’s Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors, Jonathan Brent and Vladimir Naumov have put together the various events that comprised the Doctor’s plot. Sifting through mounds of classified materials and secret documents from the KGB and other military and state archives, the authors have reconstructed the details of the planning and execution of the whole event, and they have done a commendable job indeed. It must be mentioned that Naumov, as executive secretary of the Presidential Commission for Rehabilitation of Repressed Persons, an organization established by Mikhail Gorbachev, has earned a reputation for exposing several plots, anti-Semitic or otherwise, hatched by the Kremlin’s villainous machinery.

To guide readers to understand the Doctors’ plot, the authors begin with the system of governance in the USSR where all power was vested in the state -- and Stalin, at the apex, had absolute power. His coterie comprised Zhandov, Molotov, Mikoyan, Malenko and the ruthless Beria. According to the authors, the plot was haphazard to begin with because initially there was no clear plan on Stalin’s part. However, sometime around 1950 he began to manipulate the state machinery and fabricate events to show that Jewish doctors were involved in a conspiracy to eliminate top communist leaders by medical negligence. The focus then shifted to two Soviet leaders, Comrade A.S. Shcherbakov, who died in 1945, and Comrade A. Zhandov, who died in 1948.

However, none of the doctors directly involved in the treatment were Jewish. The KGB and the state apparatus had to therefore invent an elaborate scheme and rope in members of the Jewish antifascist committee and link them to the doctors. An all-encompassing scheme was finally put in place that showed the doctors were a part of a larger Jewish conspiracy managed by a Jewish doctor, Dr. Yakov Etinger, who was a part of the Kremlin Hospital. That Dr. Etinger was associated with the Jewish Antifascist Committee and had a brother living in Israel helped make him a scapegoat.

The plot eventually grew beyond the anti-Semitic action and led to arrests and executions of non-Jews too, including high ranking officers of the Red Army, Soviet police and top leaders of the Kremlin like Stalin’s trusted men Molotov and Mikoyan. Such was the manner in which Stalin’s mind worked. As Bulganin, who succeeded Stalin as the premier of the USSR, once said after leaving Stalin’s home after dinner, "You come to Stalin’s table as a friend, but you never know if you’ll go home by yourself or if you’ll be given a ride--to prison."

This great purge ended with the dictator’s death in March 1953, whereupon his successors erased all traces of the Doctors’ Plot. And so it might have remained, unknown and unacknowledged to the world, had it not been for the authors’ efforts in tracing the numerous letters, statements, personal communications, plots and subplots that give us a glimpse into the horrors of the Stalinist world where distrust and hatred, spying and denouncing one another reigned supreme."

Re(3): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 01:31:28 PM by Anonymous

Stalin saw that the many, many Jews around him were subverting Russian communism in favor of Zionism. (Look at a America today, and you have the same model). Stalin's focus wasn't irrational "antisemitism." It was a perceived threat to the Soviet state.

Re(4): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 02:09:30 PM by Mitchell Levine

It wasn't a threat to the Soviet state - it was a threat to his criminal, genocidal rule.

As you might have heard, he was a little on the paranoid side.

Re(5): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:32:01 PM by Anonymous

If Stalin was so "antisemitic," how come his Number 1 man (Kagalonovich -- spelling?) was Jewish, as were his secretary, bodyguards, etc.

These guys were HIS guys throughout his career. They survived his purges of Zionist intrigue.

Stalin: Probably NOT anti-Semitic
Posted on July 15, 2003 at 04:38:12 PM by James Jaeger

According to Alexander Contract, who I know and worked with personally on our STALIN'S BACK ROOM project for 2 years, (see http://www.mecfilms.com/dna/indev/features/sbr.htm) Stalin was NOT really anti-Semitic. Alexander Sasha Contract, who was a captain in the KGB and who was one of Stalin's foodtasters and bodyguards, was also Jewish. Sasha became close to Stalin and even used to supervise his daughter when she went on dates.

Re(2): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 05:14:14 PM by George Shelps

Interesting bit of history, but you're
diverting attention from the fact
that Eisenstein's career was sabotaged
by Stalin and that his final film
was banned for 10 years because of hints
of anti-Stalin characterizations. In no way did Eisenstein flourish after he
returned to the USSR and the fact that
he was half-Jewish meant nothing.

Regading your long excerpts, Jews were
prominent in the Soviet Communist Party,
but Stalin was careful to purge his
main rivals for power, Trotsky and
Bukharin.

You ought to ask James Jaeger about
Stalin's bodyguard, Alexander Contract
(whom I met). Contract posed as a non-Jew in order to remain in Stalin's
entourage.

Dictators will use whom they wish. Even
Hitler wanted famous film director Fritz
Lang to take over the Nazi film industry---even though Lang was half-Jewish. Hitler and Goebbels knew
that, too, but they were willing to
enact a special exemption for Lang--who
wisely fled the country after hearing
that.

Re(3): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 05:20:04 PM by mg

No YOU ignore the facts of the original post. Virtually all the names in his rise in the Soviet film world, and international links to Jewish communists (like Ivor Montagu who had contacts with the Hollywood moguls) were Jewish.

That is the "point," there, here, and anywhere else.

Blackballed or not, his network was overwhelmingly Jewish.

Re(4): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 06:04:27 PM by George Shelps


No YOU ignore the facts of the original post. Virtually all the names in his rise in the Soviet film world, and international links to Jewish communists (like Ivor Montagu who had contacts with the Hollywood moguls) were Jewish.

___Further example of your ignorance.

Eisenstein was 100% rejected by the Hollywood moguls. Every project he
submitted was turned down.

There's even a published memo by David O. Selznick stating that Hollywood should not finance Eisenstein's version of Dreiser's "An American Tragedy."

Finally, Eisenstein gave up and accepted
an offer from non-Jewish Upton Sinclair
to shoot a documentary about Mexico.

He left Hollywood for good and went to
Mexico to start the film---but Sinclair
pulled the plug because of cost over-runs and other problems. The
film was never finished.

Eisenstein decided to return to the USSR, but Stalin wrote to Sinclair
stating that they didn't want him
back, that Stalin considered Eisenstein
a "traitor."

Nevertheless, he returned...and was
in the doghouse for several years until
he was allowed to make a movie of a
Turgenev story, BEZHIN MEADOW.

But Stalin's henchmen pulled the plug
on that one.

Finally, he was permitted to shoot
a patriotic anti-German saga, ALEXANDER
NEVSKY--which was a major box office
success.

But when the Soviets made their deal
with the Nazis, the picture was withdrawn and poor Eisenstein was eating
dog biscuits again.

Finally, during the war, he was given
a final chance, and made IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PART ONE, which came out in
1944. It was a success.

He began PART TWO, but when Stalin's
minions saw it, they intepreted it
as anti-Stalin (which it was). The film
was banned and Eisenstein died of
heart attack in l948.

Now, Mr Film Historian Jenks, please
point out where Eisenstein's Jewish
ancestry figured in this saga.

Was this a case of "hegemonic
power failure?"

Re(4): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 05:49:39 PM by George Shelps


No YOU ignore the facts of the original post. Virtually all the names in his rise in the Soviet film world, and international links to Jewish communists (like Ivor Montagu who had contacts with the Hollywood moguls) were Jewish.

That is the "point," there, here, and anywhere else.

Blackballed or not, his network was overwhelmingly Jewish.

__And this did him no good whatsoever
when he returned to the Soviet Union.

So where was the vaunted Jewish "hegemony?'

Re(5): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:42:40 PM by mg

The fact that a person is a Jew DOESN'T guarantee that he is superman.

There are 6 million Jews in America and there's not room enough for them all to direct a Hollywood movie.

Being Jewish isn't the ONLY ticket to advancement. But it is a very, very, very important one. As you know.

Wake up, Elmer Fudd!

Re(6): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 11:48:06 AM by Mitchell Levine

That doesn't explain the vast numbers of non-Jews that are successful in the business, a fact your stupid, irrational theory doesn't explain.

And don't say that it's because they're all running-dog lackeys to the Jews, because there are far too many of them. Even Cones and Jaeger admit they have no evidence that there's any disproportionate number of Jews in anything below the most senior levels of management - which certainly describes the position of "director."

Re(7): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 10:11:06 PM by mg

Jews not only dominate the upper eschelons of Hollywood management, take a look at the list of names at the major film schools. Try USC, for starters.

Then start checking out who's the "film critics" in the big newspapers.

Cones hasn't done the study on the lower tiers in Hollywood.

We can safely assume the Hollywood garbagemen, janitors, etc. aren't Jewish.

You'll find the big agencies (Ovitz's, etc.) are largely Jewish. Read Geffen's biography. Examine the William Morris Agency.

Re(8): pt2:Stalin antisemitic?
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 00:33:28 AM by Mitchell Levine

You'd have no idea what the ethnic composition of the talent agencies is because none of them publish any list of their agents or executives for security reasons. Your claim is completely fabricated horseshit.

More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 10:50:23 PM by moishe the goyim

This is MUFF's press release, that just went up in the last few hours (the subject refers to two of my earlier posts here about the Melbourne Underground Film Festival's plans to show a David Irving [widely reviled by the Jewish Lobby] film.

Look who (son of the landlord) decided to shut the film down! Goldschlager. Must be Irish:


http://www.muff.com.au/MUFF_press_release.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
David Irving screening cancelled.
At 4.00pm today the operator of the Bughouse Omniplex informed the Melbourne
Underground Film Festival (MUFF) that Mr Ron Goldschalger, son of the landlord, of
the building housing the Bughouse, Mr. Albert Goldschlager, had decided that after
four successful screenings of MUFF at their venue they could not allow the fifth to go
ahead this evening, being the David Irving film "The Search for Truth in History"
over what was described as concerns regarding ‘safety’.
The MUFF has been effectively locked out and prevented from screening the film.
Notwithstanding the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
decision on Monday involving Michael Lipshutz (President of the Jewish Community
Council of Victoria) and MUFF (Lipshutz v MUFF- copy of decision attached) ,
threats received by and directed at MUFF and others connected with the running of
the Festival, controversy and protest has forced the Festival to question its ability to
screen this video in a safe environment for our patrons and volunteers and forced the
cancellation.
MUFF has fought for freedom of speech both in our courts and in the public domain.
This last minute manoeuvre by the landlord is a shock and disappointment to the
Festival as are the threats against MUFF and its organisers and the behaviour of
protesters.
MUFF screened a Jewish documentary, ‘Relentless’, as suggested by Mr Lipschutz
and the JCCV as an offer of conciliation after the hearing last Monday, with the
screening of ‘The Israel Palestine Conflict: A Palestinian Perspective’ on Wednesday
night.
The Festival organisers have decided to cancel the screening from the festival
program as it does not have a venue that is able and willing to screen the video.
We apologise for the inconvenience to our patrons due to circumstances beyond our
control.
MUFF, 10/7/03, 7pm

Re(1): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 11:05:57 PM by Gary Hirsh

This is nothing new:

IN APRIL 1990 five Roman Catholic extremists were jailed for bombing Paris cinemas which had shown The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. Their fire-bombs, thrown in anger at the film's dream sequence during which Jesus makes love to a naked Mary Magdalen, injured thirteen people. The bombers were jailed for up to three years ... During the summer of 1988, thirty-one thousand Protestant pastors in the United States threatened to boycott the film, some ... claiming that the film's production company, was engaged in a Jewish plot to debase Jesus' image, staging mock crucifixions outside its chairman's estate. Fundamentalists like ... Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority urged Christians to shun all MCA products, and the Catholic Church declared the film immoral. Feminists ... were up in arms as in the film the 'temptation' which tore 'the son of Mary' from his divine mission is symbolised by an entirely feminine world ... The uproar engendered by the film was a testament to the latent violence which can still be aroused by threats to dogmatic belief - vide the reaction within the Muslim world to Salman Rushdie's novel Satanic Verses in 1989 - and which arguments over the figure of Christ and the interpretation of his ministry still provoke. The film's director Martin Scorsee was [like Jesus] accused of blasphemy. ... Fifteen years before, Barbara Hershey, who played Magdalene had given Scorsee Kazantzakis's 1961 book, asking that should he ever make a film of it she might be cast as Magdalene (Haskins 1993 366-7).

http://www.dhushara.com/book/proph/tempt/tempt.htm

Re(2): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 11:23:05 PM by mg

Different story. The Last Temptation of Christ was distributed by the Jewish hierarchy of Universal and MCA. That's a big, big factor. Without Jewish sanction, Scorsese would never get the film off the ground.

When was the last time you saw an equivilant film about Judaism come out of Hollywood?

You can order Last Temptation at any video store. David Irving is systematically checked by the Jewish Lobby.



In 1988 prominent Italian film director Franco Zeffirelli made Jewish news for allegedly calling the Jewish producers of the film The Last Temptation of Christ (the film, directed by a non-Jew, Martin Scorsese, attracted widespread condemnation from conservative Christian groups) "Jewish cultural scum in Los Angeles." Zeffirelli later denied those exact words, but still attacked the film's producer, Lew Wasserman, Chairman of MCA, as "a merchant on the lookout for dollars, and not, certainly, of quality films that respect precise universalist values ... I ask Lew Wasserman, with irony: What would he say if one day an Italian decided to make a film about Abraham sodomizing Isaac?" [GRUBER, p. 7]

Hollywood-based Christian activists Tim Penland and Larry Poland were hired by the Jewish head of Universal, Tom Pollock, (Universal was MCA's subsidiary that released the movie) and they later co-authored a book about the company's exploitation of them. Hired (without seeing the completed film) to mollify Christian lobbyist groups that were uncomfortable with The Last Temptation, Penland and Poland felt deceived and manipulated by Universal and soon joined the protest against the film. Careful not to enflame anti-Jewish sentiment, Poland nonetheless notes that "My observation is that the higher you go in the power structure of film and television, the more Jewish the industry becomes. If you don't believe me, checkout the corporate directors of the ten biggest movie studios sometime." [POLAND, L., 1988, p. 141]

Re(3): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 11:33:22 PM by Gary Hirsh

So your position is that the French Catholics bombed the theater because "The Last Temptation of Christ was distributed by the Jewish hierarchy of Universal and MCA."

The point made earlier is that it was wrong for Jewish people to threaten violence if the film was shown. It sounds like you are defending the French bombers?

You want to see Jewish sterotyping in film? Try renting "No way to treat a lady"

Re(4): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 10, 2003 at 11:37:33 PM by mg

No. My point is the point of FIRM. Last Temptation would have never been made without Jewish economic and distributive sanction. Conversely, no such film will ever be made about Judaism because the Jewish Hollywood hierarchy forbids it.

I don't sanction anyone's censorship. I thought Last Temptation was an interesting film. I don't know what Irving's film is. But I have the right to see it.

The Jewish Lobby forbids people from seeing it. Herein lies the problem.

Re(5): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 00:10:16 AM by Gary Hirsh

There were entire countries that banned people from seeing the "Last temptation of Christ" Chile for one.

The Christian Lobby, and even worse, governments forbid people from seeing it. Herein lies the similarities.

Re(6): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 09:18:11 AM by mg

The important difference: Jews were instrumental in the distribution of Last Temptation, which some Christians felt was blasphemous.

And Jews are instrumental in forbidding public venues for the David Irving film. They are in the vanguard of this censorship.

Translation: controversial films about Christianity, OK. Controversial films about Jewry, forbidden.

Re(7): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 09:09:45 PM by Mitchell Levine

Except for the slight difference that The Last Temptation was adapted from a novel written by a devout Christian by a devout Christian, and was then directed by a devout Christian, who begged the studio for the money to produce the film so he could offer the world his devout vision of Christianity.

Re(8): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 01:22:47 PM by mg

I still await a film that scandalizes Judaism adapted from a novel by a devout Jew by a devout Jew, directed by a devout Jew, who begged the [Jewish] studio for the money to produce the film so he could offer the world his devout vision of Judaism.

Re(9): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 02:07:49 PM by Mitchell Levine

Already done - it was called The Ten Commandments.

Re(9): More on Irving film censorship
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 01:35:01 PM by Anonymous

Keep waiting dumbass!