Victim status and immunity to criticism
Posted on July 11, 2003 at 11:42:53 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 12, 2003 at 11:35:36 AM 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(2): Victim status and immunity to criticism
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 11:37:21 AM by Dag

"…another mark of Jewish influence was the virtual disappearance of anti-Semitic rhetoric from mainstream public discourse in the United States. As a general rule, what can and cannot be said in public reflects the distribution of political power in society; as Jews gained political power, politicians who indulged in anti-Semitic tactics were labeled extremists and exiled to the margins of American politics." -from Benjamin Ginsberg’s "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State."

Attempted Bombing
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 00:15:28 AM by James Jaeger

About a year and a half after John and I founded FIRM, someone left a bomb -- the police described it as an incendiary device -- outside the offices of Matrixx Entertainment.

I called the police and a bomb squad came and evacuated the building as well as 2 city blocks for 2 hours. The device was exploded in the parking lot. No one was hurt. The event is recorded in the local papers and was on local network TV for anyone who wants details or does not believe it happened.

To this day, Hollywood apologists or people who want the message being put out by FIRM squashed, are high on the list of suspects. I turned over antagonistic posts from this site and the NG of misc.writing.screenplays to the local police and the FBI when they requested that I provide them with any information which might lead to a motive.

At, and shortly after, the time of the assault, I and our counsel felt it did not make any sense to announce or promulgating this event here or elsewhere due to the ongoing investigations -- but now it seems appropriate to announce it for the record.

James Jaeger

JDL
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 11:10:10 AM by Eire

The JDL
Between July 1971 and August 1972, Princeton University anthropology graduate student Janet Dolgin undertook fourteen months of fieldwork with the Jewish Defense League. She was particularly concerned with "the process through which JDLers constituted their identity within a multi-ethnic context, and the ideological forms underlying JDLers' cultural construction of the `Jew' and of the `Other.'" This fieldwork gave her, as an anthropologist, "a chance to look at a group of people who are calling into question the meanings of self, religion, nationality, and of their own place in the scheme of things." Noting "JDL's pronouncements have been met with scorn and opposition, with disavowals and condemnations, from a large proportion of American Jews," Dolgin writes that the first members of the JDL, "self-consciously denying assimilation to be a viable alternative," sought to establish ethnic consciousness as the foundation for the identity of all Jews. (It must be stressed that most other Jews were not at all supportive of the JDL's violence; both the B'nai B'rith and the New York Times labelled the group a "Jewish Ku Klux Klan." Others sarcastically noted, "if we can produce this, we might as well give up." )

Dolgin would have benefitted from Yossi Klein Halevi's 1995 Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist, for it is an inside account by a JDL member who left the group and had a chance to reflect on what membership meant to him at the time and what in the long run was problematic about that membership. Son of a Holocaust survivor (who, incidentally, was saved by a Gentile), Halevi learned from his father "the wisdom of Jewish Exile: Halakhah, it is law, Esau sone l'Ya'akov, Esau the Goy hates Jacob the Jew." Halevi's father's view of the world was rooted in the traditional Jewish view of theodicy: anti-Semitism was God's punishment. His father felt that "you didn't question natural disasters, blame volcanoes for periodically erupting; you learned to protect yourself."

Echoing a theme we saw earlier, "non-Jews were almost irrelevant--a nameless, indifferent storm"--in Halevi's father's stories. Halevi was raised in a Brooklyn neighborhood that shared this worldview:

Beyond our Brooklyn enclave, populated mostly by Orthodox Holocaust survivors like my family, were Italians, Puerto Ricans, Scandinavians. They evoked no curiosity in us, only fear. We saw them all as members of the same ethnic group: Jew-haters. Goyim, we called them, a Hebrew word that literally means "the nations" but that we understood to mean the enemy.

By the end of adolescence, Halevi had accepted most of the lessons his father had taught him, particularly his father's most crucial lesson: "to see myself as a stranger in a hostile world, a member of a people related only formally to humanity--in effect, a separate species."

It was only natural that Halevi gravitated to the JDL. He was drawn to the messages propagated in the Jewish Press by eventual JDL founder Rabbi Meir Kahane, who "warned of the physical holocaust that was coming in America." Halevi had found his mission:

Only the Jewish Press dared speak of it. Dozens of local hate groups were said to be thriving, with good American names like the National States' Rights Party. There was even an American Nazi Party, whose leader was named George Lincoln Rockwell, an all-American fuhrer. Rockwell had dozens of followers, probably as many as Hitler had started with in the Munich beer hall.

The hate groups obsessed me. I needed Rockwell. . . .

This need sprang from his view of a cosmic struggle between Gentile and Jew, Esau and Jacob: "Goyim could fix your car and send satellites into space but couldn't understand truth, the meaning of life. Only Jews had a link with God . . ." At his Brooklyn yeshiva, he studied under "a prematurely bald fanatic named Yok," who shared the philosophy that God had created the world only for the Jews. At the time, however, Halevi had begun to open up to the possibility that non-Jews may also be an equal part of the human experience, but this new insight was not yet fully realized:

I assumed that God cared for all peoples, not just the Jews. And yet my view of history wasn't really so different from Yok's: that the billions of people who lived and suffered and died were no more than extras in a Jewish drama, that the human experience was really the Jewish experience. Didn't Christianity and Islam--religions I knew nothing about but dismissed as watered-down derivatives of Judaism--prove that we were the moving force in history? I believed the anti-Semites were right, except in reverse: Jews did secretly control the world, but benevolently.

Once involved in the JDL, Halevi agitated on behalf of Soviet Jews. Tragically, in the course of minor acts of terrorism against Soviet interests in New York, a Jewish secretary named Iris Kones was killed in a firebomb attack on an office affiliated with Soviet culture events; the FBI cracked down on the group, so Halevi scaled back his involvement.

This JDL association with violence has faded only slowly. On the official JDL website, Irv Rubin, JDL Chairman, has posted this "Monument to a Terrorist":

Would you believe that somewhere in the United States a city has chosen to memorialize a lover of terrorism? The city is Santa Ana, Calif. The terrorism lover is the late Alex Odeh, director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. A statue for Odeh not only honors his Jew-hating life . . . Funds for producing this abomination were solicited from the Arab American community by the ferret-resembling and weasel-tempered radio announcer, Casey Kasem. . . . Ironically, Odeh died in a 1985 explosion at his Santa Ana ADC office.

The FBI suspects JDL involvement in the murder of Odeh and has recently sent agents to Israel to interview those with knowledge about the crime.

Re(1): JDL
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 11:12:13 AM by Eire

Hints of violence by the JDL appeared on the JDL website after actor Marlon Brando made what some perceived as offensive remarks about Jews in Hollywood:

To: Marlon Brando
From: The Jewish Defense League

You are a disgusting, fat, Jew-hating whore. You gladly take money from Hollywood producers and then vilify the industry with slanderous accusations and anti-Semitic vulgarities. No wonder why your daughter Cheyenne killed herself; she couldn't stand you and couldn't live with the fact that you were her father. No wonder why your loser son Christian became a murderer; you told him to kill Cheyenne's boyfriend and you'd get Robert Shapiro, a Jew, to defend him--and you were right, your son spent only five years in jail for carrying out your orders of cold-blooded murder. And having yourself photographed giving oral sex to another man was the height of depravity. . . . Shame on you and shame on the next Jew responsible for giving you a job. We're going to make the rest of your life a living hell.


While these examples of Jewish hostility exist at the extreme--which can be found in almost every group--it is still worth noting attitudes of JDL members because of the inside view they provide of an aspect of some Jews' thinking. That such views mirror older views suggests a continuity in thinking, as the following 1924 passage shows:
The unbelieving and radical Jew is as different from the radical gentile as the orthodox Jew from the reactionary gentile. The cosmopolitanism of the radical Jew springs from his feeling (shared by the orthodox Jew) that there is no difference between gentile and gentile. You are all pretty much alike: then why this fussing and fretting and fighting? . . . For him, as for the orthodox Jew, a single temper runs through all of you, whatever your national divisions. The radical Jew (like the orthodox Jew) is a cosmopolitan in a sense which must be irritating to you: for he does not even understand why you make such a fuss about the most obvious of facts--that you are all alike."

This tendency to conflate is powerfully shown, for example, in a recent essay by a prominent Jewish writer. In her contribution to a 1995 book on anti-Semitism, novelist and journalist Anne Roiphe appears incapable of distinguishing among groups of Gentiles:

How can a Jew not be angry at the injustice, the cruelty, the brutish savage behavior of the antisemitic thugs who beat us up in the streets of Cracow, Charleston, or New York, who wrote fine-sounding articles about our venality in the literary press of Vienna, Bruges, or Kansas City; or who are today cheering Kahlid Abdul Muhammad at universities around the United States? . . .

In America, the disaffected, the Ku Klux Klan, the skinheads, the teenage vandals, the white majority making antisemitic jokes in the locker rooms, may not have any special affection for Jews . . . The antisemites of America, loony Aryan-rights groups, Nation of Islam followers, and the fellow who sells you your car and then tells an antisemitic joke behind your back . . . We know that the Farrakhans of the world speak not just to African Americans but that the brushfire they have started could, just possibly, ignite the country, heating up the ethnic poor, the fundamentalist South, the Christian coalitions . . . might attack Jewish businesses, boycott Jewish professionals, make it hard for firms to hire Jews once again.

David Gerber may also be projecting just such a conflation onto the group he is criticizing: "When America's Christian majority considers the small Jewish minority . . . in its midst, it tends to see a strong, cohesive, and energetic group . . ."

Unfortunately, Gerber offers no documentation on what "America's Christian majority" thinks of Jews. What is more telling is that Gerber considers this majority to be a monolithic "it"; he fails to consider that a group at least forty times the size of the Jewish American community may have many facets, including their views on "the small Jewish minority . . . in its midst."

This conflation of Gentile groups dies hard. As recently as 1996, New York magazine ran a cover story on Jewish identity in which the Jewish author confesses, "For all the talk of anti-Semitism, no one talks about what [attorney Alan] Dershowitz mentioned, something my wife pointed out on entering my family: our deep-seated prejudices. . . . For all my father's intellectual keenness, the comment [that the author's Gentile wife looks like a Gentile "deb from the thirties"] demonstrates an inability to tell one Wasp from another. It's an inability I've shared."

This fear and conflation of Gentile groups, often mixed with contempt, is evident in the cultural artifacts Jews have constructed.

Re(2): JDL
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:02:54 PM by Anonymous

Jewish hatred, and propensity towards violence, against those who dare to question Jewish power and influence, is real.

FIRM's position has been relatively tame, and for Jewish terrorists to zoom on it is incredible.

I'd note that the JDL was founded by American-born Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was elected to the Israeli Knesset (Parliament).

Support for Jewish violence towards censorship is widespread. Even at this board, Mr. Hirsch has already pledged allegiance to them.

Intimidation (terrorism) is one of the many tactics to attempt to shut people up.

Re(3): JDL
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:06:20 PM by Anonymous

Hey, it's worked for Christians over the centuries.

Remedy Education & Risk
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 00:35:41 AM by James Jaeger

Why would anyone consider my views about reform extreme? Many of us here seem to want the same things as far as diversity at the top, fairer accounting practices to the profit participants, originality over violence, more inclusive unions without the catch-22, more and better distribution. Does anyone disagree with any of these goals?

I for one don't like government interference. I for one would not like to see Hollywood, or any of the studios or independents, "regulated" in any way by the government. That would be a sad day were that to happen IMO. I want business people to be able to hire who they are comfortable with and who they wish. This is a part of the ideal of freedom.

But here's where the rub seems to be:
People like George Shelps have expressed the ideal that we both want business to have freedom to hire who they want and we don't want the government to come in and regulate -- but if both these conditions prevail, it seems that the same people keep getting to play the game of movies to the exclusion of so many others. How can this be fixed without violating either of the two above ideals? Let's get creative here. Direct some of the invective at this site towards some creative solutions.

Maybe the existing laws should be explained better to executives. Maybe executives that break or bend them simply are not fully aware of the consequences of their acts. Maybe the solution to lack of diversity in Hollywood is better education. Maybe top executives in studios hire mostly liberal, not-very-religious, white Jewish males of European heritage because they're simply AFRAID to hire anyone else. The risks are too great. Hey, I can understand this, and even sympathize with it. When the pressure is on to deliver a picture, the only thing you can think of is getting the job done in the safest manner possible. This usually entails pulling in your good buddies. It's simply survival, not evil intentions.

Nepotism, cronyism and favortism may be within the zone of liberty and, no, many of us do not like it but I maintain that it is between 2 and 10 times more prevalent in Hollywood than in other industries.

So what might be a creative solution? Two things come to mind:

1. Education assurance
2. Risk insurance

George Shelps says: "The best way to oppose these perceived "injustices" is to put your head down and go forward with your own career and be an example for others."

I maintain you can't DO that because we haven't SOLVED the above problem YET. That's a non-solution.

George has said: "That's what I recommend particularly to James Jaeger. (And that's the way he used to be before he became obsessed with FIRM)"

But I got nowhere. Someday I'm going to try and write a detailed book of my journeys through Hollywood and then maybe it will be understood why such suggestions are so unworkable to me.

George Shelps goes on to say: "Nepotism, favoritism, networking are part of business life everywhere in the world, not restricted to any one ethnic group or industry. The best way to combat it is to succeed in spite of it! And that's what I consider a "moderate" position!"

Such a position is non-committal and results in a non-solution. It's like saying, if you don't have any money, just go get some. It's also like saying adapt to the environment rather than adapting the environment to be more human-friendly. For millions of years, ever since we have been one-celled animals, we have been evolving to adapt to the environment. This is a slow and obsolete process now. Today we are evolving through technological means which means we have the ability to adapt the environment to our needs. Thus we need to adapt Hollywood to OUR needs as a society, not allow Hollywood to adapt us to ITS obsolete or pagan ways. Hollywood is NOT human-friendly in its current state. Maybe this can be changed but in order to remedy a situation you have to really break the problem down and engineer an answer that’s good from everyones point of view. So far, I don't believe the dialogs at FIRM have been addressing this approach enough. The situation in Hollywood goes far beyond such quaint things as nepotism, heritage, cronyism, discrimination, heritage and who's Jewish and who's not. It goes, I believe, to the core of human nature. And at that core I believe we have IGNORANCE and FEAR.

This brings me back to the two things I think have to be addressed with Hollywood:

1. Education.
2. Risk.

If top executives were somehow more aware of their stewardship in a democratic society, they might be more insistent on diversity. Hopefully the FIRM site is contributing to this awareness. I bet the tendency is already there in executives anyway, as human nature is such that one is always interested in the (liberal characteristic of) new and different, especially in Hollywood. I bet many top studios executives would love to work with a more diverse roster: more women, more African Americans, more people of Asian heritage, more conservatives, more moderates, more Muslims, Christians, Scientologists and Buddhists -- but fear prevents them.

And this takes us back to the consideration of risk. The board of directors in a publicly-held corporation hires (proposes and/or disposes of) the top executives. Thus to hire executives that are not from the usual management "talent" pool and to give them a $750,000,000 discretionary production fund for the year's slate which results in a negative cash flow creates a lot of fear and risk, not to mention angry stockholders and replacements. Thus, if there were some way to mitigate these risks, perhaps some sort of a (government-backed) insurance that indemnified directors of movie studios when they hired executives that were new or "unproven" -- maybe this could get the ball rolling towards more diversity in Hollywood. Or maybe stockholders need to be more tolerant and less demanding with a better understanding and appreciation of the three pillars of business: EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS and STOCKHOLDERS. Right now our society is hell-bent in the direction of pleasing stockholders even at the expense of employees and often customers. Were this to change, and more balance brought to the three pillars, maybe diversity would have a better chance in Hollywood where the risks are too high, the fears too great and ignorance of social impact is too prevalent.

James Jaeger

Re(6): Hostility: Anti-Gentile
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:52:27 AM by Eire

There's Something About Ben Stiller

Budding young comic actor Ben Stiller achieved acclaim for his 1998 appearance in There's Something About Mary, an off-beat comedy about love denied. Paired against rival Pat Healy (Matt Dillon), Stiller's Ted Stroehmann fights for the affection of old high school flame Mary Jenson (Cameron Diaz). While Stiller does not play an openly Jewish character in this film, his shtick seems to fall into that mold, particularly when he banters with his best friend and confidante, Dom. Son of actors Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara, Ben Stiller adopts in this movie a kind of gentle schlemiel identity that keeps the humor moving. Since there are no overtly Jewish themes in this movie, however, I will go only as far as calling him an "incipient Jewish character" and his desire for blonde Mary "incipient shiksa craving." Any doubts, however, are removed in his two subsequent movies.

The year 2000 was a busy one for Stiller. Starring first in Keeping the Faith, Stiller then went on to take the lead role in Meet the Parents. In the former movie, he plays a hip young rabbi, while his best friend from school becomes a Catholic priest (Edward Norton, who also directs the film). From the outset, this romantic comedy compares the lives of these different New Yorkers. While their friendship is strong, their differences are highlighted. In flashbacks to their childhood, for example, the Catholic boy with blonde hair always wears light clothing; in contrast, the young Jewish boy wears dark clothes.

The plot of this movie revolves around belated longing for a third classmate--tomboy Anna, who has blossomed into a high-powered businesswoman, not to mention into a stunningly attractive woman. As a priest, Fr. Finn is constrained from expressing his love for Anna, though in one scene he manages to do just that. Rabbi Jake Schram, on the other hand, is free to date as he sees fit. Unfortunately, his "fit" does not always match the expectations of his mother or congregation. This perennial theme of shiksa love and the tensions it introduces into the Jewish community is the primary subplot of the movie. For instance, Rabbi Jake's investment banker brother has married a Catholic girl, and his mother responds by not speaking to him for over two years. She clearly represents the Jewish desire for continuity; intermarriage is seen as an act of assimilation that spells a kind of death for the Jewish people.

As the story develops, it looks like Jake's mother may be facing another case of a son pairing up with a Gentile. Jake and Anna have fallen in love and are now having a relationship, which brings on the predictable problems. At a movie theater, for example, Jake runs into a group of his congregants. When they meet his tall blonde companion, they are none too pleased with his choice. The film, however, clearly criticizes this attitude as discriminatory. Pluralism and multiculturalism are the lauded values in this movie.

Jake himself struggles with these values. As a man who has devoted his life to the particularism of his own people, he still believes that as an individual he is entitled to "get what he wants." Whether this includes a non-Jewish woman is hard to resolve. For a while, though, Jake decides that loyalty to the Jewish God and the Jewish people takes precedence over his own romantic desires. "The fact that you're not Jewish," he tells her, "is a real problem for me." Thus, he ends their relationship.

In the end, however, Jake has a change of heart, which he announces in his Yom Kippur sermon. Trusting his congregants to be open minded enough to accept his personal decision to fall in love with a shiksa, he preaches toleration. "We live in a really complex world, a world whose definitions and boundaries are blurring and bleeding into each other in ways that challenge us not just as Jews but as human beings." His mother, too, adopts this perspective, finally embracing the choices her sons have made. Elsewhere, these blurring boundaries multiply, as when, for instance, Jake's earlier date--a brilliant young Jewish woman--accepts the loss of Jake and finds a new boyfriend--who happens to be Black. The bartender to whom Fr. Finn spills his story of woe is another such example. Having inherited the bar from one grandmother, he explains what an identity dilemma he has: he is half Punjabi Sihk, a quarter Tamil separatist, and one quarter Irish--thus he finds himself an Indian-accented owner of an Irish bar in New York.

This film, then, nicely locates the particular Jewish challenges of identity and assimilation within the broader context of American--if not world--identity and the rapid blurring of boundaries. With the exception of director Edward Norton, Keeping the Faith is a creation of American Jews. Thus, it can serve as a useful portal into contemporary Jewish attitudes toward living with and among various Gentile groups. A similar glimpse into one slice of Jewish American thinking is to be found in Ben Stiller's second film of 2000, Meet the Parents.

Re(7): Hostility: Anti-Gentile
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:48:55 AM by Ralphie

Typical Christian paranoia, I guess that explains the "convert or die" attitude your race has displayed over the years.

SO, now nobody needs to see the movie. I guess you give it two thumbs down. Ooops, I forgot, you don't have thumbs...sorry.

Re(7): Hostility: Anti-Gentile
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:53:58 AM by Eire

Meet the Parents

Stiller's second Jewish character of 2000 appears in a comedy starring Robert De Niro and Teri Polo. The movie opens with a love scene as Stiller muddles through his attempt at proposing to his very shiksa girlfriend Pam. From the beginning, Stiller is scripted as the schmuck (in contrast to the hip, accomplished rabbi he played in Keeping the Faith). Playing another Woody Allen-esque schlemiel, he is still presented sympathetically. That he is not quite a true mensch is shown before the opening credits have finished. Practicing his proposal speech in front of a patient, he at first appears to be that stock Jewish character "my son the doctor" but is in fact a male nurse (a career choice the movie belittles). His name in this movie emphasizes this loser quality--Greg Focker. Naturally, the play on his family name accounts for a dozen or more juvenile laughs throughout the movie.

Having proposed to Pam, Greg sets out to meet her parents. Comfortably situated in a wealthy suburb, Pam's parents and their neighbors are all ur-WASP (perhaps the Italian-identifying De Niro is ill cast in this film since he pointedly plays a WASP figure). The first family dinner recalls the hilarious scene in Woody Allen's Annie Hall in which Allen sits down to dinner with his shiksa girlfriend's family and feels every bit the coarse Ostjuden. Here, Greg sits among the Gentiles--"a Jew in a nest of WASPs" in Los Angeles film critic Kenneth Turan's words --and is asked to say grace. Pam protests, however: "Dad, Greg's Jewish." Thus, early in the film his identity is established, as it must be since the entire comic tension revolves around the theme of outsider Jew encounters a Gentile setting.

Though Jewish Greg is the butt of jokes and is routinely humiliated, the real hostility in the film is directed at things Gentile, particularly things Christian. For instance, the anal father Jack forces his cat to use a human toilet to do its business; any hint of cat litter odor would be unacceptable. Then, in a scene reminiscent of some of the more adolescent screamers in There's Something About Mary, Greg pops open a thirteen-dollar bottle of champagne and hits the urn on the mantel holding Jack's mother's ashes. The urn totters and falls, shattering on the floor, at which point the family cat urinates in the ashes. This conflation of bodily elimination and Gentile symbols increases as the movie progresses.

Another reason for Greg and Pam's visit to her parents' house is to participate in the (Christian) wedding of her younger sister. Because family friends are also taking part, there is a breakfast scene in which virile Gentile men discuss their jobs as doctors and such. This allows another joke at the expense of Greg Focker, RN. Venting his feelings about the tall, thin Gentile doctor, Greg mutters to himself that this doctor is another "Torquemada," a telling reference to a worldview of persecution of a very particular bent.

Nearly an hour into the comedy comes the starkest Jewish-Gentile contrasts. In fact, it is so blatant that I wonder if this was really meant as a comedy at all. Greg, who is small in stature and insecure about his relationship with Pam, is handed his worst nightmare: he must meet Pam's former fiance. Arriving by car, Greg and Pam's family drive up to an enormous mansion owned by Kevin, the old boyfriend. Obviously enamored of Kevin's talents, Pam's father joyfully embraces Kevin at the doorstep. Wondering why such a bond exists, Greg is told by Pam that Kevin and her father became close at one of those typically WASP places--a lacrosse camp.

I believe Kevin's physical features are no accident in this film. Tall and handsome, he exhibits those most Aryan features--strong nose and chin, long, flowing blond hair, and sparkling blue eyes. Consistently, these features are contrasted with Greg's short stature and dark features. This is even emphasized by their clothing--Greg wears dark, heavy clothing, while Kevin has on a brilliant white sweater.

Once inside, the humiliations continue. Kevin still keeps pictures of himself and Pam, and Greg agonizingly looks at each of them--Kevin and Pam skiing together, Kevin and Pam horseback riding together, Kevin and Pam skydiving together. His insecurity grows. Once in the kitchen, Kevin and Greg, as rivals, feel out each other's position; Greg clearly loses. Kevin, it seems, has made millions in the stock market, all without trying and without really craving money. Greg, on the other hand, has no portfolio and merely rents his apartment rather than owning his own house.

Because Kevin is financially set, he can devote himself to his hobbies, and it is here that the movie is explicit. Showing his guests his extensive carpentry shop, he goes on to display some of the accomplished works he has completed. Then, when Greg asks him why he chose "carpentering," Kevin gets even more serious and replies, "Because Jesus was a carpenter." Kevin has been established not only as a Christ figure, but as a rival to the Jewish Greg, a rivalry that I believe is a metaphor for what many Jews see as their rivalry with Christendom. Minutes later, Kevin unveils his masterpiece: a wedding altar hand-carved from a single piece of wood that will serve as Pam's sister's wedding altar in the yard. Though it would seem that a wooden canopy without any religious symbolism would serve just as well, in this movie it is a specifically Christian prop, carved by that Christ figure, Kevin. Later we will see what role it plays.

In the meantime, guests continue to arrive for the wedding rehearsal and they are all fair-skinned, fair-haired, outdoor WASP types. Soon, they drum up a game of volleyball in Greg's spacious indoor pool, the Gentile men aggressively going for the win. Greg, the male nurse, predictably performs poorly, earning the noisy censure of the Gentile males that surround him. Pam, in the meantime, has symbolically paired up with her former boyfriend who, in the heat of the competition, cannot even remember Greg's name.

Thus provoked, Greg resolves to show his manliness. Since this is ostensibly a comedy of manners, however, when Greg succeeds, he loses. Jumping high above the net for a spike shot, Greg in slow motion slams the ball into the face of the soon-to-be bride, breaking her nose and giving her a black eye. All the Gentiles then berate Greg and circle around the bride on one side of the net while Greg is ostracized literally and figuratively to the other side of the net. This filmic portrayal of Gentiles on one side and the lone Jew on the other recurs throughout the movie.

Next comes an adolescent feces scene. Despite being told not to flush the guest room toilet, Greg forgets and sets off a disaster: the cesspool overflows into the yard where the wedding rehearsal is to be held, covering it with slimy brown human waste. Then, into this semi-liquid mess comes Kevin in a large flat-bed truck, delivering his Christian altar. Though Jack and the others scream for him to stop, Kevin backs into the soggy yard and the wheels begin to sink. Not appreciating the situation at all, he then guns the engine, throwing feces in the faces of Jack and family.

Things can and do get worse. Chasing the wayward family cat onto the roof, Greg surreptitiously sneaks a forbidden smoke. Unfortunately, his cigarette tumbles into the leaf-filled eaves trough and ignites a fire. Attempting to put out the blaze, Greg inadvertently kicks the eaves trough away from the house, causing it to fall over a live electric cable, which snaps and falls onto the malodorous ground. Then, in a scene of some significance, the sparking cable snakes over to the altar and ignites it. Greg, the Jew, has burned the Christian altar to black charcoal, a scene in which the symbolism is manifest. It is almost as though what Freud wrote has been enacted in this scene: "to my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organization of the Catholic church . . ." The parallel is intriguing: is Greg carrying out on screen a version of a fantasy Freud himself had? Cuddihy's remarks bring us to the brink of a match: "Clearly, Oedipus does what the young Freud wished his father had done. It is a forbidden wish, one that Freud cannot admit into consciousness except in "sublimated" form. He will unmask these goyim. Like Hamilcar's son Hannibal, he will storm Rome seeking vengeance."

Lest there be any doubt about this juxtaposition of Christianity and shit, the next scene is of a Christian minister rehearsing marital vows in the yard, a scene that immediately segues to a group of workers who have inserted a large hose into the open cesspool to suck out its fetid contents. The sentiments that inform these multiple Christianity/shit scenes recall those from South Park's Christmas special, "Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo."

Re(8): Hostility: Anti-Gentile
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:43:15 AM by Anonymous

"Lest there be any doubt about this juxtaposition of Christianity and shit"

Oh I don't think there is any doubt, but thanks for driving the point home.

Re(8): Hostility: Anti-Gentile
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:56:52 AM by Eire

Eventually, Greg and Jack have their showdown and both give some ground yet stand other ground. A full reconciliation is made, and Greg is welcomed into the "circle of trust" that exists in Pam's family. His proposal is accepted, and he and Pam will soon get married. Curiously, however, one intriguing scene is tacked onto the end. After all has been settled, Jack breaks the circle of trust and checks a hidden surveillance tape of his soon-to-be son-in-law. Greg's soliloquy here opens up serious questions about the degree of reconciliation gained between the Jew as outsider and the Gentile family. Quite aggressively, Greg speaks into the hidden camera and berates Jack for his absurd values, unmasking his supposedly superior status. Greg has the final words, words that securely put Jack the Gentile in his place. This is precisely what Cuddihy approvingly quotes: "the unconscious desire of Jews, as social pariahs, to unmask the respectability of the European society which closed them out." Though comedy may be the vehicle here and in many other instances, there is a clear aggressive tendency to it, and the direction of the aggression is clear as well: in their kulturkampf against the Gentiles, Jews in Hollywood have shown us again and again what their target is.

Richard Dreyfuss
One of the best roles Dreyfuss has played--and one of the most Jewishly veiled ones--comes in the love story/comedy of manners Once Around, in which he plays the role of an outsider who has married into a tight-knit Gentile/WASP American family living in Boston. Though he loves his wife and she him, his different sensibilities create an ongoing tension between himself and his wife's family. Try as he might to mold himself into something more acceptable, he cannot; he is always "himself."

The movie begins with a wedding and a breakup. One of the Bella sisters is getting married, while the other, Renata (Holly Hunter), can only dream about her own wedding. Unfortunately, her boyfriend breaks up with her the night of the wedding, so she goes to the Caribbean for job training and to get her mind off her ex-boyfriend. There in Bermuda she meets a much older but wonderfully outgoing and generous salesman, Sam Sharp (Richard Dreyfuss). It is such a mismatch that Renata is amazed that she is attracted to him. A whirlwind romance develops and they return together to the chilly northeast.

Once back home, Renata has a chance to introduce Sam to her parents; the problem is that Sam is cut from totally different cloth than the Bellas, who are a mixture of Italian (the father) and northern European (the mother). Sam is pure Yiddishkeit, and it leaves the Bellas speechless at first. For example, when Sam first meets Renata's father (Danny Aiello), he leaps out of his limousine, strides up to him and says, "Let me shake the hand of the first man my little rosebud ever loved." Then, when Renata's brother Tony arrives in his working class Trans Am, Sam gives him a too-familiar shoulder knock when they meet.

This kind of overfamiliarity and coarseness continues. For example, he invites a belly dancer to Mr. Bella's birthday party, something this staid family would never have imagined. When the newlyweds return from their honeymoon, Sam imparts a blessing upon them: "I hope you both have a lifetime of great sex and joy." This is similar to his role in The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, where Dreyfuss "gives a fabulously shaded performance as the likable loser. His Duddy is charming and annoying, vulnerable and arrogant, nervy and nervous." In Once Around, Dreyfuss's character is also apt to elicit strongly mixed feelings in the viewer.

Because Sam Sharp is so sincerely generous and good-willed toward Renata and her family, they overlook his "difference," though an undercurrent of unease grows. It nearly erupts when the family holds a memorial service for Grandmother Bella. Mr. Bella, clearly moved by the solemnity of the occasion, sings a heartfelt tribute to his late mother, and the audience listens in silence. Sam, however, jumps out of his seat, grabs the microphone, and prepares to sing his own more upbeat tribute. Mrs. Bella realizes that this would destroy the sacredness of the memorial, so she practically commands Sam to sit back down, uttering what will become the mantra for the remainder of the film: "Sam, you're tearing us apart." Even then, Sam is too insensitive to appreciate what she and the others feel, too thick-skinned to take Mrs. Bella's rare command as anything more than the normal give and take of life. These different cultures do not mix well.

Still, the tug of love is powerful. Sam and Renata get married and neither has ever been happier. Soon, a child arrives. But the issue of the baby's baptism ignites the most destructive fight the extended family has ever experienced. Because of his "different" religion, Sam insists that the baptism must be on a specific date, but other family members have planned a well-earned holiday beginning on that day. Around the family table, they try to reach a compromise, but Sam's deafness to the others drives them to rage. Finally, Mr. Bella, almost broken by the tragedy of it, sends some of the couples home, then sends Sam to wait in the car. To his daughter he says in a near whisper, "Sam's a wonderful man. He's a generous and kind man, but he's killing us. He's killing us." Never before has Renata been forced to chose between the men in her life this way. Such tension mirrors that created on both sides in the process of assimilation.

What really establishes the character of Sam Sharp as Jewish? After all, he claims to have descended from a "long line of Lithuanian generals," and he insists on a very special Lithuanian version of a Christian baptism for his child. But these conceits function as masks, for it is much more likely that Dreyfuss's real ancestors were chased out of Lithuania by Gentile generals than it is for Dreyfuss to be descended from such military men. And the unique variant of Christianity may be seen as a signifier of that forever marginal character in the human drama--the Jew. This story at one level is about the contact and collision of cultures in modern America. Sam never really understands why he does not fit in, but symbolically he must pay for his transgressions. At the baptism of his son, he suffers a heart attack, and from here on he must keep his exuberance in check. Dreyfuss succeeds brilliantly in creating a believable tension between living the life of the old Sam and recognizing the limits the world puts on him. From the time of his heart attack, Dreyfuss's character deepens into a much fuller humanity, richer in nuance and certainly in irony. Because he has grown in this way, he is able to re-assume a place at the large family table of the Bella family. Some tensions still exist, but a mature love and respect has been established between Sam, his wife, and her family.

As I have shown, the Jewish presence in Hollywood has been a constant throughout this century, and it has been a presence that has made a difference, a minority that has, in Stephen Whitfield's words, "left its skid marks." This chapter has only touched upon a tiny fraction of those "skid marks," but it has begun the task that Moment magazine set out for us when it published a cover which read, "Jews Run Hollywood: So What?" This third section of the dissertation has suggested possible answers to that question. It also shows the possibilities available for understanding American culture when mining the cultural ore Jews have deposited in our Hollywood products.

Re(9): Hostility: Anti-Gentile
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 11:01:49 AM by Eire

CONCLUSION
The Heat of a Cultural Clash?

I believe, as a gentile, it has been worth studying Jews because, as Ernest van den Haag has written:

Jews are human. We all are, but Jews are in a sense more human than any one else: they have witnessed and taken part in more of the human career, they have recorded more of it, shaped more of it, originated and developed more of it, above all, suffered more of it, than any other people. No other nation has witnessed so much, argued and bargained so much, and yet clung to its own inner core as much as the Jews have. . . . For over 2000 years now they have dazed, dazzled, and befuddled the world.


In one of the movies examined in this dissertation, Richard Dreyfuss plays the role of a man we might consider a modern representative of the tribe that has "dazed, dazzled, and befuddled the world." As the reader will recall in Once Around, Dreyfuss plays Sam Sharp, an outsider, a man married into a family of a different culture. Tensions abound. As a quintessentially Jewish character, Sam has conflicts with his wife and her Gentile family yet, for much of the movie, Sam is not attuned to these differences. Thus, the film revolves around the line, "Sam, you're tearing us apart." The patriarch of the family, almost in tears, whispers: "Sam's a wonderful man. He's a generous and kind man, but he's killing us. He's killing us."

Might we be taking it too far, then, to conclude this dissertation with a comparison of the domestic kulturkampf Sam has introduced into the Bella family and the larger kulturkampf in America between Jewish and Gentile cultures? In the many areas addressed here, there has been great tension between Jewish actors and the broader American culture. Still, this tension does not demand a showdown. Returning to Dreyfuss in Once Around, Sam pays for his "difference"--he suffers a heart attack at his son's baptism--but he, along with his wife's family, manages to find a way of living together; once Sam achieves this ability to compromise and to be sensitive to "the Other," he matures, just as the Bella family grows from the compromises they make with Sam. The story ends with Sam resuming a place at the table of the Bella family.

One more film may serve as a metaphor for the meeting of Jew and Gentile in modern America. Though Chariots of Fire (1981) is a British film, it "had broad circulation and box office success in the United States," and reached number three in America, winning Academy Awards for, among other categories, Best Picture and Best Screenplay. Thus, it is well within the American cultural arena. Based on a true story, the plot revolves around a dedicated Christian runner ensconced in a Christian setting--1920s Cambridge University. Opposite him stars Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), son of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants, who wishes to leave behind his parents' foreigness in order to enter into the rarified world of elite British (Gentile) society. To do this, however, would exact a heavy psychic cost, and it is this tension that supplies a subplot to the movie. As much as Abrahams would like to leave behind his past, he still feels innately and wholly Jewish and will not readily relinquish what he holds proudly. Though England is "Christian and Anglo-Saxon" and those who stalk her corridors of power "guard them with jealousy," Abrahamson is determined to "take them on, all of them, one by one, and run them off their feet."

His headmaster interprets this as being "defensive," as "they" invariably are. Hoping to smooth the coarse, selfish competitiveness shown by Abrahams (read: bring him through his "ordeal" to a point of "civility"), this Cambridge don invites the young runner to dinner. Played by Sir John Gielgud, the headmaster represents all that is Christian. Not surprisingly, he and the Jewish Abrahams cannot come to a mutually agreeable understanding on a number of issues, and Abrahams excuses himself from the table and leaves. In response, the headmast turns to his elderly colleague and observes, "Well, there goes your Semite, Hugh. A different god, a different mountaintop."

In many ways, this represents the same challenge American Jews and Gentiles find for themselves, different people who nonetheless live, work, and create culture together, yet too often have "different gods, different mountaintops." Ironically, this film also casts light on the ambiguities and paradoxes involved in different identities, few of which are stable over time; as Chariots of Fire hints, the real Harold Abrahams eventually converted to Christianity.

There undoubtedly have been and are conflicts between Jews and Gentiles in America, often severe ones, but this is not surprising when civilizations come into contact. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg agrees; he suspects that Jews may indeed have upset the sensibilities of the Gentile "families" among whom they have found themselves:

We understand why Jews have preferred explanations of anti-Semitism that focus on the moral imperfections of non-Jewish majorities. It is more comforting to believe that the Jew-haters, in all their wickedness, have no shred of a reason--even a bad one--for their angers. It is far more difficult for Jews to accept the idea that anti-Semitism may be, fundamentally, the heat of a cultural clash.

The clashes examined in this dissertation--the social science ideologies, the social activism, the films created in the Jewish milieu that is Hollywood--may be seen as portrayals of the battles, the truces, and the compromises that are part of this cultural class. What we the viewer must keep in mind, however, is that often these cultural products are presented from Jewish points of view.

Viewed from a distance, the Jewish experience in America in the twentieth century may be considered one more sojourn for the Jews. Though Jews have always had an unbreakable attachment to a particular piece of land in the Middle East, none, Paul Johnson writes, "has shown so strong and persistent an instinct to migrate, such courage and skill in pulling up and replanting its roots. It is a curious fact that, for more than three-quarters of their existence as a race, a majority of Jews have always lived outside the land they call their own. They do so today." The Jewish experience in America, then, has largely been "diaspora as usual," but their sojourn through the country has been a tremendous upheaval for America as a whole. It is a tale worth telling.

This is not to say the upheaval has been negative, as Johnson shows: "For the Jewish impact on humanity has been protean. In antiquity they were the great innovators in religion and morals. . . . Breaking out of their ghettos, they once more transformed human thinking, this time in the secular sphere. Much of the mental furniture of the modern world too is of Jewish fabrication." And, we might add, much of the construction of modern American culture has also been "of Jewish fabrication."

We have already seen how this minority has "left its skid marks" upon the character of the United States. Considering the degree to which American Jews have shaped the cultural, intellectual, political, academic, and scientific life of America, this is an apt statement. But considering the long history of Jews and their sojourns, it might be more likely that some civilization a thousand years hence will choose to say instead, "America has left its skid marks on Jewish history." In any case, it is a phenomenon worth studying.

Re(10): Hostility: Anti-Gentile
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 01:40:01 PM by Anonymous

Are you sure your name isn't Err?

Err
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 01:49:33 PM by Anonymous

"Are you sure your name isn't Err?"

No, I believe your name is, dumbass.

Re(1): Err
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 04:53:52 PM by Anonymous

Wooohooo! Is that how you want Jesus to remember you?

Wow!
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 02:32:10 PM by Anonymous

Mitchell Levine wrote, "There is no lesson to be learned here. Jews as a minority will continue to be scapegoated and attacked regardless of what they do, because it serves an important psychological function in the minds of the aggressor.

It happens where there are no Jews, and where all the Jews are long since dead. It doesn't matter what an outgroup does, X or not-X, a bigot will still defame them for it. Why? Because they have an emotional need to do so. Scapegoating is based on a desire to blame all the world's problems on Jews.

Also, by those who share this mindset, if a gentile does something wrong, it's just that individual's fault; if a Jew does something wrong, it's ALL Jews fault."

Re(1): Wow!
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:57:35 PM by Anonymous

Subliminally, they are angry because of the Jew Christ and the heresay that following that he has. So that's why they attack Jews.

Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 02:38:01 PM by Anonymous

I think you're on to something James. I hope you don't mind if I posted this again?

I can understand this and what you are saying and this gives me some deeper perspective on how Jewish people must feel.

It seems to me that somehow Jewish people have been caught up in a negative feedback loop. The loop functions something like this:

1. the more Jews are persecuted (seen by Jews as criticism, anti-Semitism, hate, etc.);

2. the more they pull together (seen by non-Jews as control group, discrimination, conspiracies, etc.);

3. the more they pull together;

4. the more they are persecuted;

5. go back to 2.


I don't know what started this loop, or when it started, but it is a destructive and irrational phenomenon.

Perhaps if more people (Jews and non-Jews a like) recognized it and saw it AS IT IS -- a silly and reactive feedback loop -- it would go away.

In many ways the Jews have the same problem as the Scientologists. The Scientologists call THEIR "anti-Semites," Suppressive Persons, or just SPs for short. The worst thing you can be to a Scientologist is an SP. By the same token, the worse thing you can be to a Jew is an anti-Semite. Scientologists and Jews seem to spend inordinate amounts of time fighting and "handling" SPs and anti-Semites, respectively. Meanwhile the Christians, who don't bother labeling anyone as their enemies, have grown a billion strong. Could there be a lesson here?

>Being singled out in a negative way based only upon heritage is wrong, on either side.

Sure it is, but if certain groups of people insist on certain behaviors, they are inevitably going to pull-in certain behaviors from the greater masses of people on the planet. Just as George Shelps says that everyone is responsible for their own condition and they should not blame it on a Hollywood Control Group (a point of view I DO agree with to some extent), the Jews are also responsible for THEIR own condition. If the world is hating or excluding them, they need to look at what THEY are doing that is wrong or antagonistic -- just as an individual should look at what s/he is doing wrong or antagonistic. I would say the blame in each case is 50-50. Thus I seek to improve myself 50% of the time and improve the environment the other 50%. The Jews should do the same thing and maybe the vicious loop would evaporate.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 08:07:46 PM by George Shelps

Just as George Shelps says that everyone is responsible for their own condition and they should not blame it on a Hollywood Control Group

___Except I don't say that. There is
often pressure from the outside that
can gut your efforts.

But you should press forward despite
that.




(a point of view I DO agree with to some extent), the Jews are also responsible for THEIR own condition. If the world is hating or excluding them, they need to look at what THEY are doing that is wrong or antagonistic -- just as an individual should look at what s/he is doing wrong or antagonistic.

____This seems like a "blame the victim" logic. Sometimes people deserve what
happens to them, sometimes they don't.

The point is, the major obstacle to
success in film is a lack of the
ability to combine talent and business
sense in the right proportions. With the right mix, I don't see how a "control group" can stop you.


I would say the blame in each case is 50-50. Thus I seek to improve myself 50% of the time and improve the environment the other 50%. The Jews should do the same thing and maybe the vicious loop would evaporate.

___The Jews are not responsible for
anti-semitism. No one is responsible
for any evil which is done to them.

Re(2): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 06:06:47 PM by James Jaeger

>___The Jews are not responsible for
anti-semitism. No one is responsible
for any evil which is done to them.

That's a simplistic and naieve view George. If God is a just God, then God is a fair God.

There is a WHY to everything. We live in a universe of causality. People pull in what they deserve in at least 50% of the cases. It takes two to tango.

Please don't tell me the Jews are exempt from physical, metaphysical and religious equilibrium, karma, and justice, respectively.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 08:40:07 PM by Mitchell Levine

God may be a just God, but that hardly means that humans are always just.

As you know, God gives people free will in this world. Simply because sick people may abuse it doesn't mean that God approves of their transgressions.

And karma doesn't just refer to what people HAVE done, it also applies to what they CHOOSE to do, like, for example, unfairly discriminate against members of other religious groups, out of spiritual immaturity.

Re(2): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 08:53:27 PM by Anonymous

YOU SAY: "The Jews are not responsible for anti-semitism."

RESPONSE: This is propaganda. This statement is not based on historical (or current) evidence, but upon Shelp's personal conviction about self-complimentary Judeocentric dogma.

Which he endorses for no other reason than he thinks he ought to.

Re(3): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:27:19 PM by Ralphie

> Which he endorses for no other reason than he thinks he ought to.

Man! You're in everyone's mind. Okay, what am I thinking right now......

Right! You are insane.

Re(3): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 11:37:45 AM by Mitchell Levine

The reason Jews aren't "responsible" for antisemitism is that it would occur NO MATTER WHAT JEWS ACTUALLY DID.
Bigots would still attack them regardless of any conceivable action by them.

That's why it happens where there are no Jews. That's why things that couldn't possibly be in their control get blamed on them as scapegoats, the most ridiculous examples being the Lisbon earthquake and the AIDS crisis.

If they're successful, they get attacked for being successful. If they're unsuccessful, they get attacked for being unsuccessful.

As long as a desire to attack them continues, which it will, as long as there are Jews, antisemitism will continue.

If there were only 2.5% of Hollywood executives identifying as Jewish, you honestly think the bigots that post on site would stop attacking Jews?

They'll never stop attacking Jews until the day they die and get damned to Hell for their efforts.

Re(4): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 10:28:23 PM by Anonymous

YOU SAY: The reason Jews aren't "responsible" for antisemitism is that it would occur NO MATTER WHAT JEWS ACTUALLY DID.
Bigots would still attack them regardless of any conceivable action by them.

RESPONSE: This is your pseudo-religious conviction. You have never admitted that Jews have been responsible for ANYTHING negative in history, because you are incapable of a reasoned overview. You're a propagandist, and a propagandist follows the dictated Party Line: "We Jews are victims. No matter what! Pay more reparations!"

YOU SAY: That's why it happens where there are no Jews.

RESPONSE: Jewish influence in global events ("even in places where there's no Jews") is profound. Israel and international Ziomism is EL Primo example of this.

Japan knows about "antisemitism" because it understands that Jews dominate so much of America. Not too hard to understand.

YOU SAY: That's why things that couldn't possibly be in their control get blamed on them as scapegoats, the most ridiculous examples being the Lisbon earthquake and the AIDS crisis.

RESPONSE: What's your fixation on the Lisbon earthquake? Listening to a medieval Portugese explain to me that Jews shook his house down thanks to voodoo or your ceaseless whining, I'd have to choose the former just to have the satisfaction of you going speechless with shock.

YOU SAY: If they're successful, they get attacked for being successful. If they're unsuccessful, they get attacked for being unsuccessful.

RESPONSE: Please. When did a Jew ever get "attacked for being unsuccessful?" Yeah, Levine. You yourself are pinned on all sides by the Ugly, Omnipotent Antisemite who is going to jump on you know matter what you do.

Your attitude is Totally Paranoid and Neurotic. And that's what being a Jew is, in large part, as many will tell you. Ask Woody Allen, who has codified it in cinema.

YOU SAY: As long as a desire to attack them continues, which it will, as long as there are Jews, antisemitism will continue.

RESPONSE: No. As long as Jews treat everyone else like shit, constantly accuse (as you consistently do) everyone else for your own Jewish faults, and REFUSE to take responsibility for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER, hostility to Jews will grow. Yes, as it always has.

YOU SAY: If there were only 2.5% of Hollywood executives identifying as Jewish, you honestly think the bigots that post on site would stop attacking Jews?

RESPONSE: What a stupid question! Your paranoia is beyond belief. And that is a large part of the problem with Jewish neurosis. WHOEVER DOMINATED HOLLYWOOD THE WAY JEWS DO WOULD FEEL THE HEAT. You're a pathetic character. I feel sorry for you. If the antisemitic boogeyman is everywhere at your feet, how do you sleep at night?

YOU SAY: They'll never stop attacking Jews until the day they die and get damned to Hell for their efforts.

RESPONSE: You're going over the edge, Levine. Lie down. Take a pill. Suck in a cool breeze. You are safe. No one is after you. Social and political argument doesn't mean there's a mob gathering at your door for no reason.

Get a grip.

Re(1): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 05:29:03 PM by Mitchell Levine

Duh, obviously the worst thing you can be to a Jew is an antisemite - the definition of "antisemitism" is "hating and fearing and desiring to harm Jews."

Yeah, we should really look to what we did "wrong" to get blamed for the death of Christ, the Lisbon earthquake, the Black Death, the loss of WWI by Germany, the AIDS crisis, the kidnapping and murder of gentile babies, Japan-bashing, capitalism, communism, feminism, anarchism, the rise of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Soviet Union, secularism, sectarianism, and last, but not least, Hollywood's lack of diversity.

Re(2): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 06:53:55 PM by Anonymous

YOU SAY: Yeah, we should really look to what we did "wrong" to get blamed for the death of Christ, the Lisbon earthquake, the Black Death, the loss of WWI by Germany, the AIDS crisis, the kidnapping and murder of gentile babies, Japan-bashing, capitalism, communism, feminism, anarchism, the rise of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Soviet Union, secularism, sectarianism, and last, but not least, Hollywood's lack of diversity

RESPONSE: Most of these things have grains of truth to them. Jews have always taken credit in their own folklore for "killing Christ." Look it up.

You dismiss all these things categorically (completely!) without demonstrating any evidence: they are articles of faith for you.

At When Victims Rule (at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org)
you'll find plenty of historical context for the Jewish role in many of the things you dismiss.

Your position is quintessentially "Jewish." You deny EVERYTHING connected to Jewish historical responsibility.

That is the modern Jewish paradigm, including Jewish hegemony in Hollywood

Re(3): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 08:07:39 PM by Mitchell Levine

You're right - I admit it: the Lisbon earthquake was all us!

Re(3): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 06:59:53 PM by Anonymous

And the modern (and age old) Christian paradigm is the Jews are responsible for everything!

I don't know about this Christ killing thing. I mean, I wasn't there! I can prove it. Ummmm. I was with some friends that night and ahhh, errr I didn't even know the guy! Honest! Besides, the Romans already confessed tot he crime.

Re(3): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 06:56:48 PM by Anonymous

Oh, I suggest you get honest for once and look into Jewish influence in war profiteering throughout the centuries, American finanancier Jacob Schiff's collusion with Japan in the Jewish anti-Tsar war, etc.

The profound Jewish influence in communism, feminism, pornography, etc. is demonstrable, and Jewish scholars have written as much.

Re(2): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 05:34:03 PM by Mitchell Levine

And, of course, James Jaeger's inability to get a film produced.

Re(3): Re: Negative Feedback Loop
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 08:03:56 PM by James Jaeger

>And, of course, James Jaeger's inability to get a film produced.

Mitchell,

I honestly don't know whether Jews have anything to do with whether or not Hollywood studios have financed any of the 110 projects I have taken to them since 1986.

I honestly don't know if these 110 screenplays/projects suck or not. They have been written by about 100 different writers and there have been many others involved in the packages over the years, including Jewish people (like, for instance, Alexander Contract who we worked with translating his book into a screenplay called STALIN'S BACK ROOM, and my cinematographer).

I honestly don't know if my German name, Jaeger, has had anything to do with it.

I honestly don't know if my involvement in FIRM has discredited me in the eyes of studio executives.

I honestly don't know if you or Hollywood executives consider me an anti-Semite.

I can honestly say that between the years I moved to Hollywood, 1977, and 1998, when FIRM was founded, I never thought about Jews very much. I also never thought about Christians very much. If anything I thought mostly about Scientologists, Operating Thetans and perhaps Buddhists.

I'm sure a lot of my problems over the years have been because of my involvement in Scientology (which tends to be a misunderstood movement to many) as well as the fact that I was pretty irresponsible if not loopy when I was younger. I drank too much alcohol after I left Scientology and I was never focused enough (due to the alcohol, of course). So I definitely have tried to take responsibility for my failings on a personal level. I don't blame Scientology and I don't blame Jews, in fact I owe a lot of any ability I may have to Scientologists and Jews.

Nevertheless, I feel that when most people meet me in person, they see that it's pretty obvious that I am interested in them and in most people I can usually differentiate their special beingness from the beingness of all other people. That's one of the things that's totally incredible about people: when you get to know them, how different they are from every single other human being on the planet.

So, when Jews, or Scientologists or anyone mass together and attack me, I don't feel that it's really THEM attacking. I feel they are playing a role based upon the dictates of their DNA/culture and their subconscious(i.e., the collective database of all their negative experiences since they were born). Thus, to me, you are playing a role right now, the role of defending Jews because that's what you have been trained or programmed to do and you do it reactively. And it's what you would believe is proper, even it it's not proper.

But I bet if I were to really get to know you, you would cease to play the role of a Jewish-defender and you would just become yourself. And I would cease to be some real or potential anti-Semite who posts at the FIRM site and I would just become MYself. In doing this our roles would peel away and we would both discover that we were both unique human beings. Further, we would be able to, from that point on, co-discover life and the joy of living in present time without placing any attention on the mechanics of our relationship, background or beinness. We would just be two beings here on a planet trying to survive and figure out the universe. And that's what we all really are once we drop our roles, pretenses, artificial responsibilities and political correctness. We're all just beings that happen to occupy this space at this time for the purpose of postulating and perceiving existence. That more people recognize this innate unity in us all, and thus drop their antagonistic roles, is one of my hopes for a better world.

James Jaeger

Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:14:05 PM by Anonymous

Well of course they do, bunky! No morons allowed!

Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:19:36 PM by mg

I post the following because there are those who seek to defame my comments as something akin to Adolf Hitler. Mass murder is one thing. Criticism of Jewry is another. Not everything Hitler said was erroneous, including the idea (as the defamer posted earlier) that Jews essentially took over pre-Nazi Republic Germany.

Everyone on this forum will know who Stanley Kubrick was. Kubrick was also Jewish and probably knew something about Jewish Hollywood. And what did he say about Jews and Hitler?

"The late Stanley Kubrick once remarked
that 'Hitler was right about almost everything,' and insisted that any
trace of Jewishness be expunged from the 'Eyes Wide Shut' script
that author Frederic Raphael was writing for him ... And Kubrick
was downright acidic on the subject of [Stephen Spielberg's film] Schindler's List. 'That was about success, wasn't it?' he reportedly
said. 'The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. Schindlers List was about six hundred people who don't.'" [DREHER, New York Post, R., 6-16-99]

These are the comments of a Jewish "self-hater," or Jewish "antisemite." It is an institution in the Jewish community. It represents those Jews who walk away from Jewish Neurosis and face history, and their own culpability, squarely. Unfortunately, there are apparently no honest Jews at this discussion forum.
The ones here guarantee future strife and troubles for all.

Re(1): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:29:38 PM by Anonymous

Right! So the Jews should get down on their hands and knees to beg for forgivness of all those who have tried to kill them in the past.

Stanley Kubrick was a well known nut. It's too bad he didn't die before "Eyes Wide Shut". What a rotten piece of garbage that was.

So where did this Hitler quote come from? Can you point to the text so that we may read it in it's entirety. It's not that we don't trust that you would not quote something out of context. It's just that we don't trust that you would not quote something out of context.

>The ones here guarantee future strife and troubles for all.

Is that some kind of threat? Well bring it on Martha?

Re(2): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:34:12 PM by Anonymous

1) Any resolving of conflict involves negotiation -- a give and take. Jews don't do that. Even at this board.

In Jewish eyes, there is irrational Jewish hostility ("antisemitism) and then there is everything else. Black and white.

2) The citation is, as noted, from the New York Post. I'm not going to deliver a copy to your home. Sorry.

Re(3): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:36:33 PM by Anonymous

Awe come on man! Doesn't your delivery route come by my house?

Re(4): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:44:37 PM by Anonymous

What you got against paper boys? Your "hate list" widens: people from Arkansas, paper boys, anyone who doesn't love Jews ...

Re(5): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:47:19 PM by Anonymous

What the fuck are you talking about freak? Who said anything about Arkansas. How long have you been off your meds sweatheart?

I don't have anything against paper boys. I was just returning your razor sharp wit!

Re(4): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:38:20 PM by Anonymous

Since you ONLY read Jewish stuff, and trust no other, here's a citation of the Kubrick story for you.

I know this is really hard to swallow, Hirsch, but, hey, Kubrick was a good man.


http://www.usajewish.com/scripts/usaj/paper/Article.asp?ArticleID=499

Re(5): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 08:11:42 PM by Anonymous

Steven Spielberg is among those shocked by screenwriter Frederic Raphael's description of Stanley Kubrick in his upcoming book, "Eyes Wide Open: A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick."
Spielberg reminds that he knew Kubrick far longer and better than Raphael (who gets second position to Kubrick on the screenplay of "Eyes"). "Stanley Kubrick, Self-hating Jew," blared the N.Y. Post Wednesday on Rod Dreier's story of Raphael and his book. Spielberg, after reading the piece, said, "I didn't recognize the voice of Stanley in that article" which also said Kubrick trashed "Schindler's List."
Spielberg had long (three-hour) telephone conversations regularly with Kubrick over the years and they confided in each other. And when Spielberg was in London he and Kubrick would always get together.
His death was a tremendous to blow to Spielberg who flew over to attend his funeral Further, the remarks of Raphael are in the hands of an attorney in London, and L.A. attorney Louis Blau, counselor and friend to Kubrick from 1958 until the day he died - he spoke to him that morning - says, "Raphael's remarks about (Kubrick's) anti-Semitism and the holocaust are beyond contempt. His relationship with his mother, father, sister and close friends belie that (anti-Semitic) remark. Kubrick believed the Holocaust was the greatest disaster in history."
Blau further says, "Stanley's family, friends at WB [Warner Brothers] and elsewhere in England and the United States are incensed over Raphael's inaccurate, vicious and self-serving article in the June 14 New Yorker and subsequent remarks in the Post. One can only conclude Raphael's recent actions are the result of his realization that he lacked the vision to recognize the universality of Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Shut.' "
-- Army Archerd in Just for Variety, June 18, 1999

Re(6): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 08:33:18 PM by Anonymous

The "remarks" are "in the hands of" deceased Kubrick's attorney. What else would you expect? Why is that not surprising?

So you think Raphael, also Jewish, made it all up out of air? Why?

It is forbidden in popular culture to say such things. Even from the grave.

Re(7): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:01:47 PM by Ralphie

> What else would you expect?

- Meaning what?

Re(5): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 07:44:03 PM by Anonymous

Sorry, dude, you got the wrong guy. Is it that hard to believe that someone else thinks your a lying piece of white trash?

Re(6): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 08:34:49 PM by Anonymous

Why am I certain your'e Jewish?

Re(7): Stanley Kubrick, Jews, and Hitler
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:04:30 PM by Ralphie

Is that a question or a snide remark?

Don't get bitchy with me sister!

Please Post Names
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 08:41:31 PM by James Jaeger

Please post names or identities so it is easier to follow the dialogs.

Thanks,

James Jaeger

Re(1): Please Post Names
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:16:54 PM by Ralphie

I can introduce the other guys for you. Let's see, there's Adolf, Hermann, Josef.......

Re(1): Please Post Names
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 09:04:38 PM by Harpo

Jews actually have witchhunts within their own ranks, looking for Jewish "antisemites."

Here's a good example, at the "H-Antisemitism" forum (this is a group of academics [mostly Jewish] whose entire careers center around digging up more evidence of "antisemitism":


http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Antisemitism&month=0307&week=&msg=98s1wXJeTZUENbzzh6Gnvg&user=&pw=

From Dan Kriegman:

Is Chomsky an antisemite?

This claim has been made by others and I have always dismissed it as too
simplistic. I have known some genuine Jewish antisemites, Michael Bradley
being the one whose work I debated on MIT radio. Strange, yes. But they
do exist, Jews whose life's work is to prove that Jews are a, if not the,
primary cause of evil in the world. No one is more antisemitic than a
friend of mine when he goes off the deep end, a friend whom I also consider
a personal hero and who is half Jewish (by ancestry, not upbringing; his
father had converted to Christianity).

But I never was sure about Chomsky. I never saw it in those of his
writings that I had studied. Those writings always struck me as well
reasoned and meticulously researched. But then I came across the book,
"Partners in Hate," by Werner Cohn which can be found at

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/ftp.py?people/c//cohn.werner/partners-in-hate
(Apparently listed there by date the section of the book was posted, the
bibliography is listed first and the preface last. First published in
1988, the preface to a new addition was written in 1995 and Cohn claims
that the evidence for his thesis grew stronger during that time.)

Cohn's thesis is that

(1) Chomsky---hiding behind a cloak of libertarian protector of free
speech---is actually an antisemite as documented by his ACTIVE
COLLABORATION with antisemitic holocaust deniers and those who wish to see
the total dissolution of the State of Israel [a dissolution that would
surely mean the death of most of the Jews living there]. Cohn documents a
collaboration with antisemites that goes far beyond standing up for their
freedom of speech.

(2) Chomsky knows what he is doing and attempts to hide his connections and
active aid to neo-Nazis from his English-speaking audience.

(3) At least in some cases, and Cohn claims in many, Chomsky is guilty of
scholarly dishonesty of the type I discovered when I wrote a critique of
the antisemitic pseudo-science of Kevin MacDonald; whenever I checked the
actual sources, I found profound misrepresentation and selective quoting
that changed the meanings. (Cohn documents specific examples of this in
part 07 of his book, which can be found at

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/ftp.py?people/c//cohn.werner/partners-in-hate/hidden-alliances.07


And,

(4) Chomsky's support has been crucial to the survival and growth of some
quite hideous antisemitic groups.

Dan Kriegman

Etc.

Re(2): Please Post Names
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 12:03:48 AM by Mitchell Levine

Notice that you don't actually engage with the intellectual content of the article concerning Chomsky's methods and behavior, you just broadly condemn the author for presenting it, without even considering whether or not the charges are true.

Re(3): Please Post Names
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:56:17 PM by mg

The "intellectual" content is for the Jewish Thought Police to take a long-time Jewish leftist who has been an activist in assailing Israel (for decades) and melding him into "Nazi" and "antisemitic" movements.

Other Jews have faced this sort of smear, including Israel Shamir.

It doesn't dawn on the Jewish Thought Police that the political left, the political right, and any other political perspective might agree in areas of Jewish-inspired injustice.

Yours is an easy way of looking at the world, isn't it? And no thought is really necessary: if you criticize Jews with any kind of vehemence (even if you're Jewish) you're an "antisemitic" "Nazi."

There you have it: all you need to know.

You are such an "intellect," are you not, Mr. Levine?

Re(2): Please Post Names
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:13:54 PM by Ralphie

Yup, htat's what we do all day, hunt for anti-semetic Jews.

Mental health tip: Stay away from the radiation.

Re(2): Please Post Names
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 09:14:44 PM by Harpo

The essence of Jewish ideology about itself is this: to criticize Jews, even if you're Jewish, is the manifestation of an irrational "antisemite."

Jews who adhere to Jewish convention (Jews as saintly victims, above criticism for their ideology, actions, and identity throughout history) circle to wagons at first sight of critical attack, even if it the attack comes from within its own.

The guy "Hirsh" at this board fits the paradigm perfectly. He proclaimed he was an "outsider" to Jewish identity, yet quickly begins calling for the JDL to defend him and worries about another Holocaust when he can't win an argument here.

Re(3): Please Post Names
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 12:06:35 AM by Mitchell Levine

Because, of course, Jews defending their good name and rebutting false charges against them is a bad thing to do (at least from the standpoint of someone who wishes to harm Jews).

Only Jews can presume to offer opinions about other Jews
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 11:10:02 PM by Silly Goy!

Only Jews can presume to offer opinions about other Jews

Re(1): Only Jews can presume to offer opinions about other Jews
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 12:07:19 AM by Mitchell Levine

You certainly don't seem to like it when Jews offer opinions about gentiles, do you?

Re(1): Only Jews can presume to offer opinions about other Jews
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 11:29:35 PM by Ralphie

Nope. Just saying you should clean your own house first.

Re(3): Please Post Names
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:11:23 PM by Ralphie

Not many Jews like the JDL, but their members range from Ultra Othodox to Reform.

As far as winning an argument here, that's impossible. You "Christians" have already made up your minds!

"Judge not.....blah, blah, blah!"
"Turn the other cheek....Yada, yada , yada" (I'll bet I know what cheek you fellas like to turn ;)

Sing with me now....I..... LOVE A CRUSADE!

On a Mission
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:27:41 PM by Ralphie

Onward Jewish soldiers, marching as to war.....

Our mission, to travel to foriegn lands and spread the word of Jewish. We will convert the sinners, or kill them. What, hey wait, that's not Jewish....that's Christian...and it's spread the word of Jesus...I almost forgot.

After reading this site, it's easy to get caught up in revisionist history! LOL

Re(1): On a Mission
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:30:15 PM by Ralphie

OUCH!!!

...and at the end of the first period, it's... Lions 1, Christians 0! Stay tuned for more action after these messages....

Examples of Christian Hate
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:49:44 PM by Ralphie

"If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality. ... Can you imagine having the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as defense minister, or Mahatma Gandhi as minister of health, education, and welfare? The Hindu and Buddhist idea of karma and the Muslim idea of kismet, or fate condemn the poor and the disabled to their suffering. ... It's the will of Allah. These beliefs are nothing but abject fatalism, and they would devastate the social gains this nation has made if they were ever put into practice." --Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 219.

Re(1): Examples of Christian Hate
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:50:15 PM by Ralphie

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."--Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93

An example of Christian Charity?
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 10:54:12 PM by Ralphie

Wow, good ole' Pat could teach them hollywood boys a thing or two!@

The Pat Robertson success story starts with the Family Channel. He started it in 1977, using money donated to his Christian Broadcasting Network, in order to increase viewership potential of the 700 Club, and filled the rest of the time with cheesy old TV shows. The popularity of the channel soon grew, and it began to turn large profits by 1989, meaning that it could no longer legally be a part of the non-profit CBN. So what does Robertson decide to do? He partners up with TCI, and arranges for CBN to sell the Family Channel to himself and his son (Tim Robertson) for next to nothing. He then took the company public in 1992, with the stock sales making him a wealthy man, to the tune of 90 million dollars. In other words, he took money that people had donated to CBN for the purpose of spreading Christianity, and used it to build himself a media empire. Recently, Pat sold off the Family Channel to Mr.-Anti-Family-Values himself, Rupert Murdoch, the man behind "Melrose Place" and "Married...With Children." Of course, this sale increased his fortune even more. Is all of this legal? Barely. Ethical? Hardly. Something you would expect from a true man of God? Most definitely not. Pat could have sold the Family Channel to someone else, and returned the profits to CBN, seeing as it was CBN donor money that started it in the first place, but he chose the road to massive personal gain.

Wow, good ole' Pat could teach them hollywood boys a thing or two!@

Re(1): An example of Christian Charity?
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 01:41:25 PM by mg

You should note that Pat Robertson is an ardent Christian Zionist and has sent large sums of money to Israel.

In other words, his path you describe above -- in context with his Judeocentrism -- makes sense.

Re(2): An example of Christian Charity?
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 02:53:14 PM by Ralphie

Try to focus Jimmy! This is about America.

Israel is a seperate subject. But while you mentioned it. Pat knows that if the Arabs take over Israel, no more holy Christian sites.

Re(1): An example of Christian Charity?
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 11:42:31 PM by Ralphie

If men only believe enough in Christ they can commit adultery and murder a thousand times a day without periling their salvation.
-- Martin Luther

--- I guess we know what the Lutherans believe.

Throw in a pope for good measure
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 11:26:11 PM by Ralphie

Use against heretics the spiritual sword of excommunication, and if this does not prove effective, use the material sword.
-- Pope Innocent III, reiterating the death sentence which the Christian Church had meted out to all heretics and unbelievers for many centuries and which would continue to be endorsed by Christian denominations for centuries to come, even in the twentieth century by Pope Leo XIII

The death sentence is a necessary and efficacious means for the Church to attain its end when rebels act against it and disturbers of the ecclesiastical unity, especially obstinate heretics and heresiarchs, cannot be restrained by any other penalty from continuing to derange the ecclesiastical order and impelling others to all sorts of crime ... When the perversity of one or several is calculated to bring about the ruin of many of its children it is bound effectively to remove it, in such wise that if there be no other remedy for saving its people it can and must put these wicked men to death.
-- Pope Leo XIII, advocating death to all heretics and teachers of false doctrine -- showing that the end justifies the means even in the twentieth century, in Lloyd M. Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975), p. 468, quoted from Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History

Re(1): Throw in a pope for good measure
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 07:10:10 PM by mg

I'm not interested in wasting lots of time in twisting the tables on you, point by point. I haven't got the time. But it's interesting that Christian "persecutions" of Jews were usually instituted by people FROM THE JEWISH community who spilled the beans on what was being taught about Christians in the Jewish community:


"Among the first generation or two of Dominican friars [in the Middle Ages]," says Norman Cantor, "... were a remarkable number of Jewish converts. The reason that the friars ... could engage in a lengthy debate with the rabbis in their public disputations in France and Spain was that these debating friars were almost invariably former rabbis or rabbinical students, or sons of rabbis." [CANTOR, p. 179] "Most often," notes Leon Poliakov, "by making the conversion of the Jews and the denunciation of Jews their chief vocation [Jewish apostates] constituted a true scourge for the Jewish communities.... [POLIAKOV, p. 167] ... The role of the renegade Jew ... has always been of prime importance during the persecutions of the Jews." [POLIAKOV, p. 69]

In the year 1236, for example, Nicholas Donin, a Jewish convert to Christianity, "approached Pope Gregory IX with a list of charges against rabbinic Judaism." [COHEN, J., 1982, p. 60] According to Donin, notes Jeremy Cohen, "the rabbis [of the Talmud] allegedly instructed the Jews to kill Christians and ruled that the Jew may blamelessly cheat and deceive Christians in any way possible ... The Talmud, claimed Donin, licensed murder, theft, and religious intolerance, and it included strictures against trusting Gentiles, honoring them, or even returning a lost piece of property to them. The worst outrage for Donin was the prayers in the Jews' daily liturgy uttered against Christians and apostates." [COHEN, J., 1982, p. 68, 71] A compilation was also made, "probably in large part by converts from Judaism," [COHEN, J., 1982, p. 65] which resulted in "a collection of objectionable excerpts from the Talmud and Jewish liturgy according to topic, over one hundred folios listing the passages in the order of their appearance in the Talmud." [COHEN, J., 1982, p. 65] The result of a Papal investigation of the Talmud resulted in its public burning.

Another such disputation in Barcelona, Spain, occurred in 1262 between Rabbi Moses ben Nahman and Friar Pablo Christiani. Christiani was born Jewish and "he had studied Jewish literature under the direction of Rabbi Eliezer ben Emmanuel of Tarascon and Jacob ben Elijah Lattes of Venice." [COHEN, J., 1982, p. 108] Elsewhere,

Hollywood’s impermeable, kinship-based hierarchy
Posted on July 12, 2003 at 11:48:13 PM by &

Moreover, once Jews have attained intellectual predominance, it is not surprising that gentiles would be attracted to Jewish intellectuals as members of a socially dominant and prestigious group and as dispensers of valued resources. Such a perspective fits well with an evolutionary perspective on group dynamics: Gentiles negotiating the intellectual status hierarchy would be attracted to the characteristics of the most dominant members of the hierarchy, especially if they viewed the hierarchy as permeable. Writer William Barrett, a gentile editor of Partisan Review, describes his "awe and admiration" of the New York Intellectuals (a group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals) early in his career. "They were beings invested in my eyes with a strange and mysterious glamour" (in Cooney 1986, 227). Partisan Review was a flagship journal of this very influential intellectual movement and had a decisive influence on success or failure in the literary world. Leslie Fiedler (1948, 872, 873), himself a New York Intellectual, described a whole generation of American Jewish writers (including Delmore Schwartz, Alfred Kazin, Karl Shapiro, Isaac Rosenfeld, Paul Goodman, Saul Bellow, and H. J. Kaplan) as "typically urban, second-generation Jews." The works of these writers appeared regularly in Partisan Review, and Fiedler goes on to say that "the writer drawn to New York from the provinces feels . . . the Rube, attempts to conform; and the almost parody of Jewishness achieved by the gentile writer in New York is a strange and crucial testimony of our time."

Re(1): Hollywood’s impermeable, kinship-based hierarchy
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:33:50 AM by Ralphie

Thank you proving my point:

"New York Intellectuals (a group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals)"

If your people weren't attending hate rallys, trying to convert the world, and killing people in the name of Christ, you would have spent more time hitting the books.

Fact: More people have been murdered in the name of Christ than in all the wars put together.

Jewish geography at the pitch meeting
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 01:57:35 AM by Sisu

From a diary entry for Slate: NPR’s Ira Glass

I've flown to Los Angeles today to meet with network executives about doing a version of my radio program on television. Meetings are set up over the next two days with impressively high-level people at ABC, NBC, HBO, WB, Showtime, and Fox. A&E has also expressed interest.

With me on this little adventure: A TV producer named Jed Alpert, filmmaker
Bennett Miller…and Ann Blanchard, who's an agent from William Morris...

We meet with two production houses, and BOTH TIMES IT’S LIKE FINDING DISANT FAMILY MEMBERS. Gail Berman at New Regency begins our meeting by playing Jewish geography with me; she spent a part of her childhood in Baltimore just a few miles from where I grew up. She and the TV people we meet at Brillstein Grey remind me of the best radio producers I know. They're pragmatic and personable; they're about getting things done. They're unpretentious. Again they make it seem like television is not such a different business from the one I'm already in.

Re(1): Jewish geography at the pitch meeting
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:27:54 AM by Ralphie

This is a nice story about growing up in the same area, and both being Jewish.

Did you have some sort of point here?

Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 11:05:12 AM by TK

From Movieline Magazine interview with David Duchovny
July 1998

Q: What did you think of Brando's comment that the Jews run Hollywood?

A: If you look at it objectively, Jews created a lot of the studios, Jews do a lot of the agenting. Jews do a lot of the producing. But when you say something like "Jews run Hollywood," it's an anti- Semitic comment, as if some other race or religion is better suited to running it. As if the Jews have an agenda in the movies that they make. I don't believe that. It's like when people say Jews are bankers. Maybe so--but why? Because they weren't allowed to own land and the only thing they could trade in was money or jewelry, that's why Jews are jewelers and bankers. Not because they love money and are all a bunch of Fagins and Shylocks, it's because that was the only avenue opened to a Jew in ancient Europe. I think it's a pity that Brando would have to say something like that, but objectively there's a lot of truth to it. But I think Brando's smarter and more sensitive than that.

Re(1): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 01:37:09 PM by mg

Horse. "WASPs run America." "Christians run America." Same stuff, no one complains.

The claim that Jews "weren't allowed to own land" is an oversimplification of history. Just for starters, the vast majority of non-Jews in Eastern Europe (where more Jews were) were serfs until the late 1800s. Jews were NOT serfs. And many were oppressers in league with the aristocracy. Jews have been bankers, smugglers, con-artists, bandits, peddlers, merchants, usurers, and so forth BY CHOICE too. No one said they HAD TO choose these careers.

Marlon Brando HAD SPOKEN THE TRUTH on the Larry King show, only to break down, crying, to redeem himself at the powerful Simon Wisenthal Center.

Re(2): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 03:01:43 PM by Mitchell Levine

Being a banker, peddler, or merchant is BAD?

Re(3): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 06:58:10 PM by mg

My dear.

Being a banker, peddler, or merchant (and usurer, etc.) was the foundation of modern capitalism.

Usury is bad, yes. It's the foundation of our thieving economic system. Jews were the maestros of its development, where you pay $8 million for a $100,000 house.

It is was condemned by Christianity, it is still condemned by Islam, and Judaism condemns it also (but gouging a non-Jew is religiously sanctioned).

Re(4): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 09:32:03 PM by Mitchell Levine

When does anyone pay $8 million for a $100,000 house? And no one sanctions gouging anyone, Jew or non-Jew.

Your charges are simply a parody of the traditional litanies of ridiculous antisemitic bullshit. It's hard to believe that there's anyone too stupid to be an anti-Jewish bigot, but you manage to defy the odds.

Re(5): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 09:45:52 PM by mg

So, Levine, when are you going step out of your Hall of Mirrors where you pull your hair, pound on the floor, bite the rug, and scream "Antisemite!" all day long and say anything of real substance?

YOU are not just a parody of a bad propagandist, but a Jewish cartoon character.

Re(6): Brando Redux
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 08:26:03 AM by Ralphie

Watch it Mitchell, this is the type of guy that will make a lampshade out of you.

Re(6): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 10:27:12 PM by Mitchell Levine

Once again, you cannot discriminate between your projections and reality. It's just sad.

A sane person who peddled nothing but lies and moronic bullshit intended to foment hate against an outgroup would ordinarily try to avoid calling anyone else a "propagandist." Unfortunately, your incomparable cognitive defects simply won't allow for even that limited amount of discernment.

Even your fellow evil, bigoted scumbags consider you to be a delusional idiot. That should tell you something. Seek help.

Re(3): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 03:06:21 PM by Ralphie

Only if you're Jewish it seems. At least according to MG.

Re(2): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 02:50:30 PM by Ralphie

"smugglers, con-artists, bandits, peddlers, merchants, usurers, and so forth""

Typical Christian hate mongering once again. You shame yourself

Re(3): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 07:03:55 PM by mg

You don't know if I'm a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jain, a Hindu, an atheist, or a Jew.

Why do you hate Christians

Re(4): Brando Redux
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:07:18 PM by Ralphie

I don't, it's just that you always seem to defend Christians and characterize Jews? If your a Jew, then you must be one of those self-hating types you're always squealing about.

Re(5): Brando Redux
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 02:16:31 PM by Mitchell Levine

I don't hate Christians: I just hate you.

Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 11:36:35 AM by John Cones

James:

In observing and sometimes participating in the FIRM discussion forum, which you and I created several years ago, several things seem apparent:

1. The legitimate issue raised specifically relating to the lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood has not been disputed by anyone. Certainly, no one else has been willing to conduct a study of the issue and no one else has not come forward with any factual information which conflicts with the results of the study conducted in the early ‘90s (the results of which are posted at the FIRM site). This is quite gratifying.

2. The people who do not like the results of that original FIRM study with respect to the lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood, do not object if the backgrounds of the people who are not in a dominating position of power in Hollywood are disclosed (e.g., African-Americans, Native Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Latinos, women, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Whites from the American South and so forth).

3. However, these same people who do not like the results of that original FIRM study regarding the lack of diversity at the top in Hollywood, do object when the backgrounds of the people who are in the dominant positions of power are disclosed, even though this information is factual, supported by source citations, is generally admitted within the film community and has been generally admitted by implication here on the FIRM discussion forum (i.e., many comments are along the lines: "Well ok, even if what you say is true, there’s nothing wrong with it !" or something to that effect).

4. Since the facts show that Hollywood is controlled by political liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage, most, if not all of those people who do not like this result being openly disclosed or discussed, take the position that such disclosures are "anti-Semitic", when it reality, it is merely a factual observation. In other words, the false anti-Semitism charge overlooks the reality that it is simply being reported as a fact and as part of a larger overall study of what is really going on in Hollywood.

5. The false charge of anti-Semitism is based on two fallacies: (1) a false assumption that the FIRM description of the Hollywood control group is a reference to all Jews, which it clearly is not and/or (2) a false assumption that this factual information about the similar backgrounds of a majority of the major studio executives (in the top three positions) is being disclosed because such persons are Jewish (an attack on the motives of the author of the study).

6. Skipping over these realities, these defenders of the status quo in Hollywood, proceeded to shift the original discussion from reform of Hollywood to personal attacks and name-calling, including ample use of the so-called anti-Semitic sword.

7. Interestingly enough, not a single responsible person of Jewish heritage has ever stepped forward at this site, so far as I can recall, and denounced these malicious and false attacks.

8. In the meantime, they have attracted the equally virulent offerings of Jim Jenks and his sometimes imaginary associates, which often go far beyond a discussion of the film industry (with writings that are not only critical of Jews generally, but of Jewish activity beyond the film industry), and then that discussion boundary has been lost on both sides.

9. We have chosen not to censor either side, although we have indicated in both instances that their remarks were not on point.

10. Someone has even gone so far as to make the laughably false assumption that those of us who originally criticized the Hollywood establishment are Christians, which is simply not true. Based on that false assumption he now posts anti-Christian diatribes. So here we have someone who thinks he sees anti-Semitism when he does not, and assumes the writing so falsely labeled is Christian in origin when it is not. That’s pretty amazing!

11. I believe I made it clear some time ago, either on this discussion or in my original writing that I share some of the characteristics of the Hollywood control group (i.e., I’m also politically liberal and not very religious, or more accurate, not religious at all, plus my heritage is also European).

12. In any case, it’s been a fascinating exercise, and I’m interested in seeing where it will go from here. I also think the posting of our original information is a positive contribution.

Best wishes,

John Cones

Re(1): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 12:15:09 AM by James Jaeger

John,

I agree with your observations and assessment of the history and state-of-affairs at the FIRM Discussion Forum.

I would also like to emphasize the point that FIRM DOES NOT TAKE A POSITION RESPECTING ANY RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE OR ANY POLITICAL PREFERENCE.

Our call is for DIVERSITY at the top of the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture and this call invites people from ALL religious preferences (or none) as well as people from any and all political and ethnic/social backgrounds. I, for the life of me, can't understand why some contributors here don't get this simple ideal.

Another thing I don't understand is why some people here can't get the fact that you and I have NO OTHER MOTIVATIONS than those stated in the FIRM Mission at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/fmission.htm. Our religions and political preference and heritage are irrelevant to FIRM's Mission, except for the fact that we both should have as much right and voice in the making of movies as the current control group has enjoyed for many decades.

Lastly, your point 7: ". . . not a single responsible person of Jewish heritage has ever stepped forward at this site, so far as I can recall, and denounced these malicious and false attacks." This is true as far as I can recall too. I would also like to add that no responsible Jewish opinion leader of any notoriety has stepped forward and DENOUNCED YOUR RESEARCH either. The reason, of course, is because they are wise enough to realize that your A POSTERIORI approach to assembling a description of the exact demographic of the Hollywood control group is valid, and that such approach has never been done before. Thus being wise, they are aware of the implications of the lack of diversity in such a powerful communications channel and I am confident that they will sooner or later do the responsible thing and acknowledge and (help) remedy this.

James Jaeger

Re(2): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 07:51:02 PM by Mitchell Levine

I'll step up to the plate and swing: as a person of partial Jewish extraction, I would like to denounce anyone who unfairly personally accuses the FIRM leadership of unwarranted charges of antisemitism.

Looking into the possiblity of discrimination at Hollywood's highest levels of administration, regardless of the fact that the administration in question is and has been largely Jewish, does not constitute antisemitism in and of itself. Given a long history of homogenity, it's certainly legitimate to examine the industry's hiring patterns to determine whether or not real, demonstrable exclusion has occurred.

The above statement does not mean that FIRM has proven that discrimination exists, or that antisemitic uses can't be made of such research. What it does mean is that such an inquiry isn't inherently bigoted or discriminatory. Although valid criticism might be made of John Cones and James Jaeger in how they execute this program, or the conclusions they draw from it, it's wrong and biased to attack them simply for investigating the issue. Jews have no more conceivably justifiable right to wrongfully discriminate in hiring than any other social group, and they should not even potentially be granted any immunity from audit for such.

Also, the site is not responsible for the remarks of people posting here - and I agree that a site condemning censorship should not at the same time promote it. Additionally, I'd like to go on record as having noted that John Cones has repudiated the bigoted posts of people like Jenks on several occasions, as can be found in the archives, and has specifically distinguished the mission of FIRM from such pursuits.

Re(3): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 15, 2003 at 06:21:19 PM by James Jaeger

I think this is a fair and level-headed comment Mitchell. You have favorably distinguished yourself in my mind from many others who have been shooting from the hip at me and John for years.

Thanks,

James Jaeger

Re(1): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 01:25:57 PM by mg

YOU SAY: In the meantime, they have attracted the equally virulent offerings of Jim Jenks and his sometimes imaginary associates"

RESPONSE: Without my presence to stir the brew at your forum, your "movement" appears to amount to nothing. The arguments, wherever they go, usually sharpen the very issues you champion.

I am no less "virulent" than you. As you point out about your detractors, you have not presented evidence refuting a single thing I've said.

Your artificial limitation of discourse here to be about "film" is ridiculous. The subject of "antisemitism" is vast and by simply stating the truths of Jewish hegemony in the film biz you are subject to continuous attack as an "antisemite."

To defend yourself, you must address "antisemitism" and herein lies the door to the essence of modern Jewish identity itself. If you do not open this door, you are subject to an avalanche of accusation from Jewish fraudsters and you would have NO DEFENSE whatsoever if all discussion here must be literally "related to film."

As long as you ignore my posts, I will ignore yours. If you criticize me, I will criticize you.


Also, per the "imaginary" associates, what exactly do you mean? Are you insinuating that 1) I am in cahoots with others who have posted here, or 2) that they are fictitious individuals?

Re(2): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 07:00:59 PM by mg

By the way. I underscore the fact that two of the most interesting posters lately -- Sisu and Eire -- are not me. Not only are they not my posts, I did not solicit them. Welcome though!

It is not only I who is delving into these issues of Jewish hegemony. It is a sign of the times. Let's hope this investigation spreads quickly.

Re(3): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 08:16:19 AM by Anonymous

Well, your bullshit has spread quickly!

BWCA
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 09:33:03 PM by Sisu

Mr. Cones, I understand you want to keep the discussion to strictly to the film industry, but we can’t. There are other areas of study that are relevant.

Gone canoeing.

Re(2): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 03:03:10 PM by Mitchell Levine

He's refuted your arguments on numerous occasions, as has everyone else. You're just too embarassed or delusional to admit it.

Re(1): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 12:51:18 AM by George Shelps





4. Since the facts show that Hollywood is controlled

___The fact do NOT show that.

by political liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage,

___The facts only show that this group
is large and influential, not that
it "controls" Hollywood or movie-making.

most, if not all of those people who do not like this result being openly disclosed or discussed, take the position that such disclosures are "anti-Semitic", when it reality, it is merely a factual observation. In other words, the false anti-Semitism charge overlooks the reality that it is simply being reported as a fact and as part of a larger overall study of what is really going on in Hollywood.

___I have never accused FIRM of anti-semitism. But I do think the premise of "diversity" is wrongly
applied to ethnic status in a private
industry.

There's no guarantee that
a diversity of ethnicities is going to
provide a diversity of values and there's nothing illegal or immoral
about people hiring other people on the basis of having some affinity with
them that raises the comfort-level
and harmony of the enterprise.


7. Interestingly enough, not a single responsible person of Jewish heritage has ever stepped forward at this site, so far as I can recall, and denounced these malicious and false attacks.

8. In the meantime, they have attracted

___"They" have attracted? "They?"
On the contrary, Jenks is attracted
by your "control group" hypothesis
which he adapts to his own hateful
use.



the equally virulent offerings of Jim Jenks and his sometimes imaginary associates, which often go far beyond a discussion of the film industry (with writings that are not only critical of Jews generally, but of Jewish activity beyond the film industry), and then that discussion boundary has been lost on both sides.

9. We have chosen not to censor either side, although we have indicated in both instances that their remarks were not on point.

___I personally resent being morally
equated with Jenks.

Re(2): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 08:32:01 PM by Mitchell Levine

But again, George, you are singling that element out. The lack of diversity is expressed in the ENTIRE demographic, not in just ONE element of it. WHY can't you get this? It's the repetitiveness and effect of the ENTIRE DEMOGRAPHIC that gives potency to the lack of diversity. In other words -- as I have said MANY, MANY times -- IT'S NOT JEWS. If the "control group" consisted of . . . Conservative, Orthodox, JEWISH, males, Moderate, non-religious, JEWISH, females and liberal, religious, JEWISH, males . . . it would be MUCH more diverse, hence the element of being Jewish would be an influence on the other factors.

- That's pretty unreasonable, Jim. Few conservative and virtually no orthodox Jews would ever enter the film business for reasons having little to do with discrimination on the part of the studios.

>There's no guarantee. . .

I love it when people use this qualifying superlative, "guarantee," in their arguments. It makes whatever one says "safe" because there ARE no guarantees in life. It's like the use of the word "exactly."

- This doesn't have much to do with George's point and you know it.

Just do exactly what I say and you will not go wrong. He went wrong, so the "reason" he went wrong was because he didn't do it "exactly." L. Ron Hubbard uses this kind of a mental 2 x 4 all the time in "Scientology Technology." Translated to "Hollywood Technology" -- if your movie doesn't get made, it's because the screenplay "isn't good enough" or "what we're looking for." Hollywood uses these mental 2 x 4s in ITS technology as "reasons" non-insiders didn't get the development deal yet the reasons the insiders (executive's wives and current girlfriends, etc.,) DID get the development deal is because the screenplay or the package is "brilliant and original."

- As you yourself said, you have no evidence that any discrimination or homogenity is happening at this level. As you know there's people of all backgrounds working in the business in these capacities. If that isn't so, let's see some evidence to the contrary.


True. No one is SAYING that a diversity of ETHNICITY will do it. What we're saying is that a DIVERSITY, period, will do it. Conservatives. Women. New people. Moderates. Asians. Scientists. Teachers. African Americans. Muslims. Born Again Christians. Midgets. Film Critics. Women with real breasts. Medical Doctors. 18 year-old-boys. People who don't wear sunglasses. Farmers who don't fly on jets. Why can't some of THESE people run studios?

- Jim, have you really thought this through? The appropriate answer to the question is: because there's virtually no one qualified and experienced enough to run a studio representing most of the above groups. You certainly wouldn't think that "farmers who won't fly," or most of the rest would be qualified to run Ford Motors or Kodak, and running a studio is at least as demanding. You can't expect a corporation to hire someone without substantial experience and proper qualifications to run it. It would be different if you were just discussing a low or mid-level staff or executive position.

And YOU GONNA TELL ME that if you have THIS kind of diversity in the top-most studio levels the movies would STILL have the same FLAVOR they have right now. The only "studio" movies that have even a FLAVOR of ORIGINALITY are the movies that were independently produced and got negative pick up deals from a studio; foreign films that breakout in America or films made by new filmmakers that somehow got word-of-mouth multi-million-dollar popularity or distribution and then were "noticed" by the majors as "brilliant and original."

- The fact is that you are talking about huge investments upon which many lives are riding. A project with a $100 million budget cannot be put in production just because someone thinks it would be cool. That would be irresponsible, and many real people could be seriously hurt. That's why studios have to be conservative, and independents exist.

>___"They" have attracted? "They?"
On the contrary, Jenks is attracted
by your "control group" hypothesis
which he adapts to his own hateful
use.

Jenk's is addressing a broader study of Jewish hegemony in general and saying that Jewish hegemony in the movie business intersects with, and is consistent with, the his broader study.
On this, Jenks MAY or MAY NOT be correct, but he has a right to be heard and the issues, as they relate specifically to the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry, have a place in the debate on what INFLUENCE the ELEMENT of being Jewish may or may NOT have on the CONTROL GROUP.

- Jim, as should be obvious from both his posts and his site, Jenks is simply a delirious, raving bigot, and it's disturbing that you don't seem to notice that. This is a guy who complains that Hitler has been unfairly "demonized." He is NOT operating in the field of legitimate criticism. He is attempting to villify and stigmatize an entire social group uniformly. You are even picking up his buzzwords like "Jewish hegemony," as if the Constitution allowed denying someone their liberties on the basis of ethnicity, or even codifies the idea that "democracy" means "proportionate ethnic representation," instead of individual rights like the Founding Fathers said.

Lastly, FIRM is not concerned with Jewish hegemony or the study of Judaism and does not say, or imply, that Jews in general, in any way, control the movie industry.

- It's nice that you at least say so directly.


Re(3): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 15, 2003 at 06:39:38 PM by James Jaeger

>- Jim, have you really thought this through? The appropriate answer to the question is: because there's virtually no one qualified and experienced enough to run a studio representing most of the above groups. You certainly wouldn't think that "farmers who won't fly," or most of the rest would be qualified to run Ford Motors or Kodak, and running a studio is at least as demanding. You can't expect a corporation to hire someone without substantial experience and proper qualifications to run it. It would be different if you were just discussing a low or mid-level staff or executive position.

Mitchell, this may sound a little crazy to you, but running a movie studio really isn't that difficult. The cashflow of the studio really comes mostly from selecting the correct projects. The fact that the people that run studios are so insular and inbred makes them such a liability that almost any farmer who was in touch with America would do better. You've heard the old saying: There's no business like show business.

>- The fact is that you are talking about huge investments upon which many lives are riding. A project with a $100 million budget cannot be put in production just because someone thinks it would be cool.

They are all the time. Usually the people that think such a project is cool is totally out of touch with reality. Hence so many un-cool and hackneyed movies coming from Hollywood.

>That would be irresponsible, and many real people could be seriously hurt.

Well that's what I'm sure the executives want you to believe. Just like they want you to believe that "movies are risky." Have you read FATAL SUBTRACTION?

>That's why studios have to be conservative, and independents exist.

Conservative about who they keep in power, liberal on what kind of junk they put out.

>- Jim, as should be obvious from both his posts and his site, Jenks is simply a delirious, raving bigot, and it's disturbing that you don't seem to notice that.

What I notice is that he has done his research just like you have done yours and both of you deserve to have your ideas placed into the "global brain" for universal computation.

James Jaeger

Define Influence
Posted on July 14, 2003 at 07:38:15 PM by James Jaeger

>___The facts only show that this group
is large and influential, not that
it "controls" Hollywood or movie-making.

Okay, why don't you tell me exactly what you mean by "influence."

>___I have never accused FIRM of anti-semitism. But I do think the premise of "diversity" is wrongly
applied to ethnic status in a private
industry.

But again, George, you are singling that element out. The lack of diversity is expressed in the ENTIRE demographic, not in just ONE element of it. WHY can't you get this? It's the repetitiveness and effect of the ENTIRE DEMOGRAPHIC that gives potency to the lack of diversity. In other words -- as I have said MANY, MANY times -- IT'S NOT JEWS. If the "control group" consisted of . . . Conservative, Orthodox, JEWISH, males, Moderate, non-religious, JEWISH, females and liberal, religious, JEWISH, males . . . it would be MUCH more diverse, hence the element of being Jewish would be an influence on the other factors.

>There's no guarantee. . .

I love it when people use this qualifying superlative, "guarantee," in their arguments. It makes whatever one says "safe" because there ARE no guarantees in life. It's like the use of the word "exactly."

Just do exactly what I say and you will not go wrong. He went wrong, so the "reason" he went wrong was because he didn't do it "exactly." L. Ron Hubbard uses this kind of a mental 2 x 4 all the time in "Scientology Technology." Translated to "Hollywood Technology" -- if your movie doesn't get made, it's because the screenplay "isn't good enough" or "what we're looking for." Hollywood uses these mental 2 x 4s in ITS technology as "reasons" non-insiders didn't get the development deal yet the reasons the insiders (executive's wives and current girlfriends, etc.,) DID get the development deal is because the screenplay or the package is "brilliant and original."

Of course there are many words and terms that Hollywood needs to better-define.

>... that a diversity of ethnicities is going to provide a diversity of values

True. No one is SAYING that a diversity of ETHNICITY will do it. What we're saying is that a DIVERSITY, period, will do it. Conservatives. Women. New people. Moderates. Asians. Scientists. Teachers. African Americans. Muslims. Born Again Christians. Midgets. Film Critics. Women with real breasts. Medical Doctors. 18 year-old-boys. People who don't wear sunglasses. Farmers who don't fly on jets. Why can't some of THESE people run studios?

And YOU GONNA TELL ME that if you have THIS kind of diversity in the top-most studio levels the movies would STILL have the same FLAVOR they have right now. The only "studio" movies that have even a FLAVOR of ORIGINALITY are the movies that were independently produced and got negative pick up deals from a studio; foreign films that breakout in America or films made by new filmmakers that somehow got word-of-mouth multi-million-dollar popularity or distribution and then were "noticed" by the majors as "brilliant and original."

>and there's nothing illegal or immoral
about people hiring other people on the basis of having some affinity with
them that raises the comfort-level
and harmony of the enterprise.

Maybe not, but taken to excess and over long enough period of time this becomes a cause of action on the grounds that discriminatory practices are rampant.

>___"They" have attracted? "They?"
On the contrary, Jenks is attracted
by your "control group" hypothesis
which he adapts to his own hateful
use.

Jenk's is addressing a broader study of Jewish hegemony in general and saying that Jewish hegemony in the movie business intersects with, and is consistent with, the his broader study.
On this, Jenks MAY or MAY NOT be correct, but he has a right to be heard and the issues, as they relate specifically to the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry, have a place in the debate on what INFLUENCE the ELEMENT of being Jewish may or may NOT have on the CONTROL GROUP.

Lastly, FIRM is not concerned with Jewish hegemony or the study of Judaism and does not say, or imply, that Jews in general, in any way, control the movie industry.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Define Influence
Posted on July 15, 2003 at 01:37:12 AM by George Shelps


>___The facts only show that this group
is large and influential, not that
it "controls" Hollywood or movie-making.
Okay, why don't you tell me exactly what you mean by "influence."

___I mean a powerful force that exerts
pressure, but which can---and is---resisted by strong-willed opposition.


>___I have never accused FIRM of anti-semitism. But I do think the premise of "diversity" is wrongly
applied to ethnic status in a private
industry.

But again, George, you are singling that element out. The lack of diversity is expressed in the ENTIRE demographic, not in just ONE element of it. WHY can't you get this?

__Because not all the influences
are equal and ethnicity overlaps
politics and religion---even the
idea of male dominance can be
linked to a patriarchal ethnic
heritage.


It's the repetitiveness and effect of the ENTIRE DEMOGRAPHIC that gives potency to the lack of diversity. In other words -- as I have said MANY, MANY times -- IT'S NOT JEWS. If the "control group" consisted of . . . Conservative, Orthodox, JEWISH, males, Moderate, non-religious, JEWISH, females and liberal, religious, JEWISH, males . . . it would be MUCH more diverse, hence the element of being Jewish would be an influence on the other factors.

__Why? Whatever group was the dominant
group would still be considered a
'control group" by you and Cones.

Your idea of "diversity" is ridiculous...it can't exist...what shall
we have, a game of "musical diversity
chairs" where a new "control group"
moves in every time the music stops?

Your battle-cry of "diversity" seems to be just a smokescreen for ousting those
in power and replacing them with people
compatible with YOUR values.


>... that a diversity of ethnicities is going to provide a diversity of values

True. No one is SAYING that a diversity of ETHNICITY will do it. What we're saying is that a DIVERSITY, period, will do it. Conservatives. Women. New people. Moderates. Asians. Scientists. Teachers. African Americans. Muslims. Born Again Christians. Midgets. Film Critics. Women with real breasts. Medical Doctors. 18 year-old-boys. People who don't wear sunglasses. Farmers who don't fly on jets. Why can't some of THESE people run studios?

___They can. By all means, let them
try.

And YOU GONNA TELL ME that if you have THIS kind of diversity in the top-most studio levels the movies would STILL have the same FLAVOR they have right now. The only "studio" movies that have even a FLAVOR of ORIGINALITY are the movies that were independently produced and got negative pick up deals from a studio; foreign films that breakout in America or films made by new filmmakers that somehow got word-of-mouth multi-million-dollar popularity or distribution and then were "noticed" by the majors as "brilliant and original."

__The problem lies in the fact that movies cost so much to make now that
they have become marketing driven by
the lowest common denominator more than ever before.

>___"They" have attracted? "They?"
On the contrary, Jenks is attracted
by your "control group" hypothesis
which he adapts to his own hateful
use.

Jenk's is addressing a broader study of Jewish hegemony in general and saying that Jewish hegemony in the movie business intersects with, and is consistent with, the his broader study.

__"His broader study?" You mean, his hate site, don't you?

On this, Jenks MAY or MAY NOT be correct, but he has a right to be heard and the issues, as they relate specifically to the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry, have a place in the debate on what INFLUENCE the ELEMENT of being Jewish may or may NOT have on the CONTROL GROUP.

___He has a right to be heard but not
a right to be taken seriously. The fact that you take a virulent anti-semite seriously discredits the whole enterprise of FIRM.


Re(2): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 01:30:29 PM by mg

YOU SAY: I personally resent being morally equated with Jenks.

RESPONSE: You are moral amoeba, and are about 5,000 tiers beneath a vampire worm. It is an insult that your dirty racist, bigoted, hypocritical propagandistic scrawlings include my pseudonym.

Please stand out in the hall.

Re(3): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 02:48:06 PM by Ralphie

YOU SAY: You are moral amoeba, and are about 5,000 tiers beneath a vampire worm. It is an insult that your dirty racist, bigoted, hypocritical propagandistic scrawlings include my pseudonym.

RESPONSE: 5000 tiers beneath a vampire worm? I don't know Jimmy, that's about as clever a comeback as "I know you are, but what am I?" Typical!

Re(4): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 05:09:25 PM by Mitchell Levine

It's interesting how his description of George Shelps' supposed character reveals that the Jews function in his consciousness as a mirror in which he sees himself reflected.

The statement would be honest, if it were a self-inventory on his part.

Re(5): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 06:53:11 PM by mg

You declare yourself to be an editor, you've criticized my typos as if they were anything substantial, and you have underscored your writing brilliance as part of your wonderous intellect, complete with a previous list of pedigree.

What does the following sentence of yours mean?

"It's interesting how his description of George Shelps' supposed character reveals that the Jews function in his consciousness as a mirror in which he sees himself reflected."

Your ambiguously referenced "he's" and "his's" guarantee that your sentence is impenetrable.

All anyone can tell is that you're on some weird psychobabble trip, which is no surprise.

Re(6): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:11:14 PM by Ralphie

YAWN! MG you are so boring.

Re(7): Discussion To Date
Posted on July 13, 2003 at 08:20:49 PM by Anonymous

All 12-year olds, please exit this forum.