THE JEWS OF PRIME TIME
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 12:19:15 AM by WM

THE JEWS OF PRIME TIME
By David Zurawik

http://www.jbooks.com/nonfiction/NF_Crasnik_Prn.htm

"America, by and large, hates the Jews..."

If psychotherapy earned frequent flyer miles, I’d be eligible for a free trip to Pluto. Self-censorship has been a central issue in my own life. It’s the sense that if anyone knows the fullness of your identity and background, you will lose everything. David Zurawik’s new book, The Jews of Prime Time, is like a history lesson whose protagonist is self-censorship; it’s the story of the Jews in Hollywood who, nine times out of ten, refuse to write about or portray Jews. What sounds like a Who’s Who of Television quickly changes channels into a who’s not who.
Zurawik applies his skills as a TV critic and Ph.D. in American Studies to answer a seemingly simple question: In an industry dominated by Jews, why are there so few self-identified Jewish characters on TV? What began as a two year project evolved into a ten year process in which Zurawik conducted over a hundred interviews with Jewish executives, writers, producers, and actors working in TV land. The end result is a clear and sharp picture of the unwritten rules of the tube with the camera pointed at the people behind the screen.
The Jews Of Prime Time takes us back in time, introducing us to the founding fathers of electronic media. Movie pioneers like Louis B. Mayer, Sam Goldwyn and Harry Cohn begat network moguls William S. Paley, David Sarnoff, and Leonard Goldenson. These founding fathers were the original Not Ready for Prime Time Players—many were immigrants who were no strangers to anti-Semitism. They set their sights on assimilation and success.
As Marshall Herskovitz (co-creator of Thirtysomething, My So Called Life and Once and Again) relates: "The Louis B. Mayer’s of the world carefully scrubbed out any ethnicity…They were trying to create a world that America would accept"—a world, the assumption ran, without Jews.
Zurawik takes us behind closed doors to meetings where old phrases like "Write Yiddish, cast British" lassoed many a Jewish writer. And of course, there’s the infamous "CBS research." Allan Burns and Jim Brooks once met with executives at CBS to pitch The Mary Tyler Moore Show. They were told about the researchwhich clearly showed that American viewers did not want to see people from New York, men with mustaches, and Jews. The executives telling this to Burns and Brooks were Jewish men from New York with mustaches. No such research has ever been documented—but that didn’t stop TV executives, usually Jewish ones, from relying on it for decades.
There were, of course, rare exceptions to the eradication of Jewishness from the airwaves. One example was Gertrude Berg’s popular series The Goldbergs; an unprecedented episode focused entirely on Yom Kippur, complete with a six minute Kol Nidre scene in a synagogue. The year was 1954. America would not see another leading Jewish character in a prime time series for eighteen years.
Bridget Loves Bernie premiered in 1972 and after only one season an outraged Jewish community got the show canceled. They objected to the comic approach to the serious subject of intermarriage, and to the portrayal of the Jewish family characters as inferior to their rich WASP counterparts. The show remains the highest rated program ever canceled, and a powerful example of how different the Jews on TV have often been from the Jews watching it.
Years later, breakthrough characters like Michael Steadman of Thirtysomething and Dr. Joel Fleischman of Northern Exposure began to appear, in part because the founding fathers had sold their networks in the mid-80’s—it turned out that the new non-Jewish owners were less sensitive to Jewish characters. Still, truly Jewish themes remain rare. Notable have been shows like Brooklyn Bridge and State Of Grace, which centered on Jewish family life. Seinfeld was in a class by itself in terms of popularity and the comedian didn’t change his Jewishy name, but the late NBC President Brandon Tartikoff only gave it a four episode commitment and insisted that the Larry David-created character of George Costanza be Italian (at least officially).
While exploring this history of self-repression, Zurawik also turns a spotlight on the familiar categories prime time Jewish characters seem to fall into when they do appear: the funny, yet not so attractive sidekick (see Rhoda Morgenstern, Buddy Sirell, George Costanza); the overbearing crazy mothers (Ida Morgenstern, Sylvia Fine, Mrs. Costanza); and a host of Jewish American Princesses, silent husbands, and many neurotic-obsessives who can’t take care of themselves. Good luck finding a married Jewish couple on TV—if anything, prime time teaches that marrying a Gentile solves everything, as demonstrated by Bridget Loves Bernie, The Nanny, and Mad About You. Of course, sitcom characters are meant to be flawed and eccentric, not models for real life; that’s what makes them funny. Still, though the climate has changed, the above freaks and loudmouths are still the rule when it comes to Jews on TV, rather than the exception.
Why? A friend of mine from New York (not with a mustache) suggested to me that TV shows about Jews will never sell because anti-Semitism is still as strong as ever and America, by and large, hates the Jews. And the Jews who go into TV are there to make money, so they won’t fight the trend. I guess there is no business like show business—at times, everything about it is appalling. I still admire and remain touched by those, many of whom are interviewed and profiled in Prime Time Jews, who try to break the implied rules and create entertainment that will touch people deeply and change the way they think

"America, by and large, hates the Jews"
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 08:29:45 PM by Sisu

Ben Stein writes: "The typical Hollywood writer . . . is of an ethnic background from a large Eastern city—usually from Brooklyn [i.e., they have a Jewish background]. He grew up being taught that people in small towns hated him, were different from him, and were out to get him [i.e., small town people are anti-Semites]. As a result, when he gets the chance, he attacks the small town on television or the movies. . . ."

Re(1):
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 10:22:20 PM by Ralphie

So your saying everyone for Brooklyn is Jewish? You're way off!

If you're going to quote something, quote it correctly then give your opinion. When you right it the way you did, it is misleading and dishonest.

The Hollywood Establishment
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 04:38:52 PM by James Jaeger

To: JOHN LONGENECKER, DGA

John,

Regarding the Hollywood Establishment. I had lunch with a gentleman yesterday
who was in from Hollywood and who has produced a number of features -- what
George Shelps would call a real "Hollywood producer" -- and he had some very interesting observations to relate about the industry. And forgive me if I don't mention his name as I don't think it would be appropriate.

He said that the Establishment of Hollywood does definitely function like a "club" and if you get into it, you are basically paid to keep your mouth shut and to blindly support it. He said that Hollywood is known as the "yes town" because almost everyone in the Control Group will take meetings (say
"yes" to them) with outsiders and virtually anyone because they are interested doing two things:

1. Hearing every possible idea they can to make sure none have fallen between the cracks. These ideas are then stolen and worked into screenplays by the Control Group's roster of development executives and approved writers.

2. Stringing you, your idea or screenplay along so that you are, in essence, taken out of circulation so none of their competitors can be exposed to your idea. Meanwhile they are proceeding with 1 above.

John, would you say this is an accurate description of your experience with
WARNER BROS. a number of years back, and if so, will you, or will you allow me to, post confirmation at http://www.b2g4.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=FilmReform so that others may benefit from your experiences? You don't have to use your real name.

James

Re(1): The Hollywood Establishment
Posted on July 17, 2003 at 04:47:06 PM by John Longenecker

James

At 20th Century Fox, I brought in a project with a director attached.
The director (Nick Castle) and I had a long relationship based on friendship.
So, the project went ahead well.
Fox was eager to work with the director.
I was accepted as the Producer of the project.
My Producer Agreement was fair and reasonable.
A script was developed and paid for by Fox.
The picture was not made.


At Warner Bros.
I brought in a project with a writer attached.
The writer was John Briley ("GHANDI")
and Warner Bros. was interested in working with John Briley.
Warner Bros. was also interested in the story for my Project.

The problem I had at Warner Bros.
is simply that I failed (my attorney failed) to write up a letter of understanding with John Briley prior to bringing the project to Warner Bros.
-- Story by John LONGENECKER
-- Screenplay by John Briley
-- Producer: John Longenecker


Warner Bros. wanted to work with John Briley and paid him $400,000 to write a screenplay for my project
-- based on NO STORY.
-- As if John Briley was the "writer."
-- Writer: story & screenplay


Warner Bros. never finalized a written agreement with me as a producer.
They offered terms for a Producer Agreement that were acceptable,
but when the agreement document drafts arrived, the producer deal
was NOT based on any underlying story rights.

So, the Producer Agreement documents would provide for compensation as agreed, and on-screen credit as agreed,
but then in later provisions Warner Bros. could elect not to utilize my services, and thus there would be no further payment, and no on-screen credit.

Give it provisions 1 to 10. Take it all away in provisions 11 to 20.

John Briley had no interest in supporting my rights and position as a producer.

John Briley's agent at ICM had no interest in supporting my rights and position as a producer.

No one at Warner Bros. had an interest in supporting my rights and position as a producer.
My own attorney had no interest in supporting my rights and position as a
producer, -- he just kept on billing me for talking with folks at Warner Bros. -- over $18,000

Hollywood Producer Club
No, Warner Bros. had no interest in my becoming a member of the Hollywood Producer Club.

Hollywood Producer Club
Talented writers, producers, directors, actors and even executive types become members of the Hollywood club every day.
They are from all sorts of backgrounds,
from all over the USA and around the world.

No. I do not know how they do it. Not at all.

Hollywood Producer Club
"if you get into it, you are basically paid to keep your mouth shut and to blindly support it."

No. I do not agree that "if you get into it, you are basically paid to keep your mouth shut and to blindly support it."

Hollywood Producer Club
I do believe that somehow your work
provides membership into the club -- sometimes. I do not know how it works.

Douglas Wick is a successful producer
Douglas Wick is a member of the Hollywood Producer Club.

I knew Doug Wick back in high school.

All I know about Doug is that he is bright, well educated, works hard, and has been a successful producer.

-- Working Girl -- Stewart Little -- Gladiator | http://us.imdb.com/Name?Wick,+Douglas+(I) |

JOHN LONGENECKER, DGA
Director / Cinematographer
| http://JohnLongenecker.com/ |

James -- you can post this if not edited
and you can include my name if printed
exactly as above.

How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 10:50:36 AM by John Cones

The following is excerpted from "How The Movie Wars Were Won":

Conclusion--In addition to the numerous unfavorable provisions of the feature film distribution deal imposed on the rest of the film community by the major studio/distributors, this book explores some 114 specific tactics that have been used by these same studios and their associates during the nearly 90-year history of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry to gain and maintain their control of the Hollywood empire. These include:

Chapter 1

1. Abusing the law of supply and demand;
2. Involvement in acquisition, development and production financing;
3. Imposing excessive controls in conjunction with financing;
4. Extracting unconscionable amounts for distribution expenses;
5. Overstating distribution expenses;
6. Providing favored treatment for their own productions as opposed to independent films;
7. More aggressively collecting revenues for their own films as opposed to independent's;
8. Consistently failing to properly implement the terms of the distribution agreements;
9. Misinterpretation of the distribution agreement terms in favor of the distributor;
10. Limiting their film choices to certain time-worn genres;
11. Opting for sequels instead of more creative films;
12. Cross collateralizing an entire slate of films even when not authorized to do so;
13. Using wide releases to take the public's money before bad word-of-mouth gets out;
14. Wasting huge amounts of money in development;
15. Using development deals to take competing projects off the market;
16. Using the turnaround transaction to shift moneys back and forth between studios;
17. Shamelessly promoting the star system to the American public;
18. Exploiting stars for commercial gain;
19. Raiding the talent of competitors;
20. Cooperating with the agencies in utilizing packaged deals;
21. Studio executives accepting loans from producers who make films for the same studio;
22. Studio executives cashing checks written for certain stars;
23. Hiring a screenwriting represented by the studio executives wife;
24. Using films to promote other businesses;
25. Tying up most of the major law firms in Los Angeles with studio business, thus preventing the use of their services by others;
26. Agent involvement in film finance;
27. Hiring attorneys as in-house counsel and continuing to use the attorney's outside firm;
28. Attorney packaging ;
29. Law firms pressuring their own attorneys to improperly represent the interests of their clients;
30. Ignoring well-established ethical standards for attorneys;
31. Engaging in rampant nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, blacklisting and other forms of discrimination;
32. Participating in an insider's executive shuffle among the studios;
33. Utilizing the threat of the executive mass exodus to retain studio control;
34. Arbitrarily excluding outsiders from the social activities that lead to advancement;
35. Regularly engaging in reciprocal preferences with other Hollywood insiders;
36. Artificially inflating the cost of film production for self-serving reasons;
37. Paying excessive studio executive compensation;

Chapter 2

38. Utilizing the power of censorship for commercial purposes;
39. Inconsistently applying rating standards with respect to violence and sex;
40. Providing preferential treatment for MPAA company films at ratings time;
41. Failing to provide adequate information to prospective parents regarding film content;
42. Studio suppression of films for various reasons;
43. Allowing Jewish interest groups, and no others, to effectively censor films;

Chapter 3

44. Consistently engaging in antitrust law violations throughout the history of the industry;
45. Engaging in anti-competitive practices by means of vertical integration;

46. Using massive political campaign contributions to influence government law enforcement policy;
47. Continuing the practice of block booking through the use of the blockbuster strategy;
48. Using blind bidding and other more contemporary techniques to place independent theatres at a competitive disadvantage;
49. Squeezing independent films off the desirable screens through the use of the wide release;
50. Using so-called standard form contracts that are contracts of adhesion and contain numerous unconscionable provisions;

Chapter 4

51. Engaging in discriminatory practices directed towards Hollywood outsiders;
52. Operating as a shared monopoly;
53. Destroying the lives and careers of some of the most talented filmmakers;
54. Using the trade press and other publications to defame Hollywood outsiders;
55. Using the trade press to spread harmful rumor and innuendo;
56. Rewriting history in books and articles about these same Hollywood outsiders;
57. Falsely accusing Hollywood outsiders and film industry critics of being anti-Semitic;
58. Misleading the public about the complexity of the McCarthy era;
59. Accusing Congressional investigators of being anti-Semitic;
60. Stealing ideas for films, stealing scripts and stealing profits;
61. Using the early censorship offices to deny approval to competing films;
62. Rushing similar films to production to interfere with the prospective success of others;
63. Refusing to offer the same level of cooperation among studios depending on which one was owned by the outsider;
64. Making false accusations of theft;
65. Repeatedly cheating profit participants out of film revenues;
66. Fraudulently misrepresenting the ability of talent to extract exorbitant sums from competitors;
67. Failure to provide distribution support for the films of unfavored producers;
68. Intimidation of talent to prevent them from working for outsider controlled studios;
69. Using influence to suppress unfavorable stories in the press;
70. Using mob connections to force the loan of talent;
71. Hypocritically criticizing an outsider for engaging in the same conduct as other studios;
72. Wrongfully criticizing the motives of outsider producers;
73. Engaging in malicious whisper campaigns directed toward outsiders;
74. Bad mouthing prospective studio purchasers in attempts to prevent purchases by outsiders;
75. Executive interference with a studio owner's right to run the studio;
76. Criticizing films that reflect a more conservative political view;
77. Routinely overcharging outsiders for the services of actors and actresses under contract;
78. Using block booking and other tactics to prevent wider releases for unfavored films;
79. Crediting employees for victories but the outsider studio head for the studio's mistakes;
80. Denying an outsider the ability to purchase raw film stock;
81. Discriminating against Mormons and other non-Jewish religious groups;
82. Accusing outsiders of being involved with organized crime;
83. Pressuring studio executives out for refusal to purchase the inflated agency packages;
84. Using the false allegation of anti-Semitism to damage the credibility of film industry critics;
85. Attempting to carve out a class of people in our society that are above criticism;
86. Regularly engaging in discrimination directed against all non-Hollywood insiders;

Chapter 5

87. Refusing to provide reliable statistical information about the industry;
88. Using its power and control over the press to perpetuate numerous myths about the industry;
89. Engaging in blatantly misleading advertising with respect to films;
90. Using the studio's relationship with film critics to obtain favorable advertising blurbs;
91. Constantly proclaiming that the industry will be destroyed whenever anyone proposes something that does not favor the studios;
92. Using the false argument that simply because something occurs in real life it is appropriate to show it on the screen;
93. Constantly claiming that Hollywood outsiders do not understand the film business;
94. Repeatedly misrepresenting that films are merely entertainment;
95. Refusing to accept that films influence human behavior;
96. Trying to shift the blame for children's behavior to the incompetence of parents;
97. Making the false claim that movies merely reflect society;
98. Regularly crying about violations of their free speech rights when the same rights of
others are repeatedly being violated by the Hollywood system;
99. Falsely claiming significant financial benefits for the national economy when movie revenues only benefit a small insular group of people;
100. Using the censorship smokescreen to distract people's attention from the real issues in Hollywood;
101. Using the Academy Awards to promote MPAA films;
102. Using the "winners must pay for losers" concept to justify grand larceny;
103. Falsely claiming that distributors take all of the economic or other risk;
104. Misleading the public about why film companies fail;
105. Misleading people in the film industry into thinking that "there are no rules";
106. Encouraging film schools to turn out more film students when there is no need;
107. Suggesting that there is no racial discrimination in script selection;
108. Falsely claiming that the film industry is anything close to actually being a free market;

Chapter 6

109. Regularly failing to properly account for film revenues to profit participants;
110. Consistently offering significantly less than the amount contractually due in settlements;
111. Interfering with the ability of profit participation auditors to effectively conduct audits;
112. Refusing to settle litigation for reasonable amounts;
113. Dragging litigation out over extended periods of time; and
114. Requiring litigants to sign gag orders in order to settle.

John Cones

Re(1): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 08:14:04 PM by Mitchell Levine

It's clear to me that some of these charges are good and relevant ones, and several of them are beyond the scope of my knowledge of the law. However, more than a few are, in my opinion, bogus.

For example,

10. Limiting their film choices to certain time-worn genres;

-Considering the fact that this one applies equally to Greek and Elizabethan drama, and, actually, entertainment throughout history, it's kind of hard to understand how this would constitute an specifically unfair practice on the part of Hollywood.

Opting for sequels instead of more creative films;

- This is just good business, and is really difficult to pin specifically on Hollywood per se. Sequels generate profits that can be re-invested in "more creative films." Besides, how is this "unfair practice?" It's certainly something the independents could do if they wish. Are you suggesting that the studios should somehow be penalized for having more successful films that can be franchised? Why should they not have the freedom to determine whether they want to shoot a new potential franchise or capitalize on an old one? What justification could possibly be given for forcing their hand that way. When independents are able to create films with enough juice TO spin off, they do, like, for example, The Gods Must be Crazy II, or The Rise and Fall of Western Civilization: the Metal Years.

13. Using wide releases to take the public's money before bad word-of-mouth gets out;

- How's this an unfair practice, unless your contending that it's "unfair" the studios have wider distribution channels? Is it unfair to Alternative Tentacles that Dreamworks has a larger record distribution chain? Perhaps you're suggesting that promoting a movie audiences decide they don't like is a violation of Truth in Advertising?

17. Shamelessly promoting the star system to the American public;

- As if anyone ever had to "promote" this concept to the public? It's a human universal, extant in every form of entertainment in every era known to Man. Besides, it's certainly not "unfair practice," as independents do exactly the same; they may not have access to the stars that the studios do, but they do their best to develop their own. What alternative would studios have? Are you suggesting that it would be more evenhanded if the studios were therefore forced to cast every film with unknowns?

32. Participating in an insider's executive shuffle among the studios;

- In what industries are the highest executive offices considered to be entry-level positions? Expecting your top administrators to have relevant experience is a completely reasonable qualification for hire.

34. Arbitrarily excluding outsiders from the social activities that lead to advancement;

- In what industries do top management generally host social events for guests they don't know?

37. Paying excessive studio executive compensation;

- How is this to be determined, and how is it any more disproportionate than compensation for executives in similar corporate positions

41. Failing to provide adequate information to prospective parents regarding film content;

- Exactly what information are they supposed to be giving parents that they are not? These days a fairly detailed set of descriptics are generally displayed with a rating. Isn't that what reviews are for anyhow? In the internet age, there's numerous sites with reviews for parents.

76. Criticizing films that reflect a more conservative political view;

- Everyone has a right to do this, if they wish. It's guaranteed in the Constitution.

81. Discriminating against Mormons and other non-Jewish religious groups;

- You've never produced even the slightest evidence that this was true.

85. Attempting to carve out a class of people in our society that are above criticism;

- And what is your benchmark to distinguish "legitimate criticism" of all Jews everywhere from antisemitism, or do you think the latter does not exist?

89. Engaging in blatantly misleading advertising with respect to films;

- What are they supposed to do? Run blurbs like "Pauline Kael says: 'Zero stars! This thing blows!'" Opinions of this nature are rather subjective.

96. Trying to shift the blame for children's behavior to the incompetence of parents;

- Do you have kids? Where you ever a child? Nothing could possibly be more ridiculous than to suggest that blame for the "misbehavior" of children should be shifted from parents to the movies. Parents, not Creative Artists Agency, have the responsibility to raise kids.

98. Regularly crying about violations of their free speech rights when the same rights of
others are repeatedly being violated by the Hollywood system;

- You've never presented the slightest evidence whatsoever that free speech rights are being violated by the studios, nor will you ever. People do not have the 1st amendment right to have their films produced, released, and distributed, nor could they ever. Screenwriters sign away their rights when they sell their scripts. Your argument here is inane.

104. Misleading the public about why film companies fail;

How does anyone have the "right" to know why a company failed?

106. Encouraging film schools to turn out more film students when there is no need;

- Exactly how is it certain that there's no need? The new does have to replace the old, and every generation has its new ideas. Why would the film industry have any more of a reponsibility to discourage young people from studying their craft, than the Bar Association would to discourage law students?

107. Suggesting that there is no racial discrimination in script selection;

- You haven't demonstrated that there is any "racial discrimination" in script selection.

Re(2): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 11:26:26 PM by James Jaeger

>>96. Trying to shift the blame for children's behavior to the incompetence of parents;

>- Do you have kids? Where you ever a child? Nothing could possibly be more ridiculous than to suggest that blame for the "misbehavior" of children should be shifted from parents to the movies. Parents, not Creative Artists Agency, have the responsibility to raise kids.

The movies are a BAD influence on kids. Period.

James

Re(3): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 00:42:48 AM by Mitchell Levine

That's true, Jim - for example, they influenced you to enter the movie business.

Re(1): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 05:31:05 PM by George Shelps

Mr Cones, please explain how more
diversity is the "magic bullet"
solution to your list of abuses?

Re(1): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 10:51:26 AM by John Cones

When you consider the overview of Hollywood business practices presented by this book and its companion volume The Feature Film Distribution Deal, it is difficult not to reasonably conclude that something is incredibly rotten in Hollywood. It appears that the major studio/distributors have taken a basic economic advantage, that of a favorable law of supply and demand, and exploited it for nearly 90 years, to the point where there is no merit system left in Hollywood, the lives and careers of talented people are being destroyed on a regular basis and the motion picture medium is a detriment to society.

It is important to recognize that he who controls the money in Hollywood also controls the right to choose which movies are produced and released, who gets to work on those movies at the highest levels and the actual content of those movies. Thus, the economic dominance of the major studio/distributors, gained and maintained as these books reveal, through the use of unfair, unethical, anti-competitive, predatory and illegal business practices, is also responsible for the blatant employment discrimination that occurs daily in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry and the outrageous patterns of bias seen in Hollywood films (see Legacy of the Hollywood Empire and Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content).

At a minimum, it would appear that the Congress and federal agencies of the United States have negligently avoided their oversight and regulatory responsibilities with regard to the implementation of U.S. laws relating to employment discrimination and competition in the marketplace (antitrust laws), specifically as such laws are supposed to be applied to the U.S. film industry. At the other extreme, it may be fair to argue that years of enormous political contributions to U.S. Presidents, key members of Congress and Los Angeles District Attorneys have effectively negated both the federal government and the DA's office as factors in the Hollywood game. Thus, until someone in such a position decides to take on the Hollywood establishment, it may actually be accurate to say that there really are no rules in Hollywood, after all, no one has accepted the responsibility of enforcing the rules that currently exist.

John Cones

Re(2): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 08:47:37 PM by Mitchell Levine

John, you've just given a long-winded reply that doesn't ever answer the question: "how would more diversity cure your list of abuses?" In other words, how would not being Jewish ensure that you wouldn't engage in "unfair, unethical, anti-competitive business practices?"

Re(3): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 09:25:53 PM by John Cones

Once again fellas, you seem to be so focused on that one part of the overall cluster of Hollywood problems that offends you that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The fact that many of these business practices occur has nothing to do with the background of the people in positions of power. It does have a great deal to do, however, with the fact that there is very little diversity at the top in Hollywood. Such lack of diversity, no matter what the background of the individuals involved, tends to lead to a certain amount of clannishness, or tribalism. Thus, the less diversity, the more likely that the rest of the clan or tribe will tolerate the behavior. Loyalty is to the clan or tribe, not to more ethical business practices. On the other hand, the more diversity, the less likely that shoddy business practices would be tolerated because the loyalty to the clan or tribe factor would have been removed or diminished. Thus, the need for greater diversity.

John Cones

Re(4): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 19, 2003 at 03:42:52 AM by George Shelps



by John Cones

Once again fellas, you seem to be so focused on that one part of the overall cluster of Hollywood problems that offends you that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The fact that many of these business practices occur has nothing to do with the background of the people in positions of power. It does have a great deal to do, however, with the fact that there is very little diversity at the top in Hollywood. Such lack of diversity, no matter what the background of the individuals involved, tends to lead to a certain amount of clannishness, or tribalism.

___Not necessarily. A diverse group
of people can share the universal
human failings of greed and lust for
power. Whether it is one ethnic group
or many, the huge amounts of money
and the perks are still a lure.

Thus, the less diversity, the more likely that the rest of the clan or tribe will tolerate the behavior.

___Not necessarily. In a religion,
does the fact that all members share
the same belief lead to the toleration
of bad behavior. Or in a political
party, does it automatically lead to
a toleration of corruption?

Loyalty is to the clan or tribe, not to more ethical business practices. On the other hand, the more diversity, the less likely that shoddy business practices would be tolerated because the loyalty to the clan or tribe factor would have been removed or diminished. Thus, the need for greater diversity.

___This is the central flaw in your
argument, and goes to the heart of why
you are accused of anti-semitism and
why anti-semites like Jenks/Baker/whomever are attracted to
FIRM.

Your assumption that "clannishness"
will necessarily lead to bad conduct
is one of the typical slurs aimed
at Jews and other ethnic groups by
bigots.

In reality, "clannishness" can reinforce
good conduct as well.

Re(5): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 08:57:26 PM by Mitchell Levine

Thus, the less diversity, the more likely that the rest of the clan or tribe will tolerate the behavior.

___Not necessarily. In a religion,
does the fact that all members share
the same belief lead to the toleration
of bad behavior. Or in a political
party, does it automatically lead to
a toleration of corruption?

- For example, consider a diverse group like, say, the Bar Association.

Re(4): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 10:00:37 PM by Mitchell Levine

What evidence is there that studio heads are "loyal" to their rival chiefs because they share an ethnicity, instead of, say, threatening to have their heads blown off by their footsoldiers marching up and down Wilshire Blvd?

Re(5): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 23, 2003 at 11:14:14 PM by mg

Racist Israel as the beacon of international trans-Jewish solidarity.

Re(6): How Movie Wars Were Won
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 11:13:30 AM by MK

Is this your answer to everything. If "international trans-Jewish solidarity" means a common heritage, then why should that threaten you?

Haven't you ever seen "international trans-Catholic solidarity" in action? Why are the Jews such a big issue for you. Have Jews stopped you from doing what you want? Have they killed anyone you know, stolen from you? Even if you say yes, you would be wrong.

The Jews as a group have done nothing to you. A point you can't seem to grasp is that Jews do not function as one. There are many Jewish groups that do not agree on some very fundamental levels. You know this, you just don't want to understand it. It goes against what you are trying to do, which is to cause hatred and resentment towards one religion.

You are just one more in a line of creeps that have tried this, but the world has evolved beyond this sort of primitive thinking. No doubt, you have reaped benefits from Jewish hard work in medicine, law, and business. It's that you just can't compete that has you in such a rage. It's easier to find someone else to blame than to critisize yourself. Get help and move on to something more productive than hate mongering.

Movies Mere Entertainment?
Posted on July 18, 2003 at 09:29:50 PM by John Cones

Why, however, would the Hollywood establishment attempt to mislead the American public about the nature of films? Why would this group (or any other movie industry control group) repeatedly try to convince the American public that movies are merely entertainment, that the moviegoing public votes with its pocketbook (i.e., the audiences ultimately determine what kinds of movies will be shown) and that movies do not influence human behavior? The evidence set forth in this book (and its companion volumes) suggests this deception occurs because the Hollywood establishment wants to discourage the next natural step in any inquiry into the affairs of the film industry, if such questions were answered truthfully. In other words, Hollywood does not want a closer examination of the messages being communicated by a medium that is more than mere entertainment, by a medium that is controlled by a small, narrowly defined interest group (to the exclusion of all other interest groups in a very diverse society). Hollywood does not want an examination of why the Hollywood control group chooses to produce and release the movies it does (regardless of whether audiences really want to see such movies) and Hollywood does not want to accept responsibility for any of the anti-social behavior for which movies are partly responsible.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a significant number of people within our society that have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by movie industry propaganda over the years, and have concluded that movies are not important, that they are really only entertainment, and that they do not influence human behavior. On the other hand, once more people recognize that movies are more than mere entertainment, that they are, in fact, a significant medium for the communication of ideas, and that ideas influence human behavior--therefore, movies influence behavior, then it is likely that people will understand that movies are important, and that they are actually evolving into a vital component of the health and welfare of our entire society.

It is then also easier for more people to recognize that they must become involved in making certain that the leaders of the motion picture industry more accurately reflect the diversity of our society. Such diversity at the top will, in turn, be reflected in the decisions that determine which movies are produced and released, who gets to work on those movies and the messages that are regularly communicated through motion pictures. After all, every citizen has a stake in what messages are repeatedly being communicated to the rest of our society, particularly when those messages are being communicated through such a powerful medium as the motion picture.

Excerpted from "What's Really Going On In Hollywood"

John Cones

Re(1): Movies Mere Entertainment?
Posted on July 20, 2003 at 02:18:51 PM by Mitchell Levine

If this is so, then exactly why does the entire industry revolve around marketing research? Most of what's seen on the screen isn't selected on the basis of what any "control group" wants the public to see, but rather what statistical measures applied to essentially randomly selected focus groups have determined the public wants to see. Certainly any kind of forced change in studio management would leave the public unaffected, which implies that regardless of ethnicity, competent businesspeople would be rather unlikely to make many content changes anyhow. People, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, don't become film executives because they want to make art - those types enter the independents - they become execs to make money. That's unlikely to change no matter whose in the catbird seat, unless you sincerely believe that Jews are greedier than other people, quite a potent anitsemitic stereotype.

Besides, one of the highest-profile signifiers of cinematic merit displayed publicly is the Academy Awards, which are rountinely given out to "prestige" flicks intended to teach both history and moral points like Gandhi, Amadeus, and The Last Emperor. That fact would hardly be consistent with the idea that "the industry," which sponsors the Oscars, doesn't want its films to be considered anything but mere entertainment. The highest levels of social, artistic, and professional validation are bestowed on projects which are quite obviously not meant to be considered mere entertainment by the industry authorities.

In fact, if they really wanted to confirm the hypothesis that films are just entertainment, they wouldn't work artistic messages into blockbuster films created for mass consumption, like, for example, Spiderman, whose theme was that "America carries God's blessing," and repeatedly made reference to specifically Christian theology. This is true for many, many other mainstream commercial films, like Volcano and Die Hard 3, which were both about race relations. That's hardly consistent with your idea that movies only carry "ethnocentric" dogma, and that their makers deny that their movies have messages, at least in their most commercial form.

Hollywood Reform
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 05:42:50 PM by John Cones


MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY REFORM



"Rarely in the history of mankind has any group with power given it up voluntarily." [Powdermaker, 304.]


Introduction/Overview--This book focuses on what can be done about problems in the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry, problems addressed in this and my earlier books. The suggested solutions considered in this discussion are referred to as "remedies". One of the main reasons for the lack of success in earlier efforts to reform Hollywood, in my opinion, is that the film industry critics have been looking for a solution in the wrong places. In many instances, they have been going to those in power in the film industry and asking for change, trying to "shame" them into changing their ways as Senator Robert Dole would say. In my view, that will never bring about long-term lasting reform of the motion picture industry. People do not generally give up power unless they have to. As pointed out in the following pages, I contend that long-term, lasting reform will never come to the U.S. film industry, until the power is taken away from those who now control it and have long abused it. The discussions in the companion volumes to this book set forth the underlying basis for taking such power away from those who now control Hollywood. [Footnote--Such companion volumes are entitled "Who Really Controls Hollywood", "Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content", "How the Movie Wars Were Won" and "The Feature Film Distribution Deal".]

The following is a discussion of proposed activities that may be engaged in by film industry professionals, the public and the government, in attempting to level the playing field in the film industry and to provide greater diversity in the marketplace of ideas portrayed through film. Those suggestions focusing on the relationship between independent producers and the major studio/distributors and designed to eliminate many unconscionable provisions in the drafting and implementation of the feature film distribution deal were discussed in my book "The Feature Film Distribution Deal". To the extent that the film distributor practices described in that book are actually occurring, they are very likely to continue to occur unless and until more net and gross profit participants, whether they be investors, producers, directors, screenwriters, actors, actresses, or others take more aggressive steps to protect their own financial interests and their creative control interests in feature films by engaging in the remedial activities described below. Remember, that in the film business, you cannot completely separate economic control from creative control.

Getting Better Information (Research Projects) As George Custen points out, "[i]n general, there are few grounded analyses in film studies that use large systematically selected samples of films." [Custen, 27.] Custen goes on to report that the "...methods of the various social sciences have only sporadically been brought to bear upon Hollywood." [Custen, 24.] Thus, much more research ought to be done.

For example, leaders of all groups who are portrayed in motion pictures should regularly conduct such studies and report to the public about the results, so that some organization can then assemble these annual reports over a period of time and publish them in the form of a book that will be available to all. In addition, religious leaders throughout the U.S. and the world should systematically analyze the entire body of work provided thus far by the American film industry or the so-called major studio/distributors to determine whether (or where) there is a consistent pattern of bias against such religions in such films. If so, those religious leaders should not bother to try to change the behavior of the film moguls, but instead, petition Congress to pass laws assuring that all interest groups, including religions have the same opportunity to produce and release films containing a more balanced presentation of issues of concern, including religious issues.

In conjunction with the discussion of various topics throughout this book (and its companion volumes), I have pointed out specific research questions, the answers to which would be helpful to an overall understanding of what is really going on in Hollywood. In addition, these suggested research topics have been collected and reproduced as an appendix to this volume, in an effort to stimulate such research.

Excerpted from "Motion Picture Industry Reform"

John Cones

Re(1): Hollywood Reform
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 08:20:50 PM by George Shelps

John Cones:

If so, those religious leaders should not bother to try to change the behavior of the film moguls, but instead, petition Congress to pass laws assuring that all interest groups, including religions have the same opportunity to produce and release films containing a more balanced presentation of issues of concern, including religious issues.

____In other words, government-imposed
quotas based on religion....

Morning Star Commission
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 06:51:39 PM by Moishe the Goyim

The Jewish business network that built Hollywood, observes Claire Pajaczkowska, "provided an opportunity for a relatively small managerial elite to formulate American culture as it should or could be. It has been said that 'Hollywood' -- the American Dream -- is a Jewish idea in a sense; it's a Jewish revenge on America. The genius of future moguls was a complex one, partly sheer business ingenuity, partly ruthless risk taking, and a kind of competitive solidarity.... They were also closely associated with the meretricious, ostentation of the industry, with poor morals, bad taste, and the industrialization of art." [PAJACZKOWSKA, p. 238] As Marlon Brando once noted, "I've never had any respect for Hollywood. It stands for avarice, phoniness, greed, crassness and bad taste." [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 153-154] Or as film critic Kenneth Turan noted in an introduction to David Freeman's book A Hollywood Education: "Freeman knows that the movie business is more than any old conniver's paradise, it is one where the grail is a whole new persona. Because stakes are so high, because 'in Hollywood, what you succeed with and what you fail with are virtually the same,' everything, even your most personal life, is a viable tool to get ahead. Mind games, hidden agendas, backstabbings, and all around venality, they all pass without so much as a second glance. Everything is excused in pursuit of the dream." [FREEMAN, D., 1992, p. 7]

"[A]s I heard about Hollywood," wrote prominent science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, in a reflecion on his career, "I liked it even less. Walter Bradbury of Doubleday would travel to Hollywood once a year on business. When I had lunch with him after such a visit, he would be drawn and strained. He hated the people he had to deal with there, phonies, one and all, he said, and not to be trusted an inch." [ASIMOV, I., 1994, p. 365]

The literary critic Edmund Wilson wrote

"Perelman; Hollywood. Jewish girl, very nice and intelligent. Not fancy, who had lost her husband out there after three years -- her theory [is] that Jewish men thought themselves ugly, so they had to keep proving to
themselves what they could do in the way of getting Gentile girls."
[GOULD, p. 305]

"In olden times," said the great journalist and muckraker, Upton Sinclair, "Jewish traders sold Christian girls into concubinage and into prostitution, and even today they display the same activity in the same field in southern California where I live." [GOULD, p. 305] The Hollywood rulers, noted Hollywood rabbi Edgar Magnin, "were men who made all that money and realized they were still a bunch of Goddamned Jews. Sleeping with a pretty gentile girl made them feel, if only for a few minutes, 'I'm half gentile.' No wonder they made idols out of shiksa goddesses." [RUBIN, p. 78] This kind of sexual predation, if we are to believe what some Jewish scholars have to say about it, has root in the psychological insecurities of Jewish identity. The (Jewish) Forward, reviewing a biography of (Jewish) writer Arthur Koestler by (Jewish) scholar David Cesarani, notes that

"Koestler's life was marked throughout by 'non-stop womanizing,'
Mr. Cesarani writes. As a journalist in the 1930s, for instance, he'was sleeping his way through Berlin at the rate of one girlfriend every four to six weeks.' The chronic philandering was in part a function of Koestler's Jewishness, Mr. Cesarani explained in a
telephone interview, because, for Koestler, to be seen with tall,
blond shiksas was a sign of the fullness of his assimilation and
acceptance around gentiles." [BRAHMS, p. 11]

(This kind of predator is apparently evidenced in the case of Evan (Meshulam) Frankel, a real estate mogul in East Hampton, New York, "An otherwise suave and gallant companion, Frankel might easily reach out in conversation and caress the breast of a woman he hardly knew or run his fingers over her buttocks ... In one famous incident, he gave a large party at which three generations of women he had bedded from the same family were his guests, unaware that each one of them had been a Frankel conquest.") [GAINES, F., 1998, p. 176]

Jewish men rushing in veritable herds to bed non-Jewish women is much remarked upon in the Jewish world. As an old Yiddish folk saying notes:

"Why does a Jew need legs? To school he must be forced, to marriage he must be led, to burial he is brought, to synagogue he won't go, and after Gentile girls he crawls. So why does he need legs?" [KUMOVE, S., 1985, p. 142]

This long tradition of Jewish male interest in the non-Jewish female has created profound resentment by Jewish women in modern Hollywood. In 1998, "a group of 30 high-level Hollywood women in television, film, art and academia" (called the Morning Star Commission) released a study, headed by Jewish "superagent" Joan Hyler, and sponsored by the Zionist women's group Hadassah, about the portrayal of Jewish women onscreen in Hollywood. As the New Jersey News noted about the Jewish psychological undercurrent in the survey findings:

"Among the most devastating findings of the Morning Star Commission is the way that Jews, both men and women, still regard non-Jews as competitors and even adversaries ... Jewish women, though proud of their professional achievements ... project a surprising degree of ambivalence toward themselves within American society and a shocking
degree of rivalry and hostility toward non-Jewish women ... Jewish women, in their envy of non-Jews, often project hostility onto non-Jews, often project hostility onto non-Jewish women, calling them 'air heads' and perceiving them as 'irresponsible' and 'unambitious.'" [MARKS, M.
A., 4-23-98, p. 5]

Re(1): Morning Star Commission
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:30:46 PM by Anonymous

Forgive me for saying this, but do I detect a little obsessive-compulsive behavior there "Moishe the Goyim". You really have to find something else to do besides obsess about Jews.

Having said that, I do so enjoy your slanted posts. They make for great comedy. Keep up the good work, you really make us laugh!

Re(2): Morning Star Commission
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:31:54 PM by mg

Are the posts true, or are they false?

Answer the question.

Laugh all you want.

In fact, laugh more.

Re(3): Morning Star Commission
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:46:36 PM by Anonymous

Are they true? Only the writer knows. You believe them because you want to believe them?

Dance clown, dance! :)

The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 06:57:27 PM by Moishe the Goyim

The Hollywood "casting couch" is an infamous icon. Actress/writer Joan Collins (half-Jewish) notes an early introduction to the world of Hollywood as a young aspiring actress:

"[When] Buddy Adler, who was head of 20th Century-Fox, to whom
I was under contract, asked me in his own home if I would like to be the
biggest star on the lot, I said, 'Yes, of course.' 'All you have to do' --
and he smiled suavely as he maneuvered me across the lacquered dance
floor of his Beverly Hills mansion -- 'is to be nice to me, and the best
parts at the studio are yours.' 'What do you mean exactly by 'be nice,'
Mr. Adler?' a worldly and sophisticated twenty-two-year-old Joan asked
warily. 'Listen, honey' -- he held me closer in the dance and whispered
in my ear -- 'you're a beautiful girl and I'm not exactly an ugly old man...
We'll see each other a couple of times a week, you can still have your
own life, and I'll have mine, of course." [COLLINS, J., p. 25]

Marilyn Monroe, as noted earlier, was a willing mistress to many to help her career. Aside from those mentioned earlier, she was also regularly invited to the home of Joseph Schenck (early head of 20th Century-Fox) where, she once said, "I liked sitting by the fireplace with Mr. Schenck and hearing him talk about love and sex. He was full of wisdom on the subjects." [WOLFE, D., p. 198] Schenck was once married to early film star Norma Talmadge. [WHITFIELD, E., 1997, p. 239] Monroe, says Ted Jordan, "bitterly complained about Schenck, who made it clear what her primary function was: sex." [JORDAN, p. 100] Schenck, says film historian Neal Gabler, "embodied just about every cliché of Hollywood decadence and debauchery." [GABLER, N., 1988, p. 259] "Uncle Joe [Schenck] continued to have 'fiancees,' notes Mary Ellin Barrett (the "god daughter" of Schenck, and Irving Berlin's actual daughter), "and when I was old enough to catch on, I wondered how a pretty girl could fancy such a homely, potbellied old man 'that way.' 'Power,' someone said, 'is attractive,' an odd concept to a young person." [BARRETT, M., 1994, p. 140]

Earlier in her career she had slept with Jewish comic and TV star Milton Berle, but he says later she didn't even remember it. "We didn't pretend our affair was a big thing. It was just part of something nice between us ... The next time I saw Marilyn, she was already a star ... I think she actually could not remember that she and I had been together for a while eleven years before." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 265-266]

The following account of a Milton Berle sexual conquest (not Monroe) seems definitive/iconic for Hollywood: She (an aspiring young actress given a pseudonym of "Linda Smith") was dating a powerful Hollywood executive Berle calls "Jed Weston." (He later became the head of a motion picture studio. [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 19] "The trouble with Linda on screen was that she was a second-rate actress. It was her looks that carried her." [BERLE, p. 5]

The first time he spends the night with Ms. "Smith," as Berle is preparing to bed her (which he does), she begins weeping and confesses to Berle about her misery in trying to become a famous actress in Hollywood:

"You didn't do anything wrong, Milton. It's me. I suddenly felt cheap, that's all ... I figured if I was getting grabbed in barns all over Nebraska, maybe I had something that woudl pay off in Hollywood. So here I am, with a couple of B movies under my belt but nothing really going for me unless Jed Weston is the big payoff [to an acting career] ... Out here, you get so mixed up, you can't be sure you'd know what love is. It's really lousy for a woman. Half the men in this town excpect you to be a whore if you want to get somewhere in pictures, and if you do screw, they treat you like a whore and that's the end of it ... Don't [apologize], Milton. You don't have to. I was on the make for you yesterday, the same as you were for me. You're a star, so I thlught if I gave you a little something, you might be able to do something for me over at RKO." [BERLE, p. 10]

After making love, Smith goes on: "What are you up to, Milton? What are you after? Do you really give a crap about what I feel? Do you? Aren't you just another movie-town stud trying to get the girl he just screwed to say he's the greatest? If that's what you want, okay! You're better than every front-office flunky who promised to help my career in return for a one night stand."

"She was beginning to sound hysterical," writes Berle. "I reached out for her -- Hey, Linda honey, hey, wait a minute' -- but she pulled away.' Her face was red, and the tears were running." "Is there anything more you want me to say before you leave the money on the dresser and run?," Berle recalls Smith saying, "All right, so you've got the biggest -- "

"I slapped her across the face," writes Berle. "She collapsed in sobs that shook the bed." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 11-12]


Also early in Monroe's career as a struggling actress, the head of Columbia, Harry Cohn, also once invited her, "and no one else," to an overnight cruise on his yacht. According to close friend Ted Jordan, Monroe was required to strip naked for Cohn in his office. As she bent over, at his direction, he approached her, penis in hand. When she declined his advances, said Monroe, "I had never seen a man so angry." [JORDAN, p. 91; WOLFE, D., p. 211-212] Cohn then "banned her from the [Columbia] lot after she refused to accompany him on a yacht to Catalina Island." [LEAMING, p. 8] "You know," Monroe once said, "that when a producer calls an actress into his office to discuss a script that isn't all he has in mind ... I've slept with producers. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't." [SUMMERS, p. 34-35] In 1955, 20th Century Fox awarded Monroe the richest per-film contract of any actress. "It means," remarked Monroe, "I'll never have to suck another cock again!" [MCDOUGAL, p. 217]

Cohn also, notes Barbara Leaming,

"developed an obsession with getting [his contracted actress] Rita
[Hayworth] into bed that was more than just sexually motivated...
As time went by he would become preoccupied with keeping other
men out of her life, including her own husband and any other man
who might come between Rita and the studio ... [Cohn] went so far
as to sport hidden microphones in her dressing room to listen in on
her private conversations." [LEAMING, B., 1989, p. 60]

Louis B. Mayer (head of MGM) had "a private life [that] was not always so praiseworthy," notes Norman Zierold, "... Although married, he had a keen eye for feminine beauty and courted women at a clip in keeping with his extravagant nature." [ZIEROLD, p. 319] "In his more delicate personal relations with established and aspiring actresses," adds Bosley Crowther,

"[Mayer] was naturally careful and decorous, but none the less
vigorous in pursuit of those he lusted after, frequently in vain ...
He once said to Luise Rainer, 'Why don't you sit on my lap when
we're discussing your contract the way the other girls do?' A little
adroit lap-sitting would go a long way, they found. He was hardy
and persistent, however. Tirelessly he laid siege to some of the
more formidable actresses, rewarding them with richer roles or
disciplining them with poor assignments, in maneuvering to
accomplish his private aims." [CROWTHER, 1960, p. 263]

Mayer was alleged to have "once insisted that 'the Talmud says a man is not responsible for a sin committed by any part of the body below the waist.'" [GABLER, N., 1988, p. 389]

Legendary actress Lana Turner remembers what it was like for her as a teenager at MGM:

"Often in those early years at MGM I'd see a young actress
with more experience than I had, and I'd think, 'Oh boy,
there's competition for me.' Six months later she would have
fallen by the wayside. When I asked, people would say, 'You're
so dumb!' It had to be spelled out for me that those six-month
option girls would never go on to a movie career -- they were
there for the benefit of management. That was what Zeppo
Marx [Turner's first agent and one of the famous Marx Brothers]
had meant when he told me to say I was eighteen [she was fifteen
when signed]. If I got one of those six-month-option deals, I'd
better lie about my age -- for their protection." [TURNER, L.,
1988, p. 34-35]

Actress Debbie Reynolds recalls what she had heard about another Jewish heir to the MGM movie hierarchy:

"One of my first dates was Arthur Loew, Jr., whose family were the majority stockholders in MGM ... Driving home after dinner he told me that he'd like to date me again. 'I don't think that will be possible, Arthur,' I said. 'But why?' he asked, as if I'd made him feel he'd done something wrong. I didn't know what to say. I didn't want to tell him. 'Because all the girls tell me you're a wolf. 'Wooolf?' he repeated, as if he had never heard the word before. 'Well, yes. That's what I've been told and that wouldn't work out.'" [REYNOLDS, D., 1988, p. 67) [Reynolds notes that in a few future dates she never had any troubles with him]

Part 2: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 06:58:42 PM by Moishe


Shirley Temple (Black) recalled her experience as an 11-year old movie star the FIRST time she went to the MGM offices with her mother:

"Eight months had elapsed since leaving Fox in May 1940, and on this first
executive visit under my new Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer contract, Mother and I
were split up, she ushered away by general manager Louis B. Mayer and I left
alone with producer Arthur Freed.
Best known as producer of the blockbusting The Wizard of Oz, Freed was
rumored in some adult circles to have an adventuresome casting couch. At the
time I knew none of this, nor would I have recognized such furniture even when
sitting on one. To visit an executive of such stature was enough to send my
spirits soaring.
'I have something made just for you,' he continued, fumbling in his lap.
'You'll be my new star!' That phrase had last been used when I was three
years old in Kid in Hollywood.
Obviously, Freed did not believe in preliminaries. With his face gaped in
a smile, he stood up and abruptly and executed a bizarre flourish of clothing.
Having thought of him as a producer rather than exhibitor, I sat bolt upright.
Guarded personal exposure by both brothers and Father had maintained me
in relatively pristine innocense. Not twelve years old, I still had little appreciation
for masculine versatility and so dramatic was the leap between schoolgirl
speculation and Freed's dazzling exposure that I reacted with nervous laughter.
Disdain or terror he might have expected, but not the insult of humor.
'Get out!' he shouted, unmindful of his disarray, imperiously pointing to the
closed door. 'Go on, get out!' [BLACK, S., 1988, p. 319-320]

Telling her mother about the incident as she drove home, her mother told her that she too had similar troubles, fending off a sexual advance from Louis Mayer in HIS office at the SAME time. [BLACK, S., 1988, p. 320] "Usually solemn,' writes Temple,

"[Mayer's] eyes glinted. Surely [Temple's mother] could recognize real sincerity
when she saw it. Never forget, he continued, at MGM we are a family. We take
care of our own. Slipping down off his chair, he approached the sofa and sank
down beside her, uttering a contented sigh. Surely she was the most unique mother
in the world, he said. Someone who should be a star in her own right. He grasped
her hand, pulling her toward him. Mayer's opinion of his personal prowess was rumored to be overblown, but not the power of his office. Reluctant to test either, Mother picked up her purse and retreated out the door, walking backwards. Unlike
my reaction of hilarity to Freed, hers was to be grieviously affronted. Not for nothing was the MGM lot known as the 'factory,' a studio perfumed with sultry, busty creatures with long legs and tight haunches, and more than its quota of lecherous
older men." [BLACK, S., 1988, p. 320]
Shirley Temple was probably safe from prominent MGM Jewish film director George Cukor:

"Although Cukor had been in Hollywood only a year, his sexual preference was
not a secret in the film community, [actor William] Bakewell recalled, 'People said, 'You guys be careful, watch out for this man, he is queer' ... Shortly after his
arrival in Hollywood Cukor befriended actor William Gaines and his gay entourage. Cukor and Haines had some notoriously wild nights on the town and were even arrested. Friends of Cukor are vague about the incident, which he never talked about, but they held that his arrest was a turning point. Said director JosephMankiewicz, who befriended Cukor through his sister-in-law, Sara Mankiewicz, Cukor's friend: 'George got very frightened when he and Haines were arrested in public. Once he became an MGM director, he calmed and settled down' ... He was determined to help other new gay artists in the film community. Said Mankiewicz: 'Homosexuals would call George as soon as they arrived in Hollywood, and if he liked them, he would introduce them to other members of his elite.'" [LEVY, E., 1994, p. 48]

Part 3: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 06:59:54 PM by MOishe

In the late 1950s Cukor met George Towers, "a stunningly WASPish-looking blond [who Cukor's friends believed] was a hustler." Cukor paid for Towers' subsequent years studying at USC law school. "[B]ecause Cukor was used to paying for sex, providing Towers with a 'good education' seemed like a worthy cause ... Upon Towers' graduation from law school, Cukor was instrumental in finding him a job with his lawyers' office ... Later Cukor arranged for Towers to become a partner of the J. William Hayes law offices." LEVY, E., 1994, p. 256-257]


And what of movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn, also married, partner in Paramount, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and United Artists? As his biographer notes,

"[An assistant director] stumbled into Goldwyn's office during the
making of Whoopee! and discovered the producer in a
compromising position with a girl who did not even get into
the picture. Most of the girls on the lot had heard about
Sam Goldwyn's 'casting couch.'" [BERG, A., 1987, p. 205]

Actress Joan Crawford, early in her career, allegedly starred in a porno movie. "When she was trying to break into the studios," says Ted Jordan

"she got nowhere until several studio executives were given a private
screening of her stag film ... In short order Miss Crawford won a studio
contract." [JORDAN, p. 122; also CONSIDINE, S., 1989, p. 12-13]

Crawford was brought to Holywood in 1924 by Jewish MGM mogul Harry Rapf. Agent in the early MGM years? Michael E. Levee. [CONSIDINE, S., 1989, p. 16, 61] "Over a sixteen month period," says Shaun Considine, "Joan Crawford appeared in thirteen pictures at M-G-M. She also acquired the reputation of being a quid-pro-quo girl. Years later, when asked if she ever had to sacrifice her virtue for roles via the proverbial casting couch, Crawford replied, 'Well, it sure as hell beat the hard cold floor.'" [CONSIDINE, S., 1989, p. 17]


"While their wives were meant to be decorous and refined and sexless," notes Neal Gabler,

"many of the Hollywood Jews found sexual release elsewhere --
sometimes flagrantly ... Sex, like family, power, wealth, and culture, was
meant to be conspicuous in Hollywood. It was a symbol of power, which
may be why so many of the Hollywood Jews behaved with such little
discretion. Jack Warner [one of the heads of Warner Brothers] bragged
about his conquests as if they were trophies. Bess Lasky knew that when
her husband [the head of Universal] sneaked away to make a quick
business call he was not talking to Adolph Zucker ... David Selznick
[was] a bearish hedonist with the appetites and discipline of a child."
[GABLER, N., 1988, p. 246, 258]

Charles Feldman, founder of the important Famous Artists film artist agency, represented the likes of Greta Garbo, Marlena Dietrich, and John Wayne. "Feldman," also, notes Peter Biskind, "was known for casting his girlfriends in his movies." [BISKIND, p. 25] He was once banned from MGM for his love interest in actress Jean Howard, a woman MGM head Louis B. Meyer had his eye on too. [CROWTHER, p. 193] Feldman was once romantically involved with sex queen actress Jean Harlow. [RUBIN, p. xii] So were others. Columbia Pictures' head Harry Cohn introduced Harlow to Jewish mobster Abner Zillman (an investor in Columbia). "For years after Harlow's death, [Zwillman] was boasting nostalgically about the various ways he'd banged the actress." [MCDOUGAL, p. 146] Zwillman also "reportedly gave some gangster friends gold lockets, each containing a strand of Jean's blonde pubic hair." [MARX, S., 1990, p. 121] Blonde bombshell movie star Carroll Baker's Jewish husband was theatre and film director Jack Garfein: their son is named Herschel David Garfein. Mae West made a career centered upon flaunting sexuality -- in a long list of intimates, her "first steady beau, Joe Schenck," a pianist and singer, [LEIDER, E.M., p. 51] was also Jewish. Blonde sexpot Jayne Mansfield's boyfriend at the time of her death in a 1967 car accident was also Jewish: Hollywood lawyer Sam Brody. The crash killed both of them. Among Marilyn Monroe's long list of Jewish (and other) partners, one of her husbands was playwright Arthur Miller. She even formally converted to Judaism for him. [WOLFE, D., p. 285]

Clara Bow, renowned for her promiscuity, was the sex goddess (the "It girl") of the late silent screen era. Like many who have the burden of being "sex" stars, she repeatedly collapsed with nervous breakdowns. She was built to fame by Benjamin Schulberg, head of a film company called Preferred Pictures. "To launch her," note Joe Morella and Edward Epstein:

"Schulberg instructed his photographer [in 1923] to take a series of provocative
pictures of Clara. In the photographs she was gracefully posed and draped only
in a sheet, Greek goddess-style. Her breasts and ample derriere were outlined, and
it was obvious that she wore nothing under the sheet ... Clara was in effect a pin-up
girl, though the term had not yet been coined. This manner of selling her would set
the tone for her entire career ... One of the unpublicized advantages of being under contract to a studio, even a small one like Ben Schulberg's, was the ready availability
of reliable medical attention for 'unspeakable' problems certain to arise among Hollywood's high-living set. Abortions were easily arranged. Venereal diseases could
be treated without undue embarrassment. To put it bluntly, and in the words of an
actor of the era, 'Anyone as promiscuous as Clara was sure to catch the clap." [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 58]

Eventually, in 1925, Schulberg and his company moved under the wing of larger Jewish film moguls Adolph Zukor and Jesse Lasky at Paramount Pictures, at the time the largest movie studio in Hollywood. [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 69-70] Bow's paramours were numerous, but perhaps the most publicized was her affair with "showman Harry Richman," "Mr. Broadway," "a Cincinnati-born Jewish boy ... By his own admission he often wined, dined, and bedded down as many as four showgirls in one night. And Harry was generous. He shared his conquests with his pals ... For a time one of Harry's closest buddies was fellow womanizer and enormously wealthy film mogul Joseph Schenck ... head of United Artists ... At the time of his friendship with Harry Richman, Schenck was married to top star Norma Talmadge [who later married Jewish comedian George Jessel]." [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 69, 70, 169, 170] Schenck arranged the initial sexual tryst with Bow for Richman. [p. 172-175] (Richman also owned Club Richman, "a speakeasy which became a big success." [MORELLA /EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 70]) "Richman's name was romantically linked with the most glamorous women of his day, including the tragic, gorgeous silent-screen star Barbara La Marr. There was mystery and scandal too. Ziegfield girl Helen Walsh burned to death in a fire on one of Richman's yachts." [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 70] Per Clara Bow, "Harry Richman had finally found his match for sexual adventure. In his own words: 'One of the greatest things about Clara was that she had an appetite for lovemaking that was at least the equal of mine. Every time I was ready, she was, and believe me, there was hardly an hour when I was not ready." [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976, p. 179]

"Not all Bow suitors retained fond memories of her," write Morella and Epstein,

"Abel Baer, a sexy young songwriter from New York, was in Hollywood writing
the score for an upcoming Clara Bow picture. Baer had attracted the attention
of Mae West back in New York, and in Hollywood he caught Clara's eye. 'I
went to bed with her,' Baer says, 'but I'll tell you this -- there were no repeat
performances. Once was enough for me.'" [MORELLA/EPSTEIN, 1976,
p. 209-210]

Part 4: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:00:58 PM by Moishe

Jewish comedian and early television star Milton Berle hosted "the most successful show in television history." [BURNS, G., 1989, p. 269] His "reputation with the girls was pretty big," notes George Burns,

"He went out with everybody from silent movie star Pola Negri to
evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson to Marilyn Monroe. You'll notice
I use the phrase 'went out,' but that's not exactly what I mean. I can't
tell you exactly what I mean, because I do a clean act. I don't even
drop cigar ashes on the page. But if you want to know what Milton
did with these women, think of a train going into a tunnel. And based
on Milton's reputation, this train was so popular with the passengers
that he couldn't keep it in the station." [BURNS, G., 1989, p. 253]

"Why do Italian women wear panties?" joked Berle, "To keep their ankles warm." [BERLE, M., 1996, p. 306] "What's a blonde standing on her head?" "A brunette with bad breath." [BERLE, M., 1996, p. 92]

In his biography, Berle claims to have bedded many women in his life, including, he writes, Aimee Semple McPherson, one of the most prominent Christian evangelists of the era. One night, McPherson calls Berle up for a tour of one of her famed Four Square Gospel "temples." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 126] Berle claims that she seduced him in a small apartment:

"I wasn't nervous. It wasn't Aimee the woman that made me feel shaky, it was Sister Aimee the Evangelist that bothered me. I kept seeing those newspaper pictures of her in the flowing white robes, her arms outstretched and holding a Bible. And once I had heard a radio broadcast from the Temple. For days after I had laughed, thinking of a whole mob singing 'Yes, Sir, He's My Jesus' to the tune of 'Yes, Sir, That's My Baby." It didn't seem funny now. I looked around the room. It was done very simply. Lots of what I decided were good early American antiques, and very little else. No pictures on the wall, very little of the tables besides lamps... 'I was thinking,' she said, and the light went out in the bedroom, 'that unless you were really interested, perhaps a visit to the Temple could wait for a cooler day.' The door opened, and there was Sister Aimee in a very thin, pale blue negligee, her braid undone and her blond hair hanging down around her shoulders. There was a soft flickering light somewhere behind her in the bedroom -- candles, I guessed -- and it was enough to show me tht she wasn't wearing anything underneath. 'Come in' was all she said. It was candles all right. Two of them on the table by the bed, which she had already turned down. They were burning inf ront of a silver crucifix that stood before a triptych panel of the scene of Calvary. That started my nerves going again, but I solved the problem. I decided not to face that way when we got in bed ... I never saw or heard from Aimee Semple McPherson again. But whenever I hear 'Yes, Sir, That's My Baby,' I remember her." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 128-129]

Another of Berle's sexual conquests was Louise Cook, an African-American belly dancer. "In those days, it was bad enough for a white man and a black woman to see each other -- nobody approved on either side of the color line -- but for us it had the added problem that we were both known to the public and to the gossip columnists ... Somewhere along the way during the six months I knew Louise, I found out I wasn't the only man in her life. [Jewish show business mogul] Harry Richman was also meeting her a FEW BLOCKS AWAY." [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 137-138] (Cook died in the 1950s; Berle believed it largely from alcoholism). [p. 138]

Here's Berle's account of another conquest, and his reputation as a stud:

"I was still young enough to be impressed by the woman I had been in bed with. Somehow, to my kid's mind, the fact that shew as a world-famous sex symbol every man was supposed to want, and she wanted me, which made me think of myself as one hell of a guy. Special! Later on, I found out that she was always on the prowl for young men who were well-endowed, and to her I was just the lay of the week. There's really no polite way of getting this story into the book, but the punch line is too good to leave out. About fifteen years ago, I was in the locker room at the Luxor Baths in New York with two other guys. One guy was a friend, the other was his friend. The one was a stranger said to me, 'Hey, Berle. I hear you got a big one.' It caught me by surprise. 'Whaaaa? Go 'way.' But he didn't. 'You heard me. Well, I'm willing to bet cash money that mine is bigger than yours.' 'Will you knock it off? You drunk or something?' But he wouldn't stop. 'I hear you're a gambler, so I'm making you a bet. A hundred bucks says mine is bigger than yours.' 'I don't want to bet,' I told him. 'Let's drop the subject.' 'I'm serious. A hundred buck says mine is bigger than yours.' I was starting to get annoyed, when my friend said, 'Go ahead, Milton, just take out enough to win.'" [BERLE, M., 1974, p. 141-142]


Jewish singer Eddie Fisher, ("I prefer seduction to singing") for years a cocaine addict, divorced Debbie Reynolds, "America's sweetheart," to marry Elizabeth Taylor in 1958. To the mores of the 50s it was a scandal of monumental attention. "Even a partial list of his claimed [sexual] conquests," adds London's Daily Telegraph,

"include Mia Farrow, Marlene Dietrich, Bette Davis, Kim Novak,
Stefanie Powers, Angie Dickinson, Dinah Shore and Judith Exner,
the mistress also shared by President Kennedy and Sam Giancano,
the boss the Chicago mafia.... Fisher is of the generation that
still uses a good sprinkling of Yiddish words, and prominent among
them is shiksa."

"I think I slept with only one Jewish girl in my whole life," Fisher told the London paper, "Peggy Lipton, and then I didn't know she was Jewish ... Boy, did I have a libido." [LAURENCE, C., 10-14-99, p. 23] (Film director Oliver Stone's father was Jewish -- originally Lou Silverstein. He was a wealthy stock broker. [RIORDAN, 1995, p. 4] "Like many men his age," writes James Riordan about Oliver's father and mother, "[Lou] began to seek solace through an increasing number of affairs. There were several models, but often he preferred high-class call girls." [RIORDAN, J., 1995, p. 16]


Doris Day was stunned when her agent, Al Levy, "followed me into my room, closed the door, turned off the lights, and pulled me onto the bed. He desperately thrust himself on top of me as if he was some unknown rapist and I were an anonymous victim." [HOTCHNER, 1976, p. 102] Jewish bandleader Artie Shaw's romantic flings included those with Judy Garland, Betty Grable, and Lana Turner. [SHIPMAN, D. 1993, p. 104-107] Hollywood lawyer Gregory Bautzer "had a reputation not unlike Artie Shaw of having 'squired' many of Hollywood's most famous stars; he had preceded Shaw in Turner's life, and he was publicly associated with Joan Crawford for several years." [SHIPMAN, p. 464] Among [MGM screenwriter-producer] Joe "Mankiewicz's former lovers were Joan Crawford, Gene Tierney, and Linda Darnell. He had a habit,' said his son Chris Mankiewicz, 'of bedding down with leading ladies.'" [HEYMANN, C.D., 1995, p. 203] Screenwriter/playwright George S. Kaufman (best known for the Marx Brothers movies), who was married, "had a cleanliness compulsion, abhorred outward displays of affection, and hated physical contact except, presumably, with his many sexual conquests (the Broadway producer Max Gordon called him a 'male nymphomaniac')." [WINOKUR, 1987, p. 109] Actress Janet Leigh," notes Debbie Reynolds, "had the world trying to get her, but Tony [Curtis, born Bernard Schwartz] wanted her and she didn't have a prayer. It was physical; it was sexual. It was like dynamite. He got her and he married her." [REYNOLDS, D., 1988, p. 70)] Even Jewish Hollywood hairdresser Sydney Guilaroff "had a long affair with [Greta] Garbo and then moved on to Ava Gardner." [MCDOWELL, p. 15] (One day a friend of Reverend Billy Graham called actress Debbie Reynolds to tell her that Graham had had a dream in which Marilyn Monroe died. Reynolds dispatched Sidney Guilaroff to counsel Monroe about this. Guilaroff couldn't reach her alone. Soon after, Monroe committed suicide.") [REYNOLDS, D., 1988, p. 206-207]

Part 5: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:01:46 PM by Moishe

When swimmer Esther Williams first got started in show business, "famous New York showman" Mike Rose lured her into "a seduction scene -- pure and simple. I saw that look in his eyes ... Couldn't he look in the mirror? He was already in his fifties, married, and five feet two inches. I was seventeen, not even the legal age for such antics." [WILLIAMS, E., 1999, p. 45] Williams' first marriage, that same year, was to a Jewish pre-med student, Leonard Kovner, whom she soon divorced. Her lawyer in her golden years was also Jewish, Lew Goldman. [WILLIAMS, E., 1999, p. 302] As a budding actress, a particularly pesky Hollywood sexual predator was Sam Katz, head of MGM's musical productions. Williams recounts an early encounter with him:

"Sam, aren't you married?
'Yes, I am. I have two beautiful daughters.'
'And so am I,' I said. 'Don't you think it would be embarrassing if you
and I were seen in public having dinner together?'
'Well ... I have little places.'
'I bet you do.'" [WILLIAMS, E., 1999, p. 92]

"Katz's philandering was common knowledge," writes Williams,

"so I decided to deal with this head-on.
'You've done this before, Sam. Did the other girls become big stars?'
Astonishingly enough, he tried to answer the question. He began ticking
off his other conquests.
'Well, let's see. Kate Groom? No. Ilona Massey? Not really...’
I stopped him before he got too deep. I didn't want to be another 8 X 10
glossy on his wall of conquests, and I didn't want to know the names of
the rest of them." [WILLIAMS, E., 1999, p. 92]

Williams' most bizarre love affair was with Jeff Chandler (also Jewish, born Ira Grossel, his most famous role was that of Cochise in Broken Arrow). Williams fell in love and had an affair with him until she discovered his fetish for wearing women's clothing. "Jeff," notes Williams, who quickly abandoned him,

"was dead serious about this dress-up game and obviously had been
at it for a long time ... [He] had a compulsion to don Aunt Sophie's
underpants, which gave him his first orgasm, growing up and feeling
happy and secure only in women's clothing." [WILLIAMS, E., 1999,
p. 309]

As Rachel Abramowitz notes the oppressive undercurrent for women trying to make it in Hollywood:

"Go to CAA [a rival talent agency]," [top Jewish agent Sue Mengers
at the William Morris agency] derisively told the starlet Valeria Golino,
who was vacillating about William Morris, "Ronnie Meyers [a Jewish
executive at CAA] just wants to fuck you." [ABRAMOWITZ, R.,
2000, p. 331]

Jewish novelist Judith Krantz notes the stir actress Loretta Young created at the funeral of Jewish film director Mervyn Le Roy:

"At the funeral of Mervyn Le Roy ... I heard Loretta Young give a eulogy that
won the bad-taste prize of all time. She slithered exquisitely down the aisle
of the Forest Lawn chapel, clad in a startingly sexy, body-hugging black
dress and the largest black garden-party hat I'd ever seen. 'Mervyn Le Roy
discovered me,' she announced slowly. Pause. 'No, we didn't have an affair.'
Long pause. 'I was only thirteen,' she added thoughtfully, as if in explanation
for the omission." [KRANTZ, J., 2000, p. 209]


In 1977 director Roman Polanski, also Jewish, fled America rather than face sentencing for raping a 13-year old model. He had drugged her (with Quaaludes and alcohol) as he photographed the child at an actor's home. Arrested, he was allowed to work on his current film. As Barbara Leaming notes:

"Since the probation report would affect his fate, Polanski
worked on his [Jewish] probation officer, Irwin Gold, for whom he
painted a picture of a tragic past [Polanski was a Jewish survivor
of Nazi-occupied Poland] a compliant girl, and remorse for
anything he had done wrong ... He managed to win Gold's
sympathy ... This was a victimizer as victim -- a role Polanski
had played to the hilt." [LEAMING, 1981, p. 181, 184]

Also, "at age fifteen, Natassia [Kinski, star of Polanski's film Tess] became Polanski's lover. Polanski gave her books to read and suggested ways for developing her acting abilities." [LEAMING, 1981, p. 192] Polanski once married actress Sharon Tate, star of his film Fearless Vampire Killers. "During the shooting, Polanski had become Sharon's lover." [LEAMING, 1981, p. 79] She had been introduced to him by Jewish producer Martin Ransohoff of Filmways, who had her under contract. After Tate and others were sensationally murdered by the Charles Manson "family," one week later Polanski charged Life magazine $5,000 to pose at the door of the house she was slain. [KIERNAN, T., 1980, photo section]

Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:02:58 PM by Moishe the Goyim


Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider were Jewish partners who produced a number of influential 1970s "counterculture" movies (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, et al). "Bert was so relentless," noted one acquaintance, "that he came on to almost every pretty woman who came his way ... Sex was a publicly traded commodity among the Raybert guys, sexual exploits, a variety of who could piss farther." Actor Jack Nicholson (no innocent himself) reportedly admonished a friend, "Never bring a woman that you're serious about around Bert or Bob." [BISKIND, p. 58-59] Among Schneider's love affairs was one with actress Candice Bergen. [MCGILLIGAN, 1994, p. 181] At BBS (the Rafelson/Schneider company), notes Patrick McGilligan,

"All of the important players were men; the atmosphere was familial;
but really it was a fraternity of insiders, a boy's club. Bert was capable
of unzipping his pants during an argument and flourishing his cock; his
brother, Harold, was also known to bring his penis out and lay it on the
table. The BBS men circulated throughout the building, calling each
other "babe," and "doll," and hitting on the women. 'The important
players took a macho pride in fucking the same women at different
times,' said one former BBS staff member, 'from the starlets right
down to the typists.'" [MCGILLIGAN, p. 201]

The heart of the American popular music industry is also located in Hollywood. As Jewish author Neal Karlen notes: "Recalling [Jewish CBS music head Walter] Yetnikoff's well-documented lust for blond bimbos, a midlevel record executive would say a year later, 'Er hot in di hoizen a yarid' -- Yiddish for 'He's got a carnival in his pants.'" [KARLEN, N., 1994, p. 145]

(Paul Krassner, Jewish editor of the satirical "counter-culture The Realist magazine, recalls the moral range of his sexual world that included famous Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce. After sleeping with another woman, Krassman's wife angrily confessed to "whom she had slept with -- two of my closest FRIENDS -- Lenny Bruce and Paul Jacobs -- it really hurt ... Jeanne didn't spare me any of the juicy details. 'Lenny DIRECTED me. He'd say, 'Okay, now put your leg up here against the bedpost.' He was like a Fellini of the bedroom' ... Eventually I confronted them. Paul Jacobs acknowledged what had happened, and we embraced, but Lenny refused to admit anything.") [KRASSNER, P., 1993, p. 101] Krassner also writes this about his anti-Christian sexual world :

"The night before, I had been in bed with Miranda, [famous Jewish author] Norman Mailer's assistant. While we were making love, there was an evangelist on the radio providing a strangely appropriate background. He was talking about the importance of 'a firm God' and about 'sliding your finger into any passage in the Bible.' It was funny until he claimed that six million slaughtered Jews in Nazi Germany were doomed to Hell because they had never accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, yet Adolf Eichmann went to Heaven because he had converted to Christianity a couple of days before he was executed. Miranda made the most religious statement of the whole night. 'I'm so glad I have a cunt,' she said. It was a celebration of life." [KRASSNER, P., 1993, p. 114]

And Krassner wrote this, about similar anti-Catholic currents:

"Groucho [Marx] asked, 'Have you ever laid two ladies together?' I told him about the time that I was being interviewed by a couple of students from a Catholic girls' school. Suddenly Sheila Campion, The Realist's Scapegoat [a secretary], and Marcia Ridge, the Shit-On -- she had given herself that title because 'What could be lower than a Scapegoat?' -- walked out of their office totally nude. 'Sorry to interrupt, Paul,' said Sheila, 'but it's Wednesday -- time for our weekly orgy.' The interviewers left in a hurry. Sheila and Marcia led me up the stairs to my loft bed, and we had a delicious threesome." [KRASSNER, P., 1993, p. 122]


"This [Hollywood]," complained novelist Theodore Dreiser in its big studio glory days, "is a selfish, self-concentrated, mean, loafing town. The business and political world is hard-boiled and cruel. The movies are solidly Jewish. They're dug in, employ only Jews with American names and buy only what they cannot abstract and disguise. And the dollar sign is the guide -- mentally and physically. That America should be led -- the mass -- by their direction is beyond all believing. In addition, they are arrogant, insolent, and contemptuous." [GOULD, p. 298] "There's enough sincerity in Hollywood," wrote H. L. Mencken, "to fill a peanut shell and still leave room for an agent's heart." [GITLIN, p. 145] The novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald summed up the Hollywood scene as "a Jewish holiday, a gentile tragedy." [GABLER, p. 2]


Excerpts from:

WHEN VICTIMS RULE (mass media chapter)
at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

Re(1): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:16:16 PM by Moishe

Not enough? There's plenty more at

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/24media1.htm

Re(2): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:24:21 PM by Anonymous

So, is your real name Moisha, or are you just being a sarcastic bigot?

Does this site have enough room for all of the non-Jewish slander stories, or would you find that unfair?

Re(3): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:27:46 PM by mg

Is what is posted true, or is it not true?

Answer the question.

Re(4): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:32:25 PM by Anonymous

Moishe the Goyim, or MG, or Moishe. Seem like multiple personalities.

Having a nice conversation in there guys?

Re(4): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:29:39 PM by Anonymous

This is the subject headline at the top of this discussion page: "Do The Major Studios Discriminate In Their Hiring Practices?"

Hmmm. Let's see. Given all the Jewish sexual predation in Hollywood, I guess the answer is yes.

Re(5): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:44:59 PM by Anonymous

Typical response. "Given all the Jewish sexual predation in Hollywood."

All the Gentiles in Hollywood are saints, HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

Re(6): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 08:24:09 PM by Anonymous

The real Jewish Tribal Review! Childish comics stereotyping Jews:

"Like any comic that seeks to have fun with the truth, our intention with these cartoons is neither ridicule, defamation, or hostility, but merely to highlight aspects of our current cultural milieu that all should recognize. The more powerful the subject of examination (and the more resistant it is to public criticism of any sort), the greater the tension release there is in telling, or hearing, or reading, the joke -- for all. This is the nature of comedy, as it has always been."

In other words, Jews should be made fun of because it's considered Taboo to do so.

If that were true, it would also be okay to make fun of people like MG who have leearing disabilities. It's never okay to make hurtful jokes about anyone. Check out this nonsense:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/carrara.htm

This is the type of slander that MG condones! Jesus loves you anyway MG.

Re(7): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 04:52:30 PM by mg

Jews are the KINGS of vulgar jokes and jokes that insult others' ethnicity.

At the same time, they position their own power and neurosis to be beyond reproach.

Re(8): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:19:34 PM by Anonymous

You are one sick puppy. THEY THEY THEY.....

When will you realize that all people are individuals.

The reason no one takes you seriously, is that you classify a whole group of people as if they are all the same.

No wonder your disgusting web site is a link in so many white supremacy web sites. You bigots are all the same. (sucks being classified doesn't it?)

Re(9): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:22:47 PM by Anonymous

Jews are "invididuals" who invented the casting couch, institutionalized it, dominated turn-of-the century international prostitution (See Pride and Prejudice by Edward Bristow), dominated the American smut trade, still dominate the upper eschelons of American pornography, were central to the creation of decadent Las Vegas, dominate the international Crime Syndicate of the Russian mafia, and on and on and on and on ...

I guess it's just coincidence.

Re(10): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 06:05:36 PM by Anonymous

Okay....Christains are the "individuals" who invented the Crusade. Muslims have their Jihad. These are documented facts. What's your point?

Your "facts" are, that if you find one or two Jews in a group of people, you assume that they run the show.

Re(9): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:22:04 PM by Anonymous

Jews are "invididuals" who invented the casting couch, institutionalized it, dominated turn-of-the century international prostitution (See Pride and Prejudice by Edward Bristow), dominated the American smut trade, still dominate the upper eschelons of American pornography, were central to the creation of decadent Las Vegas, dominate the international Crime Syndicate of the Russian mafia, and on and on and on and on ...

I guess it's just coincidence.

Re(7): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 08:51:52 PM by Mitchell Levine

Absolutely! It wouldn't be like guys like, say, Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, Larry Flynt, Warren Beatty, Robert Redford, Scott Baio, Kris Kristofferson, Rob Lowe, Charlie Chaplin, Charlie Sheen, or Errol Flynn to take sexual advantage of their station!

Of course, when they do it, it's not Rassenschande, like Hitler stated so eloquently in Mein Kampfe, so it's OK.

Re(8): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 04:50:29 PM by moishe

The "casting couch" was INSTITUTIONALIZED by Jewish Hollywood. Sexual exploitation may be found anywhere, but Jewry solidified it as a foundation -- even an obligation -- of the Hollywood enterprise.

As you know.

Re(9): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 07:52:08 PM by Mitchell Levine

Of course! If it wasn't for the Jews, guys would NEVER have gotten the idea that attractive women would have sex with them to get a part!

Never in world history did THAT happen before, shmuck! It must be the Jews fault!

Re(10): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 08:21:24 PM by mg

It's quite amazing how you respond with flippant replies, while ignoring the evidence of the posting.

Jews have institutionalized sexual predation. Not only by the casting couch, but in their heavy influence in the international prostitution trade, the smut industry, pornography, etc.

As you know. Would you like some more citations heaped on your plate?

Any porno barons in the Levine line?

Re(11): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 23, 2003 at 00:24:03 AM by Mitchell Levine

More like you're trying to, as usual, scapegoat Jews for things done by everyone.

Prostitution exists literally everywhere, in every society all over the world, since the beginning of time. It doesn't matter where or when, every city, country, state or principality has prostitution. To blame this on Jews is the height of ridiculousness, unless Jews mystically control the world, and have done so for all of recorded history.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever that "the Jews" dominate the "international prostitution trade," and none of the links on your site offer anything other than unproven allegations by way of substantiation.

Pornography is not a form of "sexual predation," as it is conduct engaged in and viewed by mutually consenting adults. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the porn business in the U.S. was started by guys like the Perraino and Mitchell brothers, as well as Hefner, Guccione, and Flynt, none of whom are Jewish. Just because one of the partners in Vivid Video is Jewish hardly means you're justified in "blaming" the Jews for porn.

Guys have been using power and status to get women into bed as long as there's been such things as power and status. Hollywood isn't any different then any other industry, except that it attracts more desirable women. Non-Jewish males, like the ones I've listed above, pursue this end exactly as much, if not more than Jewish ones. Nor would "diversity" in management would even begin to affect this cultural universal.

For a little perspective on this issue, compare it to the case of a "diverse" field, like politics. Not one of the American Presidents has been Jewish, for example, and their record of "sexual predation" infinitely surpasses anything ever seen in the movie business - in fact, in just the cases of Kennedy and Johnson alone.

Your morbid fascination with Jewish sexuality seems to curiously echo the same obsession displayed by Hitler in Mein Kampf.

Re(12): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 23, 2003 at 10:49:10 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Prostitution exists literally everywhere, in every society all over the world, since the beginning of time. It doesn't matter where or when, every city, country, state or principality has prostitution. To blame this on Jews is the height of ridiculousness, unless Jews mystically control the world, and have done so for all of recorded history.

RESPONSE: True, prostitution is everywhere, but Jewry has positioned itself as the premiere profiteers of sexual decadence for a long time now. They also have been instrumental in ushering sexual hedonism into the cultural mainstream. It's well documented.

For Jewish domination of the international "white slave trade", see here:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/10whsla.htm

For dozens of online links to the vastness of Jewish influence in the modern pornography and sexual exploitation field, see here:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/cripron.htm

The Jewish "Russian" mafia (and the importance of modern Israel in the trafficking of prostitutes, see here:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/criruss.htm

There's PLENTY more, but this a lot more than a day's reading.



YOU SAY: There is no credible evidence whatsoever that "the Jews" dominate the "international prostitution trade," and none of the links on your site offer anything other than unproven allegations by way of substantiation.

RESPONSE: There's tons of evidence. Read Edward Bristow's PROSTITUTION AND PREJUDICE, just for starters. It was published by Schocken, a Jewish publisher.

The links at our web site are vast, and varied, and they are about as good a "substantiation" as anyone might wish.

YOU SAY: Pornography is not a form of "sexual predation," as it is conduct engaged in and viewed by mutually consenting adults.

RESPONSE: You, Jewish propagandist, exemplify the problem here in defense of porno. We may argue its merits and dismerits all you want, but you, like so many Jews, defend it under the auspices of "free speech." It is, for the most part, a form of sexual predation for profit. It is, hence, a prime target for Jewish activism, as is easily evidenced.

YOU SAY: As has been repeatedly pointed out, the porn business in the U.S. was started by guys like the Perraino and Mitchell brothers, as well as Hefner, Guccione, and Flynt, none of whom are Jewish.

RESPONSE: That's false. (Firstly, Hefner, Flynt, et al have always been surrounded by Jews). But porno evolved well before that, and you're citing anomalies. Read the citations at our web site. Jews invented "smut" in America. Some who have investigated the porno industry call it a "Jewish industry." Read Luke Ford's web site about Jews and the porno industry sometime. Pretty nifty.

YOU SAY: Just because one of the partners in Vivid Video is Jewish hardly means you're justified in "blaming" the Jews for porn.

RESPONSE: It's not "one" partner. The entire field of hard core porn is Jewish dominated, from Seth Warshawsky to Ruben Stoumen.

YOU SAY: Guys have been using power and status to get women into bed as long as there's been such things as power and status. Hollywood isn't any different then any other industry, except that it attracts more desirable women. Non-Jewish males, like the ones I've listed above, pursue this end exactly as much, if not more than Jewish ones. Nor would "diversity" in management would even begin to affect this cultural universal.

RESPONSE: Jews institutionalized it in Hollywood, and we have all been part of this constant cultural conditioning. The Jewish "casting couch" is one of the pillars of Hollywood, as you know.

YOU SAY: For a little perspective on this issue, compare it to the case of a "diverse" field, like politics. Not one of the American Presidents has been Jewish, for example, and their record of "sexual predation" infinitely surpasses anything ever seen in the movie business - in fact, in just the cases of Kennedy and Johnson alone.

RESPONSE: Not true. The Jewish Hollywood elite have been, en masse, chronic philanderers.

By the way. Clinton's intern babe, Monica Lewinsky, was also Jewish. Coincidence, I'm sure.

YOU SAY: Your morbid fascination with Jewish sexuality seems to curiously echo the same obsession displayed by Hitler in Mein Kampf.

RESPONSE: My "morbid fascination with Jewish sexuality" is echoed in the many, many books and articles written by Jewish chroniclers about it.

By the way, a recent survey revealed that Jews are the most promiscuous ethnic group in America:

"According to a(1994) survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, Jews are also the most sexually promiscuous ethnic group in America. According to their responses, 34% of American Jews have had sex with more than 11 partners by age 18! [HALBERSTAM, p. 141]

This helps explain Jewish sexual predation and predisposition to porno, smut, etc., don't you think? They seem to be willing to jump on whatever passes by in a dark hallway.

Re(13): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 06:11:59 AM by MK

Funny, I live in the NYC area, and know many Jews. But not one of them has ever offered me the services of a prostitute or tried to sell me a porno magazine.

What about where you live "MG" Detroit has more drugs and prostitution than most cities in America. Both are controlled by the Blacks and Latinos.

The fact is that you just hate Jews, and you're on a crusade. You hate the fact that for the most part Jews are hardworking, educated, and dedicated to family. That really pisses you off, doesn't it? Especially for someone like you...barely making it in society, from a broken home, few friends.

With therapy, and the proper medications, you can lead a normal life. But first, you must accept the fact that you have a problem and be willing to get help.

I suggest you look for a support group in MI. I know Lansing has some and Detriot as well. It's called "Recovery" and is based on the work by Dr. Abraham Low. Also, AlAnon has some excellent meetings as well.

You might ask your doctor about Zoloft, Wellbutrin and Alprazolam. Together they work well for people with rage issues.

Good luck.

Re(11): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 08:27:53 PM by MK

This from the KING of flippant replies!

Is that how they teach you to behave up in Dansville, MI? ;)

Re(9): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:14:59 PM by Anonymous

Hey Moses, can't you find anything good about Jewish people. Sounds like you think all Jews are evil. Maybe some Jews have made contributions to society. Maybe even substantial contributions. You have a lot of hatred in you.

Re(10): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:19:35 PM by mg

Hey anonymous. Can't you find anything wrong with Jewish people. Sounds like you think all Jews are angels. Maybe some Jews have contributed garbage to society. Maybe even substantial garbage. You have a lot of hatred of the truth in you.

Re(11): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:27:21 PM by Anonymous

No son, I don't think all Jews are angels. I have known some people that I don't like that happen to be Jewish, and some people I don't like that are not Jewish. What distinguishes me from you besides the fact that I have a triple digit IQ, is that I do not hate all Jews just because of one or two people I don't like person.

All you do is mock people. How does that help anyone. Being snide is all you have to work with. You know nothing of the truth. You just rant and rave like a moron.

You have not contributed anything that would convince a rational human being that what you say is true. You're a Joke!

Re(12): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:47:29 PM by mg

It seems that all Jewish argument revolves around this, as you claim about yourself: "I have a triple digit IQ ..."

In Jewish discourse, this is enough to repel the weight of documents, evidence, and historical facts.

Say, tell us more about your innate Jewish genius. A few more lists of your trophies and we will all be convinced that anything you say is Golden.

Re(13): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 07:55:20 PM by Mitchell Levine

Says something about you that you consider having an IQ in the three figures to be a sign of "innate genius," doesn't it?

Re(14): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 08:23:58 PM by mg

This is your reply to the voluminous stats about the Jewish Casting Couch?

Good job, Levine.

Cat got your tongue?

Re(13): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:56:21 PM by Anonymous

What makes you think I'm Jewish. I never said I was. For all you know I might be a Christian, Buddist, Hindu or Muslim.

"In Jewish discourse, this is enough to repel the weight of documents, evidence, and historical facts"

I've read your site, 90% of what you post is opinion, hearsay and rhetoric.

You are the most dangerous type of bigot. You wrap yourself in the flag of what you call truth, but in reality, you spread hatred and propaganda. The tactics of Adolph Hitler.

Re(14): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 06:04:19 PM by mg

YOU SAY: I've read your site, 90% of what you post is opinion, hearsay and rhetoric.

RESPONSE: Probably 90% of the web site cites Jewish scholarship, Jewish journals, and Jewish "opinion."

Readers may decide for themselves what it all represents:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

Re(15): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 06:42:00 PM by Anonymous

Whatever, Nazi trash

Re(10): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:19:35 PM by mg

Hey anonymous. Can't you find anything wrong with Jewish people. Sounds like you think all Jews are angels. Maybe some Jews have contributed garbage to society. Maybe even substantial garbage. You have a lot of hatred of the truth in you.

Re(11): Part 6: The (Jewish) Casting Couch
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:27:21 PM by Anonymous

No son, I don't think all Jews are angels. I have known some people that I don't like that happen to be Jewish, and some people I don't like that are not Jewish. What distinguishes me from you besides the fact that I have a triple digit IQ, is that I do not hate all Jews just because of one or two people I don't like person.

All you do is mock people. How does that help anyone. Being snide is all you have to work with. You know nothing of the truth. You just rant and rave like a moron.

You have not contributed anything that would convince a rational human being that what you say is true. You're a Joke!

The Jewish Story of Marilyn Monroe
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:26:05 PM by Moishe the Goyim

Marilyn Monroe is another who fell under the dominance of a string of Jewish analysts, and a Jewish world, including, most famously, Ralph Greenson (born: Romeo Greenschpoon) who was her therapist when she (allegedly) committed suicide. "Like many of his colleagues at the time," notes a Good Housekeeping review of a book by Donald Spoto about Marilyn,

"Greenson relied heavily on drug therapy for his patients, routinely
prescribing barbiturates and tranquilizers or having patients' other
doctors do so. He referred Marilyn to internist Hyman Engelberg
[also Jewish], who prescribed many of the medications Greenson
ordered for her. Greenson would also regularly meet with Marilyn
at his home and even asked his daughter to befriend her, disastrously
unprofessional tactics that increased Marilyn's dependency on him ...
Her friends noticed that the more Marilyn saw Greenson, the more
miserable she became ... Greenson encouraged Marilyn's deep
dependency on him (he was seeing her twice daily)." [GOOD
HOUSEKEEPING, 1993, p. 212, 214]

The incestuous nature of Hollywood life may be noted in Greenson's case: his sister Elizabeth "was married to Milton 'Mickey' Rudin, an entertainment attorney who was one of the town's major power brokers." [FARBER/GREEN, p. 93] Rudin was Jewish and also Monroe's lawyer. He was also an attorney and publicist for Frank Sinatra, who, early in his career, was also a patient of Ralph Greenson. [KELLEY, K., p. 208, 305]

Marilyn Monroe's publicist, Arthur Jacobs, was also Jewish. So were her agents at MCA, Jay Kanter and Mort Viner. Many of the directors of her films were also Jews (for example, Billy Wilder of Some Like It Hot and George Cukor of Let's Make Love). Natasha Lytess, her personal manager, and a woman she lived with at one time in Hollywood, was the subject of talk about Monroe's rumored lesbianism. Lytess was also Jewish, from Austria. [LEAMING, p. 31] In the quest for Monroe's career, says Barbara Leaming, "Marilyn's relationship with Nathasa was ... mutually exploitive." [LEAMING, p. 31] Milton Greene, also Jewish, a fashion photographer "with whom she'd reportedly had a fling during the late forties," was another early personal manager. [MCDOUGAL, p. 216] Charles Feldman was also once her agent.

Monroe, early in life, had resolved to sleep with anyone who could help her attain fame and fortune in Hollywood. Close friend Ted Jordan notes that she had "sex with anybody she thought might be able to advance her career." [JORDAN, p. 121] "It is clear," notes Anthony Summers in his biography of her,

"that Marilyn made judicious use of her favors. A key beneficiary,
reportedly, was the man who got Marilyn that vital first contract at
Fox -- Ben Lyon. According to writer Sheila Graham, Lyon had
been sleeping with Marilyn and promising to further her career...
Lyon called the casting director for Sol Wurtzel, a B-movie producer
of the time [and Monroe was awarded a small part in the 1947 film
Dangerous Years]." [SUMMERS, A., 1985, p. 35]

Garment millionaire Henry Rosenfeld was another Jewish sex partner on the road to fame. "She would join Rosenfeld at his home in Atlantic City for trips in his speedboat and for quiet evenings of talk and laughter." [SUMMERS, A., p. 45] Jewish mobster, and Hollywood powerbroker, Bugsy Siegel also had sex with Marilyn. [JORDAN, p. 84, 87] Ted Jordan (born Edward Friedman) even wrote a book about his early sexual experiences with Monroe -- they began on his fourth date with her when she was 17. Then known by her real name, Norma Jean, Monroe was soon sleeping with Friedman's uncle, Ted Lewis (original name also Friedman), who, "with his clarinet and distinctive style of old favorites, was among the hottest acts in show business." [JORDAN, p. 73]

"I learned," says Jordan,

"that at one point in their little backstage meeting, Ted had slipped
Norma Jean a piece of paper with his telephone number on it. Soon
they were meeting in hotel rooms whenever Ted was in town ... Soon
he was pulling strings for Norma Jean, trying to hook her up with an
agent who would do her the most good ... As Norma Jean had vowed
to me, whoever she had to fuck, she was prepared to do it. And, for
good measure, she did the same with [prominent, and Jewish, gossip
columnist] Walter Winchell." [JORDAN, p. 75]

Lewis, notes Jordan, "began an affair with the then-unknown model and introduced her to narcotics." [JORDAN, photo section] A key agent in accelerating Monroe's early career was Johnny Hyde (like many Hollywood Jews, born in Russia, and a veteran of vaudeville.) She was also his mistress -- he soon fell in love with her, and wanted to leave his wife for the actress. (He was 53, she was 23). Hyde, notes Ted Jordan, "not so coincidentally ... was Ted Lewis' personal manager." [JORDAN, p. 85] "In making Marilyn known," says Fred Guiles, "[Hyde] flexed a lot of muscle. The simple fact is that Johnny Hyde was the chief architect of her fame and her eventual legend." [GUILES, p. 147]

"By 1953," says Jordan,

"... [Monroe] could be virulently anti-Semitic (a prejudice that grew
as she got older). To my discomfort she would sometimes refer to
Joe Schenck, the mogul [and another sexual stepping stone], as 'that Jew
shit' and to other Hollywood personalities as 'Jew' this or that.
Occasionally I would have to remind her that I was half Jewish."
[JORDAN, p. 188]

The Hollywood world and its pressures of being a sex goddess of course destroyed her. Monroe's physician Hyman Engelberg and her therapist Romeo Greenson were the first to her death scene, reported to be a drug overdose, but they didn't call police for four hours. One investigative author, Donald Spoto, in a 1993 work, even burdens Greenson with the responsibility for killing her, directing that a female employee "administer [to Monroe] ... a fatal barbiturate-laced enema." (In this scenario, Greenson's motivation was that Monroe was trying to free herself from Greenson's influence and control, and had fired him.) [WOLFE, D., p. 99] In this scenario too, Monroe did not realize that this enema was abnormal. [SPOTO, D., 1993, p. 218] A friend of Monroe's recalls that she was beginning to feel that Greenson was "trying to substitute himself for everything she'd built up those past years. She decided he was anti-everything she wanted. She was radically turning on Greenson and Mrs. Murray, the woman he'd put with her, she felt, to spy on her." [STRASBERG, p. 250-251])

The famous movie star's alleged suicide has always been controversial, and there are various conspiracy notions about who would want her dead. Greenson's secret life is much clouded. As well as being a therapist, he was, like a number of Hollywood people, an activist Communist Party member; he was also part of its international Comintern. Whatever Greenson's role as a listener of movie star's confessionals, his communist ties have profound implications because Monroe had romantic affairs with President John F. Kennedy and knew a great deal about behind-the-scenes politicking, perhaps including plans against communist Cuba and Fidel Castro. Everything Monroe knew, per "opening up" in therapy, she undoubtedly told her psychotherapist. As Donald Wolfe notes:

"Once Marilyn Monroe became Greenson's patient, he became one of
the most important Comintern operatives in America; he had access
to the mind of a woman who often shared the bed with the president
of the United States and was an intimate of the attorney general
[Kennedy's brother, Robert] ... As Greenson has correctly stated,
Marilyn Monroe had a tendency to 'get involved with very destructive
people, who will engage in some sort of sado-masochistic relationship
with her.' Ironically, among these people was her psychiatrist
[Greenson], her physician [Engelberg], and her housekeeper, Eunice
Murray [who was appointed by Greenson to live with Ms. Monroe
and report back to him], who joined in a conspiracy to survey
Marilyn Monroe within a sphere of influence designed to gather
intelligence from her relationship with the president of the United
States and the attorney general." [WOLFE, D., p. 386]

Greenson, once noted his sister, Elizabeth, also had "strong ties to Israel." [KELLEY, K., p. 305]

Marilyn Monroe's road to psychoanalysis was directed upon her by the influential Jewish acting teacher, Lee Strasberg, who is usually credited with spawning the "method acting" genre, made famous by the likes of Marlon Brando and James Dean. Brando's first Jewish analyst, says the famous actor, early in his career, was Bela Mittelman, "the coldest man I've ever known ... [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 124] ... Acting afforded me the luxury of being able to spend thousands of dollars on psychoanalysts, most of whom did nothing but convince me that most New York and Beverly Hills psychoanalysts are a little crazy themselves, as well as highly motivated to separate patients from their money while making their emotional problems worse." [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 243] Brando was not much endeared to Lee Strasberg either, calling him "an ambitious, selfish man who exploited the people who attended the Actors Studio, and he tried to project himself as an acting oracle and guru. Some people worshiped him, but I never knew why.") [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 85]

Part 2: The Jewish Story of Marilyn Monroe
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:26:37 PM by mg


Strasberg's daughter, Susan, notes that her father "sent numerous actors to psychiatrists, and many doctors sent their patients to class because they felt his work helped theirs in analysis." [STRASBERG, S., 31] Susan Strasberg herself used to argue with Marilyn Monroe about whether she or the famous sex goddess "needed therapy more." [STRASBERG, p. 138] As Barbara Leaming observes:

"It was said that the master teacher Lee Strasberg could open
inner doors that one scarcely knew existed. Some admirers called
him the Rabbi. Some compared him to a psychiatrist or a highly
judgmental Jewish father ... Strasberg focused on psychology.
He ran his workshop as though they were group therapy sessions...
Strasberg often advised actors to enter psychoanalysis in order
to put them in touch with emotionally-charged material they could
use in their work." [LEAMING, p. 156-157]

"Under [Lee] Strasberg's influence," note Stephen Farber and Marc Green, "Marilyn became an earnest devotee not just of method acting, but of Freudian analysis as well." [FARBER/GREEN, p. 83] Monroe's one-time husband, Jewish playwright Arthur Miller, also had his own Jewish psychoanalyst: Rudolph Loewenstein. [WOLFE, D., p. 307] Monroe even had sessions with Sigmund's Freud daughter, Anna, also a therapist, in London. [WOLFE, D., p. 300] "The significance of [Monroe's reliance on psychoanalysts] for psychoanalysis," notes Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, "was that Monroe left a substantial part of her estate to further the work of Anna Freud, whom she had seen briefly for analytic help in 1956 (Anna Freud wrote about her that she was paranoid with schizophrenic traits), and this bequest was undoubtedly achieved through her analysts, who were intimately connected to Anna Freud." [MASSON, J. M., 1990, p. 129]

As Masson, a former offical at the Sigmund Freud Archives, further notes about the ethical undercurrent of such funding:

"It is not, in fact, uncommon for analysts to solicit, usually through
roundabout methods, former patients for money to support analytic
projects. Chairs of psychoanalysis in medical schools at various
universities have been partially endowed through former patients.
There was also the case of the Centenary Fund, named for the
centenary, in 1956, of Freud's birth. [Marilyn Monroe's therapist]
Romi Greenson had organized this fund for psychoanalytic research
in Los Angeles ... I felt then, and still do now, that it is an exploitation
of the emotional relationship with a patient to solicit money, in whatever
form, directly or indirectly. It seems to me that the patient, or ex-patient,
is in no position, emotionally speaking, to refuse ... I find it wrong and
morally distasteful." [MASSON, J. M., 1990, p. 130]

Another Jewish Hollywood therapist, Judd Marmor (born Judah Marmorstein), candidly wrote an article in 1953 about the trap vulnerable patients would inevitably find themselves in under the control of a psychoanalyst. Its theme we have run across before, as being quintessentially "Jewish." Marmor's piece was entitled "The Feeling of Superiority: An Occupational Hazard in the Practice of Psychotherapy." "Marmor," note Stephen Farber and Marc Green, "pointed out the neurotic needs that may drive a person to become a psychiatrist -- a hunger for prestige as well as a desire to solve one's own internal conflicts." [FARBER/GREEN, p. 135] "[The] ego-seductive aspects [of the field of psychoanalysis]," noted Marmor, "tend to foster such defensive arrogance to a greater extent, perhaps, than do many other professions." [FARBER/GREEN, p. 135] A Monroe friend once stated that "I felt [Ralph Greenson] had a big ego, like a lot of doctors he wanted to be God, and of all the analysts in L.A. she found him. Inger Stevens was his patient too. She killed herself later." [STRASBERG, p. 250] As Greenson, Monroe's analyst, once claimed, "I can count Marilyn to do anything I want her to do." [WOLFE, D., p. 422]

"I was a patient of five different psychiatrists," says Marlon Brando,

"Based on my experience, most psychiatrists are people who feel
comfortable trying to control other people because they can't handle
themselves. Their experiences have overwhelmed them and they believe
they will be able to cope only if they are in a controlling position over
others. I've known a lot of them, and some of them have been among
the nuttiest people I've ever met ... [One of them] spent a lot of our
sessions asking for money." [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 366]

Re(1): Part 2: The Jewish Story of Marilyn Monroe
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 07:39:47 PM by Anonymous

A typical MG, Moishe the Goyim, Moisha post. All psychiatrists are Jewish, and all of them solicit money, and all of them blah, blah, blah.

You are just a little biased don't you think?

Re(2): Part 2: The Jewish Story of Marilyn Monroe
Posted on July 21, 2003 at 08:52:51 PM by Mitchell Levine

Especially considering that Marilyn Monroe died a Jewish woman.

Re(3): Part 2: The Jewish Story of Marilyn Monroe
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 04:41:12 PM by Anonymous

Monroe died a "Jewish" woman the way Elizabeth Taylor became a "Jewish" woman: conversion to satisfy a Jewish husband. Monroe was married to Jewish playwright Arthur Miller.

Monroe even left a substantial part of her estate to the Jewish psychiatrists that helped drive her crazy.

Re(4): Part 2: The Jewish Story of Marilyn Monroe
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 07:48:24 PM by Mitchell Levine

As if there were any proof that psychiatrists or anyone else drove her crazy!

A strong case has been made that she was assasinated for political reasons.

Re(4): Part 2: The Jewish Story of Marilyn Monroe
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:12:47 PM by Anonymous

Yeah, she should have left it to the Kennedys who DID drive her crazy. Dipshit!

'Passion' elicits unfair conflict
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 04:48:01 PM by Anonymous

'Passion' elicits unfair conflict
By Michael Medved

Any piece of pop culture that touches on serious religious themes inspires its share of controversy, but the noisy assaults on Mel Gibson's unfinished film The Passion, which describes the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ, seem unfair and painfully premature. Indignant denunciations of a movie that its critics haven't even seen, coming nearly a year before that picture's scheduled release, suggest an agenda beyond honest evaluation of the film's aesthetic or theological substance. The explosive charges of anti-Semitism being directed at this project may even threaten the emerging alliance between devout Christians and committed Jews.

In March, The New York Times Magazine launched the controversy with a hostile story mentioning the movie and featuring an interview with Gibson's 84-year-old father, Hutton Gibson. According to the magazine, the old man questioned the commonly accepted figure of 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and entertained conspiracy theories about 9/11. While employing guilt by association and attempting (without evidence) to connect the views of an obscure father to his world-famous son, the Times piece raised alarms about a possibly slanderous portrayal of Jews in the film's graphic depiction of the crucifixion.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other groups devoted to combating anti-Semitism issued critical statements about The Passion based on an early draft of the screenplay that the Gibson camp called a ''stolen'' script. Gibson insists he has altered the screenplay substantially since that early draft, but this didn't stop the ADL from issuing an angry statement on June 24, asking: ''Will the final version of The Passion continue to portray Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus? . . . Will it portray Jews and the temple as the locus of evil? . . . ADL stands ready to advise (Gibson's) Icon Productions constructively regarding The Passion to ensure that the final production is devoid of anti-Semitic slander.''

Of course, the ADL might have advised the producers more ''constructively'' with a private phone call, memo or meeting rather than with a thermonuclear press release. As it is, assaults on his unseen film leave Gibson in a painful predicament. If he ignores the ADL and other critics, he faces accusations of ''insensitivity,'' but if he responds to their condemnations by allowing activists to shape his picture's content, then he undermines his announced intention of sparing no expense (including $25 million from his own production firm) to create a film of fearless, uncompromising Gospel authenticity.
In fact, the worries about anti-Semitic messages in the upcoming epic seem overblown based on known facts about the project. Of course, members of the religious establishment in ancient Judea come across badly in New Testament accounts, but beyond these villains, the new movie boasts a Jewish hero (or Hero) -- not to mention many other sympathetic Judeans, including Christ's disciples and mother.

Moreover, Gibson emphasizes the Hebraic identity of the Man from Nazareth. Production stills show actor Jim Caviezel as perhaps the most Semitic Jesus in cinema history -- a welcome change from the Nordic Messiahs in many previous films. To make certain no one ignores the Jewish identity of Christ and the Apostles, Gibson insisted that his actors speak nearly all of their lines in Aramaic, the language of ancient Judea and a close cousin of Hebrew.

Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are ''Christ killers.'' But the fact that persecutors and bigots have distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel purposes doesn't mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work of cinema.

In fact, the plea that Gibson's movie should place exclusive blame for the Crucifixion on Roman authorities contradicts not only mainstream Christian teaching, but also elements of Jewish tradition. In a courageous piece in the national Jewish weekly The Forward, Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer points to Jewish sources more than 1,000 years old that ''teach that Jesus died at least partly thanks to decisions taken by his fellow Jews.''

Ironically, the new debate over these issues comes at a time of unprecedented cooperation between Jews and Christians. Since 9/11 and the chilling wave of homicide bombings in Israel, Jewish Americans have increasingly abandoned their instinctive fear of Christian evangelicals to make common cause with them in defense of the Middle East's only democracy. This troubles liberal activists, who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious traditionalism in American life. The ADL, for instance, has been outspokenly critical of the so-called Christian right for more than 20 years, despite unstinting support for Israel by these conservatives. In this context, the dispute over The Passion draws attention from the virulent and dangerous anti-Semitism emerging from the Islamic world and instead refocuses concern on the long, tortured history of hatred of Jews by Christians. The controversy also raises pointed questions about Christian conservatives, who have conspicuously embraced many of Gibson's recent projects, including The Patriot and We Were Soldiers.

The beleaguered director hopes to discredit his critics with his movie's artistic quality. In almost plaintive tones, Gibson insists it always has been his intention that The Passion would ''unify people rather than divide them.''

Perhaps his efforts may yet achieve an uplifting ending to the story of his production, allowing the ADL to go back to doing what it does so effectively: concentrate on real dangers to Jews from real enemies who wish us real harm. Certainly, the Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers who loathe both ''Zionists'' (Jews) and ''Crusaders'' (Christians) can only smile at the utterly gratuitous divisions between the two faiths over an unfinished movie.

Film critic and former synagogue president Michael Medved hosts a daily, nationally syndicated radio show on politics and pop culture. He is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Re(1): 'Passion' elicits unfair conflict
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 04:55:57 PM by mg

For the record, Medved is part of the Jewish "film critic" lock on Hollywood. "Film critics" are overwhelmingly Jewish.

Medved, a conservative, has written some good things. See, for example, his entire book about Hollywood where he openly discusses Jewish power therein (and its constant assault upon Christianity).

More on Mel
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 05:54:54 PM by Anonymous

I find this sad," said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, who hasn't been permitted to see the movie. "Here's a man who appeals to the mass audience, but he feels he has to surround himself with a cordon sanitaire of people who back him theologically and maybe ideologically and will stand up and be supportive when the time comes. My request still stands: I would like to see the movie, and if it turns out I was wrong, I'll be the first to say so."



I must confess, Foxman does come off as the voice of reason, which is no doubt why his group is allowed a seat at the American table--front and center. I admire his restraint but have no doubt about his hatred of Whites.




-------


washingtonpost.com

Mel Gibson's Washington Power Play

By Lloyd Grove

Tuesday, July 22, 2003

Movie star Mel Gibson -- under fire from Jewish groups and religious scholars for his
still-unreleased film that graphically portrays the crucifixion of Jesus -- yesterday screened a
two-hour rough cut of "The Passion" for a select group of Washington pundits, clergymen,
cybergossip Matt Drudge and Hollywood lobbyist Jack Valenti, and at least one White House
staffer.

"I've heard people talking about how I can't get a distributor," the casually dressed Gibson --
sporting sweat pants, sandals and white socks -- told the four dozen audience members.
"Believe me, I can get a distributor."

A vocal conservative and devout Catholic, the 47-year-old Academy Award winner has
weathered accusations of anti-Semitism for the movie, which is being produced by his
company, Icon Productions. The influential Anti-Defamation League, which monitors incidents
of anti-Semitism, has been especially critical, pointing out on its Web site the long historical
relationship between passion plays and attacks on Jews: "ADL has serious concerns regarding
Mr. Gibson's 'The Passion' and asks: Will the final version of 'The Passion' continue to portray
Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus? Will it correct the
unambiguous depiction of Jews as the ones responsible for the suffering and crucifixion of
Jesus?"

Yesterday's secret screening at the Motion Picture Association of America included columnists
Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas and Kate O'Beirne; conservative essayist Michael Novak; President
Bush's abortive nominee for labor secretary, Linda Chavez; staff director Mark Rodgers of the
Senate Republican conference chaired by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.); former Republican House
member Mark Siljander of Michigan; and White House staffer David Kuo, deputy director of the
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

"I find this sad," said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, who hasn't been permitted to see
the movie. "Here's a man who appeals to the mass audience, but he feels he has to surround
himself with a cordon sanitaire of people who back him theologically and maybe ideologically
and will stand up and be supportive when the time comes. My request still stands: I would like
to see the movie, and if it turns out I was wrong, I'll be the first to say so."

Yesterday when the lights came up, many in the audience -- who were required to sign a
confidentiality agreement before being admitted to the screening room -- were in tears. Some
were sobbing, we hear.

"Heartbreaking," Michael Novak told Gibson. "The Exorcist" author William Peter Blatty called
the movie "a tremendous depiction of evil." MPAA President Valenti was perhaps the most
enthusiastic. "I don't see what the controversy is all about," he told fellow audience members.
"This is a compelling piece of art. I just called Kirk Douglas and told him that this is the movie
to beat."

Another invitee, right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, flew here from San Francisco to see the
film but arrived too late and missed it. "I'm so bummed," Ingraham told us. "I want to see any
movie that drives the anti-Christian entertainment elite crazy."

Re(1): More on Mel
Posted on July 22, 2003 at 08:01:49 PM by Mitchell Levine

There's no evidence whatsoever that Foxman "hates whites," especially considering that he is white, moron.

Re(2): More on Mel
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 11:24:20 AM by TK

Mitchell Levine, "There's no evidence whatsoever that Foxman "hates whites," especially considering that he is white, moron."

Righttt... You’re the lying sack of shit who wrote the following…


Re(1): Levine: Judaism and
Posted on April 27, 2003 at 00:46:04 AM
by Mitchell Levine
So what? I'm Ashkenazi (as are most Jews whose families are Eastern European) and my brother-in-law is non-Jewish, as are many of the spouses of my friends.
Your ridiculous attempts to use genetic research to try and prove a "racial" basis to Judaism, and supposedly bolster your arguments that Jews are somehow racist, are still bullshit. Let me make this simple for you:
1) By definition, you cannot convert to a race: You must be born into it, otherwise it would be possible to "convert" to being black or Asian.
2) You CAN convert to Judaism.
Therefore,
3) Jews are NOT a race.
End of story.

Steven Spielberg = a "white" ethnic Jew who may or may not practice the religion of Judaism

Kate Capshaw = "white" ethnic european gentile convert to the religion of Judaism

Joey Bishop = a "white" ethnic Jew

Sammy Davis, Jr. = a "black" person of African descent who converted to the religion of Judaism

There's plenty of genetic research to blow your bullshit out of the water.

Do we need to go on?

Re(3): More on Mel
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 11:53:34 AM by Mitchell Levine

No, you ignorant lowlife scumbag, what the genetic research shows is that Jews as a class show the same level of genetic variance in their population as most pure racial groups, due to centuries of primarily in-group marriage.

What the research cannot show is that the particular social group in question meets the specific definition of a "racial" group; it can only show that the group demonstrates the same amount of genetic variance within its phenotypic population.

Any group of people, whether a "racial group"; i.e., a demograph sharing inherited biological characteristics not found in other groups systemically, especially with regards to skin color, or not, can have that same level of genetic phenotypic variance, if they intermarry exclusively over many generations.

That doesn't mean that group meets the above-stated definition of a race. Jews cannot be a racial group because you can convert to Judiasm, but you can't change your biologically inherited phenotypal characteristics through any religious conversion.

I understand that, as a complete moron, this concept, like all concepts, is difficult for you to understand, but try hard.

Also, the definition of a "lie" requires deceit. Since I believe what I'm saying to be true, if I were mistaken in my proposition that would not make it a "lie," it would only mean that I was wrong.

Re(4): More on Mel
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 00:14:12 AM by Zex

A "racial"/population group is an extended family that is inbred to some degree.

Re(5): More on Mel
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 11:52:29 AM by Mitchell Levine

No, an extended family that is inbred to some degree is an extended family that is inbred to some degree.

A "race" is a demograph that shares inherited biological characteristics transmitted genetically over a phenotypal population.

If all it required to suffice the definition of a race was to be an extended family that was inbred to some degree, then virtually any mixed-race family that had an elevated inbreeding coefficient would be a new "race," thus multiplying the number of new races.

Since no geneticist or anthropologist considers every ethnicity to be a race, your definition of race is bogus.

Re(4): More on Mel
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 00:01:00 AM by Zex

When referring to groups that are subsets of the continental scale races, I'd recommend "subraces. " The number of subraces is endless. Many might prefer "ethnic groups" to "subraces," as in Jews, Italians, Irish, English, Koreans, Japanese, and other groups that possess a fair degree of genetic distinctiveness, but don't monopolize anything close to a continent. The problem is that the term "ethnic group" comes with a lot of non-genetic baggage. For example, the U.S. government applies the term to all Spanish speaking people, no matter what their ancestry.

Re(4): More on Mel
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 12:18:53 AM by mg

Firstly, I am not TK.

Secondly, we have argued Jews as a "race" earlier.

Yes, you can convert to Judaism. But you are a innately a second class citizen. There are Hebrew words for the tiers of privilege.

Again, it's quite simple, Levine. By Jewish religious dictates, a Jew is defined as being born of a Jewish mother.

If biological link cannot be classified as "racist," what IS?

By traditional Jewish definition, Levine, if your mother is Jewish YOU ARE A JEW. If your father is Jewish, you are NOT a Jew. And if you doubt this, try to move to Israel with a father's Jewish pedigree only.

In America, the Reform movement has muddled the traditional definitions wherein fanatical half-Jews like yourself are accepted (by some, but not all) into the fold.

Re(5): More on Mel
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 05:49:19 PM by Mitchell Levine

Secondly, we have argued Jews as a "race" earlier.

- And I refuted your moronic argument then too.

Yes, you can convert to Judaism. But you are a innately a second class citizen. There are Hebrew words for the tiers of privilege.

- This is bullshit. Jews by choice are just as much Jews as Jews by birth. If anything, they are usually seen as being more observant than those born Jewish, and also share in whatever supposed "privileges" are received by their born co-religionists. In 35 years of being part of the Jewish community, I've never met anyone who told me they didn't consider them to be "real" Jews.

Again, it's quite simple, Levine. By Jewish religious dictates, a Jew is defined as being born of a Jewish mother.

-And the Swedes consider you to be Swedish if your mother and father are Swedish and not Swedish if they weren't. Does that mean Sweden is racist too. True, you can acquire Swedish citizenship, but you can acquire Judaism too.

If biological link cannot be classified as "racist," what IS?

-If that's true, then an awful lot of people are "racist." For example, according to the Palestinian National Charter,
Palestinian identity is conferred by the status of the father, which means by your definition, the Palestinians are racist too.

By traditional Jewish definition, Levine, if your mother is Jewish YOU ARE A JEW. If your father is Jewish, you are NOT a Jew. And if you doubt this, try to move to Israel with a father's Jewish pedigree only.

-I did it. Why couldn't anyone else? The fact that traditional Judaism embraced matrilinear succession only further dismisses your concept of "Judaism as race," because racial and biological typologies do not distinguish between parents for purposes of phenotypic categorization. It doesn't matter which parent has racial status, only that they contributed their genetics.

Quite simply, on the basis of biological definition, racial status cannot be conferred by conversion. You can convert to Judaism, your crackpot theory about the status of Jews by choice notwithstanding. Therefore, Jews are not a race, and that's the end of it. Q.E.D.

In America, the Reform movement has muddled the traditional definitions wherein fanatical half-Jews like yourself are accepted (by some, but not all) into the fold.

- I'm not a fanatic in the slightest. I believe in Eastern religion, not Judaism, condemn Ariel Sharon's hawkishness, and I certainly don't believe in discrimination directed at anyone. I just don't appreciate being slandered by evil lies from revolting, worthless scum like you.

Re(6): More on Mel
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 00:40:22 AM by mg

YOU SAY: This is bullshit. Jews by choice are just as much Jews as Jews by birth. If anything, they are usually seen as being more observant than those born Jewish, and also share in whatever supposed "privileges" are received by their born co-religionists. In 35 years of being part of the Jewish community, I've never met anyone who told me they didn't consider them to be "real" Jews.


RESPONSE: My response to your lies and smokescreens is, with dozens of citations, at

http://www.jewishtribalreview/15assim.htm

Levine, enjoy!

Re(7): More on Mel
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 06:08:51 PM by Mitchell Levine

Sorry, but you've assembled a one-sided collection of statements that represent various individuals subjective experience, and I've actually lived these things. Experience trumps anecdotes.

Simply because the people to whom you refer have described their experiences this way - and that's making the big assumption that you haven't distorted the true intent of their commentary by selective quoting and your other typical means of distortion - doesn't mean that they are justified in their complaints, or representative of what the majority of people who become Jews by choice agree.

That's why anecdotal evidence proves nothing. I've known many, many people who have converted to Judaism, and none of them shared the feelings of the authors of the linked articles.

When you have double-blind statistical evidence of these sociological claims, then start drawing generalizations. Until then, they're simply highly bigoted stereotypes.

Re(8): More on Mel
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 09:54:26 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Sorry, but you've assembled a one-sided collection of statements that represent various individuals subjective experience, and I've actually lived these things. Experience trumps anecdotes.

RESPONSE: Your usual sleight of hand. Why is your "experience" any less antectodal and implicitly more authentic than anyone elses'? Insofar as the material we've gathered is published (mostly in Jewish publications), and your commentary is fluff you pull from your ass, what credibility do you have?

Other than chief propagandist for the racist state of Israel?

YOU SAY: Simply because the people to whom you refer have described their experiences this way - and that's making the big assumption that you haven't distorted the true intent of their commentary by selective quoting and your other typical means of distortion - doesn't mean that they are justified in their complaints, or representative of what the majority of people who become Jews by choice agree.

RESPONSE: In other words, scholarly research is valueless. Levine is God. Got a question? Levine's "experience" in defense of racist Israel defines reality.

YOU SAY: That's why anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

RESPONSE: Every single thing you post here is "anecdotal," in the WORSE sense. The material we've gathered is mostly cited from Jewish journals and the mainstream media.

It seems clear that your personal "experience" (i.e., anecdotes) is propaganda, invention, conscious manipulation, and manifestations of your desperate ignorance.

YOU SAY: I've known many, many people who have converted to Judaism, and none of them shared the feelings of the authors of the linked articles.

RESPONSE: You didn't read the material. Read Romanoff's book, for example, about converts to Judaism. Tell me then her comments represent anomalies.

YOU SAY: When you have double-blind statistical evidence of these sociological claims, then start drawing generalizations. Until then, they're simply highly bigoted stereotypes.

RESPONSE: This is always your tact, Levine. You use it against Cones' research too. Until every Jew in the USA is surveyed, and the dirt beneath every rock inspected, and $500 million is spent for a definitive study that interviews every Jew on the planet, you'll always sit there with your arms folded declaring, "There's no proof. You can't generalize from the avalanche of evidence. You need to examine it ALL."

Neat trick. You're a huckster. A fraudster. You complaining about "anecdotes" is like an obsessive liar complaining that a critic of Jewry didn't dot an "i."

Re(7): More on Mel
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 10:10:22 AM by MK

Mitchell, some idiots just won't listen no mater what you say. MG is a perfect example of this.

Re(6): More on Mel
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 00:34:47 AM by mg

YOU SAY: I'm not a fanatic in the slightest. I believe in Eastern religion, not Judaism, condemn Ariel Sharon's hawkishness, and I certainly don't believe in discrimination directed at anyone. I just don't appreciate being slandered by evil lies from revolting, worthless scum like you.

RESPONSE: So let's see. You moved to Israel. Yet you believe in "Eastern religion." Does "Eastern religion" tell you to call people "scum?" Would that be Buddhism or Hinduism? And you don't believe in "discrimination against anyone?"

What a fraud! What a sordid huckster! The foundation of the state of Israel is DISCRIMINATION (only Jews are allowed to emigrate there, right from the start) AND YOU MOVED THERE, thereby sanctioning -- and benefiting from -- racist Israeli policy! The most loathesome part is that you proclaim all the requisite allegiances to human universalism, yet, by action, align yourself with racist Israel. You're a fraud, Levine, and all your screaming about "scum" and "morons" doesn't lift you from the slimiest snake pile.

Shame!


YOU SAY: racial and biological typologies do not distinguish between parents for purposes of phenotypic categorization. It doesn't matter which parent has racial status, only that they contributed their genetics.

RESPONSE: Horseshit. If you think you're better than anyone else because a parent has links to a Chosen People ideology, you're a racist.

Your bluffs just can't surpass Jewish racism, which has always been the backbone of Jewish identity.

YOU SAY: Quite simply, on the basis of biological definition, racial status cannot be conferred by conversion. You can convert to Judaism, your crackpot theory about the status of Jews by choice notwithstanding. Therefore, Jews are not a race, and that's the end of it. Q.E.D

RESPONSE: Am I speaking to God? Jewish racial/religious pedigree declares that Jews are the "Chosen People." Non-Jews who follow "the book" (Bible) are afforded a lower class Noahide class. People of your "Eastern religions" are traditionally afforded a status bordering on the non-human. Look it up, Levine. We've got the citations about it, but you'll be better crushed in shame when you go to your own Jewish historical texts.
YOU SAY: And the Swedes consider you to be Swedish if your mother and father are Swedish and not Swedish if they weren't. Does that mean Sweden is racist too. True, you can acquire Swedish citizenship, but you can acquire Judaism too.

RESPONSE: That's a stupid, irrelevant analogy, and you know it. The "Swedes" aren't everywhere across the world's geography declaring that they are "Swedes" above all else, conjoining a tribal essence, a nationalist essence, and a religious one.

Jewish allegiance to the Chosen People Victim Cult Clan transcends geography.

Re(7): More on Mel
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 08:45:06 PM by Mitchell Levine

YOU SAY: I'm not a fanatic in the slightest. I believe in Eastern religion, not Judaism, condemn Ariel Sharon's hawkishness, and I certainly don't believe in discrimination directed at anyone. I just don't appreciate being slandered by evil lies from revolting, worthless scum like you.

RESPONSE: So let's see. You moved to Israel. Yet you believe in "Eastern religion." Does "Eastern religion" tell you to call people "scum?"

-Yes, if the spirit moves you.

Would that be Buddhism or Hinduism?

-Vedanta.

And you don't believe in "discrimination against anyone?"

- No, I don't.

What a fraud! What a sordid huckster! The foundation of the state of Israel is DISCRIMINATION (only Jews are allowed to emigrate there, right from the start) AND YOU MOVED THERE, thereby sanctioning -- and benefiting from -- racist Israeli policy!

Israel's policy is only racist if Islamic fundamentist states, or European nations with state churches are. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that Jews shouldn't be able to enjoy a state that celebrates their religious tradition in their land of indigenous origin, when the Islamic states do. This does not mean that the Palestinians shouldn't be entitled to a homeland as well, which will undoubtedly be an Islamic fundamentalist country.

The most loathesome part is that you proclaim all the requisite allegiances to human universalism, yet, by action, align yourself with racist Israel.

- By the standards you've set for "racism," the Palestinians are equally "racist," yet you choose to "align" yourself with them - although that's most likely a bogus facade you've erected as an implement of opportunity. You probably have no more true regard for them than you do anyone else different than you, like most psychotic bigots.


You're a fraud, Levine, and all your screaming about "scum" and "morons" doesn't lift you from the slimiest snake pile.

- Considering the fact that your site proclaims itself to be "anti-bigotry," you are quite simply the biggest fraud of all.

Shame!

- That's right: Shame! Although, as you've amply demonstrated, you have none.


YOU SAY: racial and biological typologies do not distinguish between parents for purposes of phenotypic categorization. It doesn't matter which parent has racial status, only that they contributed their genetics.

RESPONSE: Horseshit. If you think you're better than anyone else because a parent has links to a Chosen People ideology, you're a racist.

- Being "the Chosen People" in no way makes a Jew better than anyone else: in fact, according to OT tradition, it was a burden. What the sobriquet means is that the Jews were the people amongst the pagans that were "chosen" to bring the Law and monotheism to the world.

Why did Jehoavah choose them? It was not because they were "better" than anyone else. He was acting out a leitmotiv which forms one of the most recurrent themes of the Bible. A prophet of God in the Hebrew Bible is not a Superman. God doesn't choose action heroes or romantic leads as his prophets. He chooses the blind, the lame, the weak, and the illiterate.

That's how he demonstrated his power and glory, so the scriptures are replete with blind, crippled, poor, and stigmatized prophets. In the same way, He chose the Jews not because of their superiority, but because they were slaves, the lowest of all people. Making them a "great nation" was the signature of his power.

It's also evident from the story of God's covenant with Abraham that the only requirement the former imposed on those entering the state of Judaism was to circumcize themselves and obey God's commands. Even from the start, there was no "racial" requirement to be a Jew, and there continues to be none today. There are Black Jews, Asian Jews, Hispanic Jews, and other Jews of every racial description there is. While you are automatically considered Jewish if your parents are, no restrictions are set on becoming one by choice.

According to the Likud government, they want an orthodox conversion as a formal requirement for citizenship - but even the orthodox don't set restrictions on what heritage people must come from to successfully convert. That's certainly something that can't be said for the Islamic fundamentalist nations.


Your bluffs just can't surpass Jewish racism, which has always been the backbone of Jewish identity.

- As has already been demonstrated, there is no racial component to Judaism. There are Jews of every racial description imaginable, including natives of China, Japan, South American, and so on. Judaism can be acquired, and race cannot be. Therefore, Jews are not a race. And until you have double-blind, statistically validated psychometric research data, cross-referenced against an appropriately sampled control group, you have no basis whatsoever to authoritatively state what "Jewish identity" is.

YOU SAY: Quite simply, on the basis of biological definition, racial status cannot be conferred by conversion. You can convert to Judaism, your crackpot theory about the status of Jews by choice notwithstanding. Therefore, Jews are not a race, and that's the end of it. Q.E.D

RESPONSE: Am I speaking to God?

- By comparison to your level of intellectual ability, yes.

Jewish racial/religious pedigree declares that Jews are the "Chosen People." Non-Jews who follow "the book" (Bible) are afforded a lower class Noahide class.

- That's no different than Christianity stating that everyone whom doesn't accept their beliefs is sent eternally to Hell, or Hindus saying that all those who don't believe in Vishnu or Shiva are condemned to endless lifetimes of suffering. Every religious order claims to be superior in belief than non-believers, for otherwise, what reason or benefit would there be in believing? That's one of the crucial factors in the exodus of contemporary people from the traditional established religions into non-traditionally Western ones.

People of your "Eastern religions" are traditionally afforded a status bordering on the non-human. Look it up, Levine. We've got the citations about it, but you'll be better crushed in shame when you go to your own Jewish historical texts.

No, you're the one whom should study the religious texts, which you display no evidence of having done whatsoever. If you had actually read the Talmud, you'd have noticed that it specifically states that anyone who truly converts to Judaism, is spiritually reconfigured to have a "Jewish soul," no different than if they had been born as such. Personally, I believe that soul is non-denominational, but I at least like the message that God doesn't absolutely discriminate by birth heritage.
-
YOU SAY: And the Swedes consider you to be Swedish if your mother and father are Swedish and not Swedish if they weren't. Does that mean Sweden is racist too. True, you can acquire Swedish citizenship, but you can acquire Judaism too.

RESPONSE: That's a stupid, irrelevant analogy,

- You're definitely the expert on that!

and you know it. The "Swedes" aren't everywhere across the world's geography declaring that they are "Swedes" above all else

- Bullshit. They do it all the time. People in every nation do. If they aren't an outgroup of some kind, the trait is called "patriotism," and is generally considered a virtue. Of course, moronic fucking assholes like you typically attack their targeted outgroups no matter what the latter do, and traits that would be virtuous, if exhibited by the majority, suddenly become an excuse for stigmatization of the outgroup.

By the way, Jews don't necessarily proclaim themselves to be Jewish "above all else." In fact, the reason many Jews died in the Holocaust is that they hesitated leaving Austria and Germany during the rise of the Nazi state, because they considered themselves German first and Jewish second.

a tribal essence, a nationalist essence, and a religious one.

- This is a silly, pretentious way of saying that, regardless of the fact that many people of Jewish extraction don't select the religous tradition of Judaism as their faith, they consider themselves Jewish as an ethnicity.

There's nothing wrong or illegitimate about this in the slightest, anymore so than people who take pride in their ethnicity anywhere - unless you're a psychotically prejudiced bigot, which, of course, you are.

Jewish allegiance to the Chosen People Victim Cult Clan transcends geography.

- When you can provide statistical data which demonstrates this sociological/anthropological thesis, then start preaching it. However, if other peoples felt differently about their heritage, they wouldn't call themselves African-American, Italian-American, Irish-American, and so forth.

Re(8): More on Mel
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 10:38:51 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Yes, if the spirit moves you.

RESPONSE: That's not "Vedanta." Whenever "the spirit moves you," you follow throughwith it? That's the ideology of a three-year old. And the religion of a beached squid.

YOU SAY: Israel's policy is only racist if Islamic fundamentist states, or European nations with state churches are.

RESPONSE: Which "European nation" categorically forbids Jewish immigration?

Israel FORBIDS immigration by ANYONE to its soil who isn't a Jew. Stop dissimulating, Levine. That's naked racism. Face it.

Hell, Poland opened up its borders to Jewish immigration in the 13TH CENTURY! Jews flooded there so much that it became the most Jew-filled country on the planet. Looking to see Arabs free to RETURN to their homeland ("Israel") anytime soon? And these people were BORN there!

YOU SAY: There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that Jews shouldn't be able to enjoy a state that celebrates their religious tradition in their land of indigenous origin, when the Islamic states do.

RESPONSE: Jews stole the land from the Arabs. Arabs' "indigenous origin" is no less the same territory. Israel not only "celebrates its religious tradition," it dictates it upon ALL non-Jews within its borders. And again, Israeli law FORBIDS a Jew from marrying an Arab. Racist, racist, racist, racist, racist.

Come clean, Levine. Each lie of yours leads to another. You're sinking into quicksand.

YOU SAY: This does not mean that the Palestinians shouldn't be entitled to a homeland as well, which will undoubtedly be an Islamic fundamentalist country.

RESPONSE: Your evidence for this? Your citations? Or is this just another "ancedote" you pulled out from your ass?

Are you insinuating that the Islamic liberation movements that Israel earlier ENDORSED and SUPPORTED against the then-greater threat (the PLO) got out of hand?

YOU SAY: By the standards you've set for "racism," the Palestinians are equally "racist," yet you choose to "align" yourself with them - although that's most likely a bogus facade you've erected as an implement of opportunity.

RESPONSE: To equate the Palestinian situation with the Jewish is a moral crime. Gaza and the West Bank are two great concentration camps which the Jews of Israel have ruled with an iron fist for decades.

You, in your stereotypical derangement, can only see my interest in their plight to be an argumentative "opportunity." You are completely corrupt. My support for the Palestinians is real and for all your dreams that I'm a "Nazi," anyone who supports so vehemently Jewish institutionalized racism is a million miles closer to the legacy of the Fuhrer.

YOU SAY: You probably have no more true regard for them than you do anyone else different than you, like most psychotic bigots.

RESPONSE: Levine, I can run circles around you with the crimes of Israel against the Palestinian people. There's enough material at Jewish Tribal Review to drown you disgusting facts about Jewish/Israeli savagery for the rest of your life.

YOU SAY: Considering the fact that your site proclaims itself to be "anti-bigotry," you are quite simply the biggest fraud of all.

RESPONSE: Let the reader decide who's the bigot, Levine:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org



YOU SAY: Being "the Chosen People" in no way makes a Jew better than anyone else: in fact, according to OT tradition, it was a burden.

RESPONSE: What a weasel! Have you no scruples? "Chosen" for the "burden" of being the arrogant clan whose going to tell everybody what to do? No thanks.

Jews believe God "chose" Jews as his "treasured' people. The documentation of this Jewish racism is vast, and it's not my invention. Plenty of Jewish scholars have written articles about this racist "Chosen People" garbage. The "Reconstruction" movement was invented in direct refutation of this racist Jewish tradition, as you surely must know.

YOU SAY: What the sobriquet means is that the Jews were the people amongst the pagans that were "chosen" to bring the Law and monotheism to the world.

RESPONSE: This is propaganda. So, hmm. Jews believe God were "chosen" to bring the "Law" and "monotheism" to the world. A little arrogance, no? A little implicit "specialness," no? Come on, Levine. The bullshit is dripping down your pants. You're onstage, pal. And your own veiling of Jewish racism is an absolute joke. Can you pull a rabbit out a hat for us? How about another rabbit out of the Talmud?

YOU SAY: Why did Jehoavah choose them? It was not because they were "better" than anyone else. He was acting out a leitmotiv which forms one of the most recurrent themes of the Bible.

RESPONSE: Hey, Levine. If you're such a devotee of "Eastern Religions" (which have nothing to do with Judaism and reject it's original Wargod) what the Hell do you care about racist Judaism? Unless you're a dual devotee (sort of like your dual loyalty to the U.S. and Israel).

YOU SAY: A prophet of God in the Hebrew Bible is not a Superman. God doesn't choose action heroes or romantic leads as his prophets. He chooses the blind, the lame, the weak, and the illiterate.

RESPONSE: Get out of the pulpit and back into the hog pen, where you belong.

YOU SAY: That's how he demonstrated his power and glory, so the scriptures are replete with blind, crippled, poor, and stigmatized prophets. In the same way, He chose the Jews not because of their superiority, but because they were slaves, the lowest of all people. Making them a "great nation" was the signature of his power.

RESPONSE: Jews were "slaves?" The "lowest of people?" Does that explain why Jews dominated the slavetrade of non-Jewish Eastern Europeans in the Middle Ages?

Your ideology does explain your obsession Jews have with being "victims," which Jewish Tribal Review examines at length. Jews demand victimhood "slave" status even as they dominate western culture.

YOU SAY: It's also evident from the story of God's covenant with Abraham that the only requirement the former imposed on those entering the state of Judaism was to circumcize themselves and obey God's commands. Even from the start, there was no "racial" requirement to be a Jew, and there continues to be none today.

RESPONSE: The circumcision game is part of the racial game, Levine. It's a celebratory mutiliation of the male reproductive organ which IS about a profound emphasis on progeny, i.e., racial pedigree.

YOU SAY: There are Black Jews, Asian Jews, Hispanic Jews, and other Jews of every racial description there is.

RESPONSE: Yes, and their link, in the Jewish mind, is a RACIAL, GENETIC link to the ancient Israelite tribes. That's why the Falasha (black Ethiopian Jews) have had so much trouble with the Chabad Lubavitchers and other ultra-Orthodox. They're not acceptable to the ultra-Orthodox as authentic, GENETIC Jews.

YOU SAY: While you are automatically considered Jewish if your parents are, no restrictions are set on becoming one by choice.

RESPONSE: Bullshit. Orthodox Judaism doesn't invite converts and makes it very difficult to join. And once you're in, there's a tier system of privilege. You deny this. Tough. We've got the citations at our web site.

YOU SAY: According to the Likud government, they want an orthodox conversion as a formal requirement for citizenship - but even the orthodox don't set restrictions on what heritage people must come from to successfully convert. That's certainly something that can't be said for the Islamic fundamentalist nations.

RESPONSE: TOTAL bullshit. You can be a Muslim right now by reciting the shahada. When you're ready to join Islam, Levine, go to the "Jews to Islam" web site and the former Brooklyn Jew and hassid who runs the site can help you to get some dignity back into your life.


YOU SAY: As has already been demonstrated, there is no racial component to Judaism.

RESPONSE: "Already demonstrated?" You blow air on this forum and that's one of the Ten Commandments?

YOU SAY: There are Jews of every racial description imaginable, including natives of China, Japan, South American, and so on. Judaism can be acquired, and race cannot be.

RESPONSE: ALL these groups claim ancient genetic links to one of the early Israelite tribes. It is a racial essence.

YOU SAY: Therefore, Jews are not a race. And until you have double-blind, statistically validated psychometric research data, cross-referenced against an appropriately sampled control group, you have no basis whatsoever to authoritatively state what "Jewish identity" is.

RESPONSE: You paint yourself into a stupid trap, Levine. What a screwball. If I can't say what "Jewish identity" is without your requisite $500 million survey, why can you authoritatively state what Jews are or are not? I think Jewish convention will suffice, I beg your pardon.

YOU SAY: By comparison to your level of intellectual ability, yes.

RESPONSE: Your obsession with your alleged "intellectual ability" paints you as a stereotypically arrogant Jew. In your struggles to win a single argument (and your repeated "anecdotal" proclamation that you are a genius seems to suffice for you) you just blow wind that you have the brains of 40 gentiles.

Virtually everything you say indicts you as an arrogant fraudster.

Re(9): More on Mel
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 07:11:49 PM by MK

MG: "And the religion of a beached squid."

MG: "Hell, Poland opened up its borders to Jewish immigration in the 13TH CENTURY! Jews flooded there so much that it became the most Jew-filled country on the planet."

- But hey, your idol Hitler took care of that for you, huh!

MG "What a weasel! Have you no scruples? "Chosen" for the "burden" of being the arrogant clan whose going to tell everybody what to do? No thanks."

- Read the fuckin' bible dipshit!

MG: " ALL these groups claim ancient genetic links to one of the early Israelite tribes. It is a racial essence."

- According to the bible, if that's your argument, then you're Jewish too.

MG: Your obsession with your alleged "intellectual ability" paints you as a stereotypically arrogant Jew. In your struggles to win a single argument (and your repeated "anecdotal" proclamation that you are a genius seems to suffice for you) you just blow wind that you have the brains of 40 gentiles."

- I imagine to you, Mitchell seems to be a Genius. It has already been established in earlier discussions that you feel a triple digit IQ is beyond you. Anyone else who reads these discussions, knows that Mitchell is not claiming to be superior to everyone. Just you! And that's hardly being arrogant. My dog is superior to you.

Re(9): More on Mel
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 12:54:57 AM by George SHelps

A prophet of God in the Hebrew Bible is not a Superman. God doesn't choose action heroes or romantic leads as his prophets. He chooses the blind, the lame, the weak, and the illiterate.

RESPONSE: Get out of the pulpit and back into the hog pen, where you belong.

Typical exchange. Levine nails the truth and Jenks/Baker/what-the-f---
comes back with a gutter insult.

You know you've got him when he does that, Mitchell.

What the creep doesn't realize is that
the whole of Christianity is based precisely on Jewish chosen-ness, and
the fact that God takes the form of
a humble carpenter and consorts with
men and women deemed to be the lowlifes
and scum of Judea.

Re(9): More on Mel
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 00:09:45 AM by Mitchell Levine



RESPONSE: That's not "Vedanta." Whenever "the spirit moves you," you follow throughwith it?

-No, just when easily refuting the moronic arguments of a worthless, evil scumbag like you.

YOU SAY: Israel's policy is only racist if Islamic fundamentist states, or European nations with state churches are.

RESPONSE: Which "European nation" categorically forbids Jewish immigration?

Israel FORBIDS immigration by ANYONE to its soil who isn't a Jew. Stop dissimulating, Levine. That's naked racism. Face it.

- It could only be racism if Jews were a race. Jews are not a race, and anyone who wishes to can convert to Judaism. Therefore, it's not racist.

Hell, Poland opened up its borders to Jewish immigration in the 13TH CENTURY! Jews flooded there so much that it became the most Jew-filled country on the planet. Looking to see Arabs free to RETURN to their homeland ("Israel") anytime soon? And these people were BORN there!

- When will Jews from the regions now controlled by the Islamic fundamentalists be able to return to the lands they were born into? Never, you stupid piece of shit.

RESPONSE: Jews stole the land from the Arabs.

- They didn't steal anything. Arabs didn't own the land. Ottoman Turks did, for 1200 years. They wanted to sell out, and the Jewish National Fund bought it, with authorization from the League of Nations. It's exactly this inability to recall history that explains why even other evil scumbags consider you retarded.

Arabs' "indigenous origin" is no less the same territory. Israel not only "celebrates its religious tradition," it dictates it upon ALL non-Jews within its borders.

- Hardly. Unlike the Islamic fundamentalist states, non-Jews are still allowed to practice their religion within Israeli borders.

And again, Israeli law FORBIDS a Jew from marrying an Arab. Racist, racist, racist, racist, racist.

- Then the Arab states are equally "racist," because none of them will allow it either.

Come clean, Levine. Each lie of yours leads to another. You're sinking into quicksand.

- You haven't identified one.

YOU SAY: This does not mean that the Palestinians shouldn't be entitled to a homeland as well, which will undoubtedly be an Islamic fundamentalist country.

RESPONSE: Your evidence for this? Your citations? Or is this just another "ancedote" you pulled out from your ass?

- It's part of the Palestinian National Charter.

YOU SAY: By the standards you've set for "racism," the Palestinians are equally "racist," yet you choose to "align" yourself with them - although that's most likely a bogus facade you've erected as an implement of opportunity.

RESPONSE: To equate the Palestinian situation with the Jewish is a moral crime. Gaza and the West Bank are two great concentration camps which the Jews of Israel have ruled with an iron fist for decades.

- Yes, that's true. Israel never invaded any of those countries with the intent to push them into the sea, because they couldn't learn to share, like the Arabs did in 1973. The Palestinians HAD a homeland called Jordan, and their Arab brothers refused to allow them into it. Israel is surrounded on every side by aggressors that waged terrorist war against them for twenty-five years regardless of the complete legitimacy of the Israeli mandate for their nation and title to their land. That's the background to the Palestinian situation, not the unilateral oppression you describe. The culmination of the tension will be an independent state for the Palestinians, which will be better treated by the Israelis than its Arab brothers ever treated Israel.

You, in your stereotypical derangement, can only see my interest in their plight to be an argumentative "opportunity." You are completely corrupt. My support for the Palestinians is real and for all your dreams that I'm a "Nazi,"

- I know you're not a Nazi: they would have exterminated you as an Erbkranken.

Re(10): More on Mel
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 00:26:42 AM by Mitchell Levine

anyone who supports so vehemently Jewish institutionalized racism is a million miles closer to the legacy of the Fuhrer.

- There is no "Jewish institutionalized racism." Jews are quite simply not a race, and never were. Besides, the qualification you chosen for the definition of racism is exactly the same one that the group you supposedly support uses to define its identity. That would make you just as much a supporter of "racism," if that were accurate.


RESPONSE: Levine, I can run circles around you with the crimes of Israel against the Palestinian people. There's enough material at Jewish Tribal Review to drown you disgusting facts about Jewish/Israeli savagery for the rest of your life.

- Most of which are historically inaccurate, bullshit distortions: for example, nowhere on your site do you mention anything about the Palestinian Bar Zeit university's recent revelation about the Arab falsification of Deir Yassin. And I could run circles around you with descriptions of the atrocities inflicted against Israelis by its Arab neighbors, and, actually, at anything else.



YOU SAY: Being "the Chosen People" in no way makes a Jew better than anyone else: in fact, according to OT tradition, it was a burden.

RESPONSE: What a weasel! Have you no scruples? "Chosen" for the "burden" of being the arrogant clan whose going to tell everybody what to do? No thanks.

- No, the burden of being "a light unto the nations," by their ethical conduct.

Jews believe God "chose" Jews as his "treasured' people. The documentation of this Jewish racism is vast, and it's not my invention. Plenty of Jewish scholars have written articles about this racist "Chosen People" garbage.

- And they will validate the account I've given.

The "Reconstruction" movement was invented in direct refutation of this racist Jewish tradition, as you surely must know.

- Jews are not a race. Judaism is not racial in the slightest. According to the Bible, Jews were the means of bringing the Law to the world. It doesn't not imply Jews are superior in any way. They were chosen for being humble as a slave people.

YOU SAY: What the sobriquet means is that the Jews were the people amongst the pagans that were "chosen" to bring the Law and monotheism to the world.

RESPONSE: This is propaganda. So, hmm. Jews believe God were "chosen" to bring the "Law" and "monotheism" to the world. A little arrogance, no? A little implicit "specialness," no? Come on, Levine. The bullshit is dripping down your pants. You're onstage, pal. And your own veiling of Jewish racism is an absolute joke. Can you pull a rabbit out a hat for us? How about another rabbit out of the Talmud?

- Not specialness, in fact, but servitude, if you want to take the biblical accounts as serious history, which is unwise, as the modern concept of history did not yet exist.

YOU SAY: Why did Jehoavah choose them? It was not because they were "better" than anyone else. He was acting out a leitmotiv which forms one of the most recurrent themes of the Bible.

RESPONSE: Hey, Levine. If you're such a devotee of "Eastern Religions" (which have nothing to do with Judaism and reject it's original Wargod) what the Hell do you care about racist Judaism? Unless you're a dual devotee (sort of like your dual loyalty to the U.S. and Israel).

- There is nothing racist about Judaism. Jews are not a race. Anyone who wishes to can convert to it. I'm not saying that I believe in the Biblical accounts - I believe they're dialectic fiction - I'm only explaining what the significance within the Bible of the Chosen People concept is, instead of your bigoted, irrational propaganda version. The Jews, according to the Bible, were chosen for their humbleness, not their specialness. And it's a concept shared by their Christian cousins, and the foundation for Islam as well.

RESPONSE: Jews were "slaves?" The "lowest of people?" Does that explain why Jews dominated the slavetrade of non-Jewish Eastern Europeans in the Middle Ages?

- Because they didn't. In fact, Muslim traders were amongst the most prominent, and continued to play that role even during the period of American slavery.

Your ideology does explain your obsession Jews have with being "victims," which Jewish Tribal Review examines at length. Jews demand victimhood "slave" status even as they dominate western culture.

- The reason why Jews identify with victims is because they have been victims many times throughout history.

YOU SAY: It's also evident from the story of God's covenant with Abraham that the only requirement the former imposed on those entering the state of Judaism was to circumcize themselves and obey God's commands. Even from the start, there was no "racial" requirement to be a Jew, and there continues to be none today.

RESPONSE: The circumcision game is part of the racial game, Levine. It's a celebratory mutiliation of the male reproductive organ which IS about a profound emphasis on progeny, i.e., racial pedigree.

- Sorry, but if the only requirement to join an organization is circumcision and obeying a set of laws, then there is no "racial" requirement to belong, because males of every race have foreskins, and can obey rules. Your arguments are getting even more irrational.

YOU SAY: There are Black Jews, Asian Jews, Hispanic Jews, and other Jews of every racial description there is.

RESPONSE: Yes, and their link, in the Jewish mind, is a RACIAL, GENETIC link to the ancient Israelite tribes. That's why the Falasha (black Ethiopian Jews) have had so much trouble with the Chabad Lubavitchers and other ultra-Orthodox. They're not acceptable to the ultra-Orthodox as authentic, GENETIC Jews.

- This is the stupidest and most irrational of your arguments yet. You've outdone yourself, Jenks!!!

YOU SAY: While you are automatically considered Jewish if your parents are, no restrictions are set on becoming one by choice.

RESPONSE: Bullshit. Orthodox Judaism doesn't invite converts and makes it very difficult to join. And once you're in, there's a tier system of privilege. You deny this. Tough. We've got the citations at our web site.

- Plenty of people convert to Judaism, and they do it all the time. You don't have to "invite" converts to accept them. And no one bestows any "privilege" on you for being an orthodox Jew. Even Cones and Jaeger note that the putative Hollywood "control group" is composed of "not-very-religious" Jewish males, not orthodoxim.

YOU SAY: According to the Likud government, they want an orthodox conversion as a formal requirement for citizenship - but even the orthodox don't set restrictions on what heritage people must come from to successfully convert. That's certainly something that can't be said for the Islamic fundamentalist nations.


YOU SAY: As has already been demonstrated, there is no racial component to Judaism.

RESPONSE: "Already demonstrated?" You blow air on this forum and that's one of the Ten Commandments?

- All you've ever done is blow hot air, and every time your arguments are refuted you keep trying to move onto another bullshit argument, hoping to slip the first one back in when people have hopefully forgotten its been refuted. This is one such case.

YOU SAY: There are Jews of every racial description imaginable, including natives of China, Japan, South American, and so on. Judaism can be acquired, and race cannot be.

RESPONSE: ALL these groups claim ancient genetic links to one of the early Israelite tribes. It is a racial essence.

- Race is defined in terms of shared biological characteristics transmitted genetically. Find the requisite number of shared genomes between Jews in China and Jews in South America to establish the NIH standards for racial classification, and then perhaps someone will believe your bullshit. In other words, never.

YOU SAY: Therefore, Jews are not a race. And until you have double-blind, statistically validated psychometric research data, cross-referenced against an appropriately sampled control group, you have no basis whatsoever to authoritatively state what "Jewish identity" is.

RESPONSE: You paint yourself into a stupid trap, Levine. What a screwball. If I can't say what "Jewish identity" is without your requisite $500 million survey, why can you authoritatively state what Jews are or are not? I think Jewish convention will suffice, I beg your pardon.

- Such a survey wouldn't cost $500 million dollars by any means. It would only require that you be capable of carrying out objective research which met rigorous standards of proof; i.e., something you're incapable of doing. An intelligent man; i.e., not you, would not even attempt to pass off bigoted generalizations like "Jews are hustlers!' as actual facts, instead of hateful stereotypes. That's what makes you the hilarious public laughingstock you are.

YOU SAY: By comparison to your level of intellectual ability, yes.

RESPONSE: Your obsession with your alleged "intellectual ability" paints you as a stereotypically arrogant Jew. In your struggles to win a single argument (and your repeated "anecdotal" proclamation that you are a genius seems to suffice for you) you just blow wind that you have the brains of 40 gentiles.

- I've won every argument we've ever had, and I'll win every argument we ever will. The only one who doesn't realize it is you.

pt 2: More on Mel
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 10:39:38 PM by mg

YOU SAY: No, you're the one whom should study the religious texts, which you display no evidence of having done whatsoever. If you had actually read the Talmud, you'd have noticed that it specifically states that anyone who truly converts to Judaism, is spiritually reconfigured to have a "Jewish soul," no different than if they had been born as such. Personally, I believe that soul is non-denominational, but I at least like the message that God doesn't absolutely discriminate by birth heritage.


RESPONSE: The Internet is loaded with commentary about the Talmud. The reasoned person should view a variety of opinions about it, read it themselves, and come to their own conclusions. They'll find that's it's an exclusionary, racist scamster encyclopedia.

RESPONSE: Bullshit. They do it all the time. People in every nation do. If they aren't an outgroup of some kind, the trait is called "patriotism," and is generally considered a virtue. Of course, moronic fucking assholes like you typically attack their targeted outgroups no matter what the latter do, and traits that would be virtuous, if exhibited by the majority, suddenly become an excuse for stigmatization of the outgroup.


RESPONSE: Swedish-Americans haven't coopted American culture and foreign policy and bent it to expressly Swedish interest. Jews have. Jews are obsessed with themselves and their "victimhood."

YOU SAY: By the way, Jews don't necessarily proclaim themselves to be Jewish "above all else." In fact, the reason many Jews died in the Holocaust is that they hesitated leaving Austria and Germany during the rise of the Nazi state, because they considered themselves German first and Jewish second.

RESPONSE: That's the propaganda line. But the Jewish German in-house links were always strong, and baptism was en masse a form of "Marranoism." It was expedient to go through various host society rituals to economically advance. Jews generally remained loyal to Jewish trans-nationalism, with relatively few exceptions.

YOU SAY: This is a silly, pretentious way of saying that, regardless of the fact that many people of Jewish extraction don't select the religous tradition of Judaism as their faith, they consider themselves Jewish as an ethnicity.

RESPONSE: NOt just "ethnicity." Clan. Cult. Tribe. On an international scale.

YOU SAY: There's nothing wrong or illegitimate about this in the slightest, anymore so than people who take pride in their ethnicity anywhere - unless you're a psychotically prejudiced bigot, which, of course, you are.

RESPONSE: Again. Clan. Cult. Tribe. Jewish racism is the foundation of this trans-national allegiance and, with its current lock on U.S. foreign policy on behalf of Israel, threatens world peace.

Re(1): pt 2: More on Mel
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 00:40:58 AM by Mitchell Levine

YOU SAY: No, you're the one whom should study the religious texts, which you display no evidence of having done whatsoever. If you had actually read the Talmud, you'd have noticed that it specifically states that anyone who truly converts to Judaism, is spiritually reconfigured to have a "Jewish soul," no different than if they had been born as such. Personally, I believe that soul is non-denominational, but I at least like the message that God doesn't absolutely discriminate by birth heritage.


RESPONSE: The Internet is loaded with commentary about the Talmud. The reasoned person should view a variety of opinions about it, read it themselves, and come to their own conclusions. They'll find that's it's an exclusionary, racist scamster encyclopedia.

- You've never read the Talmud, and what you know of it has come from actual scamster encyclopedias, like
The Talmud Revealed, which is where most antisemitic commentators like you get their pseudofacts on the internet. Notice how complete ignorance of a subject is not an obstacle to your pontificating ignorantly about it endlessly, and that you simply try to use antisemitic propaganda to weasel out of the fact you can't deny the point made concerning the non-racial status of Judaism.

RESPONSE: Bullshit. They do it all the time. People in every nation do. If they aren't an outgroup of some kind, the trait is called "patriotism," and is generally considered a virtue. Of course, moronic fucking assholes like you typically attack their targeted outgroups no matter what the latter do, and traits that would be virtuous, if exhibited by the majority, suddenly become an excuse for stigmatization of the outgroup.


RESPONSE: Swedish-Americans haven't coopted American culture and foreign policy and bent it to expressly Swedish interest. Jews have. Jews are obsessed with themselves and their "victimhood."

- Jews can't "co-opt" American culture, because they're part of it as American citizens, as good as any other. And your obsession is with victimizing Jews, in case you could ever attain any power, despite your incompetence.

YOU SAY: By the way, Jews don't necessarily proclaim themselves to be Jewish "above all else." In fact, the reason many Jews died in the Holocaust is that they hesitated leaving Austria and Germany during the rise of the Nazi state, because they considered themselves German first and Jewish second.

RESPONSE: That's the propaganda line. But the Jewish German in-house links were always strong, and baptism was en masse a form of "Marranoism." It was expedient to go through various host society rituals to economically advance. Jews generally remained loyal to Jewish trans-nationalism, with relatively few exceptions.

- They didn't stop being Jews, but their primary allegiance was with Germany, otherwise they certainly would have left earlier.

YOU SAY: This is a silly, pretentious way of saying that, regardless of the fact that many people of Jewish extraction don't select the religous tradition of Judaism as their faith, they consider themselves Jewish as an ethnicity.

RESPONSE: NOt just "ethnicity." Clan. Cult. Tribe. On an international scale.

- No more so than any other social group with a shared background.

YOU SAY: There's nothing wrong or illegitimate about this in the slightest, anymore so than people who take pride in their ethnicity anywhere - unless you're a psychotically prejudiced bigot, which, of course, you are.

RESPONSE: Again. Clan. Cult. Tribe. Jewish racism is the foundation of this trans-national allegiance and, with its current lock on U.S. foreign policy on behalf of Israel, threatens world peace.

- You have never been able to establish that Jews are a race, for the simple reason that they are not. And Israel is sitting at the bargaining table with the Palestinians, so the only "international war" they're likely to start is with Hamas because the latter are unwilling to accept land for peace.

Re(2): pt 2: More on Mel
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 06:23:59 PM by mg

Our response, with literally thousands of citations, is at

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org


An excerpt from a Jewish article that explains your disgusting apologetic lying is here:

Jewish Ethics. Are They Ethical? Are They Jewish, by Tzvi Howard Adelman,
The Jewish Agency for Israel [The Department for Jewish Zionist Education], August 22, 1999

"For example, the Torah commands the extermination of various peoples (Deuteronomy 7:1-5) in the Mechilta it says, 'tov shebagoyim harog,' 'kill the best among the gentiles' (14:7; cf. Soferim ch. 15:10). There is another discussion about who has priority for drawing water at a well in which some rabbis argued that the needs of the local Jews to water their cattle or to do their laundry took precedence over the lives of strangers (Tosefta Baba Metzia 11:33-36) ... By the time of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, even the strongest defenders of the Jews both among the Christians and among the Jews conceded that the Jews were deficient in their ethical behavior ... The issue of Jewish criminality was elaborated upon by Johann David Michaelis, a German Bible scholar, who noted the high rate of Jewish criminal convictions and membership in gangs ... As other aspects of Jewish practice and belief are abandoned by large numbers of Jews, they are still driven by the desire to prove that Judaism still has something to offer its adherents and the world at large. For these reasons, Jewish Reformers in the nineteenth century began to present Judaism in terms of its 'Mission' which was to bring to the world the idea of 'ethical monotheism.' Such a construction served not only as a response to Christian attacks, but as a way to fill the void for Jews who were dissatisfied with Jewish ritual, communal life, but yearned for a reason to hold on to being Jewish. Many Jews, especially religious Jews today in Israel and their supporters abroad continue to adhere to traditional Jewish ethics that other Jews would like to ignore or explain away. For example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl: 'Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.' Rabbi Ido Elba: 'According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such a situation one may kill any Gentile.' Rabbi Yisrael Ariel write [sic] in 1982 that 'Beirut is part of the Land of Israel. . . our leaders should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and killed every single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.' It is usually yeshiva [Jewish religious school] students who chant 'Death to the Arabs' on CNN. The stealing and corruption by religious leaders that has recently been documented in trials in Israel and abroad continues to raise the question of the relationship between Judaism and ethics. Thus literature on Jewish ethics is produced because Jews feel a need for it. Jews still feel a tension between universalistic commitments and the specific obligations of Jewish survival."

Re(3): pt 2: More on Mel
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 08:27:24 PM by Mitchell Levine

Once again trying to use selective quoting and anecdotal examples to condemn an entire group of people, simply because you're jealous of them. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you won't be, because you're a psychotic asshole.

Re(4): pt 2: More on Mel
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 09:18:33 PM by mg

How is the "selective quoting" of a Jewish scholar from a Zionist/Israel web site an anecdote?

Better get your dictionary.

The ONLY thing you can do to argue against this ONE citation (and we've got tons of them at Jewish Tribal Review) is to call me a "psychotic asshole."

Alas, Mr. Levine, such "psychotic" quotations are to be found in Talmud.

And, yes, Mr. Levine. Your intelligence -- as you so often howl to us-- is indeed impressive.

The excerpt above describes YOUR propagandistic apologetics perfectly, don't you think?

Re(7): More on Mel
Posted on July 25, 2003 at 10:12:53 AM by MK

"Jewish allegiance to the Chosen People Victim Cult Clan transcends geography"

This is just insane! A statement made by a twisted imbecile.

Re(5): More on Mel or - Moron Mel
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 04:13:16 PM by KJ

You must be the latter.

Re(5): More on Mel
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 04:02:39 PM by MK

Are Catholics a race? How about Muslims?

Don't confuse culture with race, Adolf.

The Jewish World of Marlon Brando
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 11:14:17 AM by Moishe

Marlon Brando? Agent: Jay Kantor. When the future movie star moved to New York to begin an acting career, he began taking courses at the Jewish-dominated New York School for Social Research and was subsumed by a Jewish environment. "I was largely raised by these Jews," he says, "I lived in a world of Jews. They were my teachers; they were my employers. They were my friends ... As well as [Jewish] academics and scholars from Eastern Europe, Jewish girls, most of whom were more educated, sophisticated and experienced in the ways of the world than I was, were my teachers in those early days in New York." [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 72, 74] Brando's profoundly influential "method acting" acting teacher was Jewish, Stella Adler, who he credits with having enormous influence in his personal life; he even had a "relationship ... off an on, for many years" with Adler's daughter Ellen. [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 98-99] Adler also secured Brando his first important part in a play. [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 101]

Early in his career, Brando also took an important role in a play called A Flag Is Born, written by avid Zionist Ben Hecht and directed by Stella Adler's brother, Luther: both Jewish. As Brando notes, "it was essentially a piece of political propaganda advocating the creation of the state of Israel ... Everyone in A Flag Is Born was Jewish except me ... I did not know then that Jewish terrorists were indiscriminately killing Arabs and making refugees out of them in order to take their land ... The play, as well as my friendship with the Adlers, helped make me a zealous advocate for Israel and later a kind of traveling salesman for it." Brando was then further exploited by his Jewish cohorts; he began giving propaganda speeches for a Zionist organization, The American League for a Free Palestine. Influenced by Hitler's mass murder of Jews and the world view of the many Jews around him, Brando even contributed money himself to the Zionist Irgun organization, a terrorist group. Noting his avidly pro-Israel political activities, the movie star wrote to his parents, saying, "I'm really stimulated more than I've ever been." [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 107-111]

Eventually Brando learned more about Zionism and his politics changed. "Now," he said in 1994, "I understand much more about the complexity of the situation than I did then ... [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 111] ... I sided with Jewish terrorists without acknowledging that they were killing innocent Palestinians in their effort to create the state of Israel ... [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 231] ... One of the strangest government policies is that largely because of the political influence of Jewish interests, our country has invested billions of dollars and many American lives to help Israel reclaim land that they say their ancestors occupied three thousand years ago." [BRANDO/LINDSEY, 1994, p. 388]

Another Jewish Fascist
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 10:39:00 PM by mg

This is a mirror image of the Phyllis Chesler article posted a few days ago:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0703/nirenstein_2003_07_10.php3

How I became an 'unconscious fascist',
By Fiamma Nirenstein, Jewish World Review, July 15, 2003

"In 1967 I was a young communist, like most Italian youngsters. Bored by my rebellious behavior my family sent me to a Kibbutz in the upper Galilee, Neot Mordechai. I was quite satisfied there, the kibbutz used to give some money every month to the Vietcong. When the Six Day War began, Moshe Dayan spoke on the radio to announce it. I asked: "What is he saying?" and the comrades of Neot answered: "Shtuyot," silly things. During the war I took children to shelters; I dug trenches, and learned some simple shooting and acts of self defense. We continued working in the orchards, but were quick to identify the incoming Mig-im and the outgoing Mirage-im, chasing one another in the sky of the Golan Heights. When I went back to Italy, some of my fellow students stared at me as somebody new, an enemy, a wicked person who would soon become an imperialist. My life was about to change. I didn't yet know that, because I simply thought that Israel rightly won a war after having been assaulted with an incredible number of harassments. But I soon noticed that I had lost the innocence of the good Jew, of the very special Jewish friend, their Jew: I was now connected with the Jews of the State of Israel, and slowly I was put out of the dodecaphonic, psychoanalytic, Bob Dylan, Woody Allen, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Philip Roth, Freud shtetl, the coterie that sanctified my Judaism in left wing eyes. I have tried for a long time to bring back that sanctification, and they tried to give it back to me, because we desperately needed each other, the left and the Jews. But today's anti Semitism has overwhelmed any good intention. Throughout the years, even people that, like me, who had signed petitions asking the IDF to withdraw from Lebanon, became an "unconscious fascist" as a reader of mine wrote me in a letter filled with insults. In one book it was simply written that I was "a passionate woman that fell in love with Israel, confusing Jerusalem with Florence." One Palestinian told me that if I see things so differently from the majority, this plainly means that my brain doesn't work too well. Also, I've been called a cruel and insensitive human rights denier who doesn't care about Palestinian children's lives. A very famous Israeli writer told me on the phone a couple of months ago: "You really have become a right-winger." What? Right winger? Me? An old feminist human rights activist, even a communist when I was young? Only because I described the Arab-Israeli conflict as accurately as I could and because sometimes I identified with a country continuously attacked by terror, I became a right-winger? In the contemporary world, the world of human rights, when you call a person a right-winger, this is the first step toward his or her delegitimization. The Left blessed the Jews as the victim "par excellence," always a great partner in the struggle for the rights of the weak against the wicked. In return for being coddled, published, filmed, considered artists, intellectuals and moral judges, Jews, even during the Soviet anti-Semitic persecutions, gave the Left moral support and invited it to cry with them at Holocaust memorials. Today the game is clearly over. The left has proved itself the real cradle of contemporary anti-Semitism. When I speak about anti-Semitism, I'm not speaking of legitimate criticism of the State of Israel. I am speaking of pure anti-Semitism: Criminalization, stereotypes, specific and generic lies which have fluctuated between lies about the Jews (conspiring, blood thirsty, dominating the world) to lies about Israel (conspiring, ruthlessly violent) starting most widely since the beginning of the second Intifada in September 2000, and becoming more and more ferocious since Operation Chomat Magen ("Defensive Shield"), when the IDF reentered Palestinian cities in response to terrorism. The basic idea of anti-Semitism, today as always, is that Jews have a perverted soul that makes them unfit, as a morally inferior people, to be regular members of the human family. Today, this Untermensch ideology has shifted to the Jewish state: A separate, unequal, basically evil stranger whose national existence is slowly but surely emptied and deprived of justification. Israel, as the classic evil Jew, according to contemporary anti-Semitism, doesn't have a birthright, but exists with its "original sin" perpetrated against the Palestinians. Israel's heroic history has become a history of arrogance ... The caricature of the evil Jew is transformed to the caricature of the evil state ... Even Jews don't want to call an anti-Semite by his name, fearing disruption of old alliances. Because the left has a precise idea of what a Jew must be, when Jews don't match its prescription, they ask: How do you dare being different from the Jew I ordered you to be? Fighting against terrorism? Electing Sharon? Are you crazy? And here the answer of Jews and Israelis is the same. We are still very shy, very concerned about your affection. So, instead of requesting that Israel become an equal nation and that Jews become equal citizens in the world, we prefer standing with you shoulder to shoulder, even when you have come out with hundreds, thousands of anti-Semitic statements. We prefer to stand with you at Holocaust memorials cursing old anti-Semitism while you accuse Israel, and therefore the Jews, of being racist killers ... Well, people can, and always did, take for granted the prejudices about Jews; everyone is free to think whatever he wants. But we, the Jews, must reserve our moral right to hold such people accountable: in our eyes, they will plainly be anti-Semites. We will have to say to them: when you lie or use prejudices and stereotypes about Israel and the Jews, you are an anti-Semite, and I'll fight you."

Re(1): Jewish Intellectual Fascism
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 04:08:47 PM by MK

"And that includes ANY argument that criticizes Jewry, however qualified, however guardedly,however discretely. Including FIRM."

Perhaps if you left out the mockery, you would be engaged in debate rather than name calling.

Don't sling mud and expect to stay clean.

Re(1): Jewish Intellectual Fascism
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 12:07:19 AM by Mel Gibson

Across the political spectrum, people are getting fed up with Jewish narcissisim and control. Chesler fears this immensely. As do the Jews at the FIRM forum.

Re(2): Jewish Intellectual Fascism
Posted on July 24, 2003 at 03:52:11 PM by KJ

We don't fear anything, least of all idiots like you!

Jewish "antisemitism" in Hollywood
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 08:30:42 PM by mg

The Jewish "Marranos" were Christian fakers who took over Spain in the 1400s. (See Jewish scholar Cecil Roth's work about this). They were Jews who, en masse, claimed to be Christians in public, but were Jews behind closed doors.

They were all kicked out of Spain for this at the end of the century. In Jewish annals, it is of course the billionth instance of irrational "antisemitism."

Jewish "Marranoism" still goes on, as evidenced here: Jews don't want to emphasize their Jewishiness in every single film. Better to play it like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain.

Jewish neurosis about their fears of Gentile attention to their Marranoism
is evidenced by this Jewish screenwriter who declares that when "a famous Jewish director and a Jewish screenwriter [try] to make a film out
of a book by a Jewish Nobel prize winner and a Jewish mogul wants us
to change the locale, make it not Jewish," this scenario is -- in essence -- a form of "soft" "antisemitism."

It's not "antisemitism." It's the Jewish power cartel trying very hard not to call attention to the obvious: Jewish hegemony in Hollywood. But "antisemitism" is THE fundamental prism through which Jewry views ALL the world.

This guy's apologetics are worthy of our own Mitchell Levine, but it's a very nice spotlight on how Jewish Hollywood works:

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El524&enZone=Stories&enVersion=0&

To be a Hebrew in Hollywood. Making quality Jewish films in Hollywood is
hard. I should know. I've done it,
by Roger L. Simon, Jewsweek, July 11, 2003

WRITER BEWARE: Jewish screenwriter Roger L. Simon warns that Hollywood may not be as Jew-friendly as you think.

I am writing this short essay on being a Jewish screenwriter
in Hollywood at a desk at the National Yiddish Book Center in Amherst
where I am a speaker at their conference on Jewish Cinema. They are
showing a film I wrote back in the late eighties, the adaptation of
Isaac Bashevis Singer's brilliant Holocaust black comedy Enemies,
A Love Story. This film was a big critical success, was nominated for
three Academy Awards (including best adapted screenplay) and won the
New York Film Critics prize for its director Paul Mazursky. In
Jewish circles (and sometimes by the more artistically minded), I am
often asked, "How come you don't do more movies like that?" I wish,
I say aloud or to myself. In today's commercial cinema, making this
movie would be about as easy as flying to the moon in a Piper Cub. Even
then it wasn't simple. Here's a Hollywood story for you: When Paul and
I turned the script into Disney Studios (they had optioned the book
for Mazursky to direct and had paid me to write), Michael
Eisner said, "Fellas, this is a very good screenplay, but..." turning
to Paul, "...couldn't you update it like you did Down and Out in Beverly
Hills?" "But Michael," said Paul. "The Holocaust took place at a very
specific time ... during World War II." "Well, how about another Holocaust.
How about the Afghani Holocaust." All I can say is, thank God Isaac
Singer wasn't there. But then Singer, who had the most refined
sense of irony, might have laughed. Of course,
this is almost a parable of making Jewish movies in Hollywood -- a famous
Jewish director and a Jewish screenwriter trying to make a film out
of a book by a Jewish Nobel prize winner and a Jewish mogul wants us
to change the locale, make it not Jewish. Ten years before, when
I had been trying to make my own detective novel The Big Fix into a
movie, I had frequently met with the request by producers and studio
executives that its protagonist, Moses Wine, not be Jewish. Naturally,
these same producers and executives were themselves of that background.
Is this a form of anti-Semitism? Well, maybe,
but it is a soft form. Here is what I think is really going on.
You have to start from the basic truth that Jews constitute a very small
proportion of the movie-going public ... The major problem of independent
filmmaking is not whether or not the content is Jewish; it is whether
or not the content is serious. Having Jewish overtones only exacerbates
the matter. That is not to say that a strange queasiness does not exist.
I am certain that a good many of the Hollywood-types who are Jewish
would just as soon not deal with it in their work."

Re(1): Jewish
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 09:27:38 PM by Mitchell Levine

The Jewish "Marranos" were Christian fakers who took over Spain in the 1400s. (See Jewish scholar Cecil Roth's work about this). They were Jews who, en masse, claimed to be Christians in public, but were Jews behind closed doors.

- The motivation for this "faking" was to avoid being tortured in the Inquisitions, or killed in the Crusades, and this idiot acts as if it were the Jews who were doing something wrong!

They were all kicked out of Spain for this at the end of the century. In Jewish annals, it is of course the billionth instance of irrational "antisemitism."

- Untrue. The Spanish had a very rational reason for doing this: they wanted to steal Jewish property.

Jewish "Marranoism" still goes on, as evidenced here: Jews don't want to emphasize their Jewishiness in every single film.

- Why should they WANT to emphasize their Jewishness in every film?

Better to play it like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain.

- If you only had a brain!

Jewish neurosis about their fears of Gentile attention to their Marranoism

- How does simply not making every film "Jewish" in content, a very reasonable proposition on the grounds of artistic variety, and what this site is supposed to be advocating for, mean that their producers and creatives have become bogus Christians? Because you think Jews should have to wear yellow stars to ease your targeting them for discrimination?


is evidenced by this Jewish screenwriter who declares that when "a famous Jewish director and a Jewish screenwriter [try] to make a film out
of a book by a Jewish Nobel prize winner and a Jewish mogul wants us
to change the locale, make it not Jewish," this scenario is -- in essence -- a form of "soft" "antisemitism."

It's not "antisemitism." It's the Jewish power cartel trying very hard not to call attention to the obvious: Jewish hegemony in Hollywood.

- The Jewish "power cartel" in Hollywood doesn't believe it has to apologize to anyone for being Jewish, which they don't.

The actual reason for this phenomenon is, as the author notes, because Jews make up a small percentage of the ticket-buying public. Limiting the focus of productions strictly to items of Jewish historical interest is not only artistically limiting, it's also anti-commercial.


But "antisemitism" is THE fundamental prism through which Jewry views ALL the world.

- No, it's the fundamental prism through which YOU see all the world.

This guy's apologetics are worthy of our own Mitchell Levine, but it's a very nice spotlight on how Jewish Hollywood works:

- Thanks for comparing me to an Oscar-winning screenwriter!

Marranos pt. 1: Jewish
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 10:28:15 PM by mg

Levine, you're such a sucker -- the perfect foil:

Wherever Jews have lived (and live) in their diaspora, following their collectivist strategies and aggressive opportunism that have served them well throughout history, they have often risen to extraordinary economic and social power. This was true in the Muslim world where Jews in the eleventh century "attained the highest level of political power in Muslim Spain," in North Africa in the tenth and eleventh centuries when Jews "were important bankers, financiers, and advisors to the caliphates," and in the Turkish Ottoman Empire where, by the fifteenth century, Jews "were particularly useful to the Ottomans because they lacked any tie to any of the subject populations of the multiethnic empire and, thus, could be entrusted with unpopular tasks such as tax collection." [GINSBERG, B., 1993, p. 14-15] In the Ottoman empire, Jews
"mainly worked in trade, and their role was particularly important to farming taxes,
the collection of customs dues, and in the mint. They controlled all major tax
farming in the Istanbul region in 1470-80 ... Jews continued to play an important
role in this sector in the sixteenth century ... The Jews relatively high economic
profile in Istanbul and other Ottoman towns in the Balkans naturally inclined the
sultans to favor Jewish immigration into the Empire ... In the first half of the
seventeenth century, they monopolized the collection of customs, acting as
intermediaries between the Ottoman officials and the European traders. By 1620,
most customs officials in the port [of Izmir]." [BENBASSA/RODRIGUE,
1995, p. 6, 47]

Joachim Prinz notes the condition of Jews in Islamic Spain:

"During the reign of the Moors, with but few interruptions, the Spanish Jews
enjoyed not merely an equality of rights not accorded to Jews in other European
countries until the French revolution; they held positions of great honor and
distinction. There was hardly a Cabinet during the period between the eighth
century and the Christian Reconquest which did not have a Jew serving as
minister of finance." [PRINZ, J., 1973, p. 19-20]


In Christian Spain, faced with animosity and hostility, and threats, from the local Christian populace, in the late fourteenth century the Jewish community set upon an elaborate deceit towards both survival as Jews and power. Known as "conversos," or derisively by Christians as "Marranos" (swine), Spanish Jews converted en masse to Christianity, falsely professing the new faith for public consumption, but remaining Jews in virtually all respects in their private lives. The Jewish historian Cecil Roth notes that once the community embarked upon the ruse of conversion:

"The social and economic progress of the recent converts and their
descendants became phenomenally rapid. However dubious their
sincerity [as Christians], it was now out of the question to exclude them
from any walk of life on the ground of their creed. The Law, the
administration, the army, the universities, the Church itself, were all
overrun by recent converts of more or less questionable sincerity, or
by their immediate descendants. They thronged to financial
administration; for which they had a natural aptitude; protest being now
impossible. They pushed their way into the municipal councils, into the
legislature, into the judiciary. They all but dominated Spanish life ...
Within a couple of generations ... almost every office of importance at
[Royal] Court was occupied by Conversos and their children."
[ROTH, p. 20-21]

"Outwardly," notes Abba Eban, "these Marranos were ... Christians; inwardly, they were Jews. Their disbelief in the dogmas of the Church was notorious ... in time, they all but dominated Spanish life ... These doubtful Christians were rightly regarded as a greater menace than avowed Jews. The population too had become enraged by the hypocrites who had gained a monopoly in important financial positions." [EBBAN, p. 189-190]

In a theme common to Jewish history, the Conversos "throughout the country ... farmed the taxes [i.e., were lessees to collect taxes]. Thus, they inevitably became identified in the popular mind with the royal oppression. The occupation was as remunerative as it was unpopular; and the vast fortunes which were rapidly accumulated added jealousy to the other grounds for dislike." [ROTH, p. 31] The Jewish fraud of conversion to Christianity was well known by the native Christian populace, and Jewish domination and exploitation eventually engendered such hostility towards them that they were expelled from Spain in 1492; ironically, in that same year the Christopher Columbus expedition to the New World "was largely a Jewish, or Marrano, [economic] enterprise." [ROTH, p. 270] Prominent Jews involved in the Columbus journey included Luis de Santangel who was chancellor of the Spanish king's "royal household," Gabriel Sanchez, "the chief treasurer of Aragon," and Juan Cabrero, "the king's chamberlain." Columbus' cartographer was Jewish (Abraham Zacuto) as was the head of Spain's naval academy (Yehuda Crescas). [PRINZ, J., 1973, p. 57] "The only high official who wasn't Jewish [in the planning of the Columbus expedition]," notes M. H. Goldberg,

"was the royal secretary -- and his wife was Jewish ... Of course, the
involvement of Jews in Columbus's voyage does not mean that Columbus
himself was a Jew. But it does underscore the tendency of Jews somehow
to be present, even if only behind the scenes, in history's most important
events." [GOLDBERG, M. H., 1976, p. 111-112]

At the time of the Columbus voyage and parallel Jewish expulsion, even King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella's Finance Minister, Don Isaac Abarbanel, was Jewish. [GOLDBERG, M. H., 1976, p. 52] "On board Columbus' ship," adds Joachim Prinz,

"were many Marranos. The list that has come down to us includes Rodrigo
Sanchez, superintendent; Dr. Marco, ship's surgeon; and Mesta Bernal, the
physician. Luis de Torres, a Jew who had been converted [to Christianity] just
a day before the ship sailed, served as official interpreter, and a Marrano, Rodrigo
de Triana, was the seaman who sighted the first land." [PRINZ, J., 1973, p. 57]

Re(1): Marranos pt. 1: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 01:07:17 PM by Mitchell Levine

Let's take a look at some actual scholarship, as opposed to Jenks' moronic, bullshit version. For example, here's a brief exposition of the historical background of the period of post-reaquisition Christian Spain:

"As the fourteenth century wore on, the Christian kingdoms imposed increasingly severe strictures on Spain's Jewish communities. Kings Felipe III (Navarre), Alfonso XI (Castile), and Jaime II ( Aragon) intermittently defended the Jews, but with an eye toward their substantial financial contributions to the royal exchequer. In 1348 Castile's Jews were prohibited from lending money at interest, but there is no evidence that the law was enforced, and in 1351 it was repealed by the Cortes, which feared it would strangle the economy ( Baer 1966, 1:360-2). While some Jewish communities prospered and erected splendid new synagogues, such as that built by Pedro I's chief treasurer Samuel Halevi in Toledo in 1357, 11 and Christian nobles continued to rely on their Jewish advisors and fiscal administrators, conditions overall continued to deteriorate for Spain's Jews. Both religious and class antagonisms were converging against the Jews; the outbreaks of violence these antagonisms occasioned were sometimes spontaneous and sometimes orchestrated. The lower classes -- heavily taxed, frequently in debt, tending to identify the Jews with the forces they felt were oppressing them -- could be set off by the slightest spark. Meanwhile those with influence and power increasingly used the negative feelings against the Jews as a tool to consolidate or extend their power and preserve their privileged status ( Monsalvo Antón 1983, 91).

Jewish-Christian relations in Andalucia plummeted in the summer of 1378 in Seville, when the popular Archdeacon Ferrand Martínez began to preach a holy war against the Jews and called for the destruction of Seville's twenty-three synagogues. The Jewish community repeatedly petitioned King Juan I to restrain the Archdeacon from "preaching evil and untrue things" about the Jews, from usurping jurisdiction over their legal affairs, from threatening to excommunicate municipal officials who did not utterly segregate the Jewish communities, and from inciting civil unrest. The King, who viewed Martínez's rabble-rousing as an affront to his personal jurisdiction over Jewish affairs and as a threat to the financial benefits he derived from the Jews, three times responded with letters of injunction ( Suárez Fernández 1980). Martínez, taking license in what he called the higher authority of the Christian Gospels, as well as the protection of the Pope, persisted in his preaching. Juan I acceded to a variety of anti-Jewish demands such as prohibiting Jews from living in Christian neighborhoods and working on days of Christian festivals. That was the state of affairs when Juan I died in 1390.

The new Castilian King Enrique III ( 1379-1406) was still a minor and a weak interregnal regime was established. Martínez and his followers seized the opportunity to put their invective into action. There is no question that economic antagonisms between the nascent Christian burgher class and the well-established Jewish merchant community were one element that motivated the mobs. But the precipitating factor was the inflammatory preaching of Martínez, which fanned longsmoldering popular anti-Semitism into a riot. In June of 1391 rioters swept into the Jewish quarter of Seville, burning, raping, looting, destroying fiscal records, and forcibly converting as many Jews as they could to Catholicism. Within days the prosperous Jewish community of Seville lay in ruins. Within a week or two the same fate had befallen most of the rest of Andalucia's Jews, as the rioters pillaged through Montoro, Andújar, Jaen, Ubeda, and Baeza. When the rioters turned north the disorder spread to the cities of central and northern Castile. In Toledo the splendid synagogues now known as the Tránsito and Santa María la Blanca were turned into churches. In Cuenca municipal authorities rang the church bells to summon the rioters to action ( Baer 1966, 2:97).

The Castilian government issued strict orders to citizens to refrain from looting, but these were almost entirely ignored. Overnight the ancient Jewish communities of Ciudad Real and Burgos entirely disappeared ( Suárez Fernández 1980, 208). In each community many Jews were killed. Still larger numbers were forcibly converted to Catholicism either by the clergy who accompanied the mobs in their pillaging or in the charged atmosphere of the days following the riots. When the choice was between conversion or death, most Jews chose conversion. "


[Secrecy and Deceit: The Religion of the Crypto-Jews. David M. Gitlitz, 1996
pp. 7-8]


- In fact, the Jews were used by the authorities for the latter's own financial benefit. Unfortunately, Jews were still the object of religiously-based antangonisms and often forced to convert on the threat of death. This is the true background to the story of the marranos.
By the way, Jenks' typically inaccurate characterization of the professions and status enjoyed by the majority of Jews of this period should also be rectified:

"Spain's late medieval Jewish communities were largely middle class. Although a handful of important Jewish financiers and royal advisors figure prominently in contemporary political documents and modern histories, most Jews were artisans or small businessmen. The royal chronicler Andrés Bernáldez describes them in his early sixteenth-centuryHistory of the Catholic Monarchs.

They were all merchants and retailers, tax farmers and collectors of fines and administrators of estates, cloth-shearers, tailors, shoemakers, tanners, leather dressers, weavers, spice merchants, peddlers, silk merchants, silversmiths and other similar professions. None of them tilled the soil, or was a laborer, or carpenter or mason.

Some Jews did own or manage vineyards or pasturages and some were physicians, but on the whole Bernáldez's description is accurate in its emphasis on artisanry and small trade." [Ibid., p.12]

Re(2): Marranos pt. 1: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 01:52:39 PM by mg

There is little here that counters what I've posted, except that Gitlitz, Jewish, tends toward your apologetic.

There were antagonisms against Jews, we both agree. The issue you skirt is Jewish power in Spain. And eventual dominance and oppression.

As I've posted earlier too, anti-Jewish actions were usually instigated by JEWS who genuinely converted to Christianity and spilled the beans about the Talmud.

The depiction of Jews as "middle class" is fine. What does "middle class" mean in the Middle Ages, when impoverishment was rampant? It meant affluence.

Large numbers of Jews were oppressers of the non-Jewish peasantry. This was standard throughout much of Europe, usually in league with oppressive aristocracies.

You're also the guy who earlier screamed about Jews never "owning land." Gitlitz's depiction of Jewish vinyard owners isn't enough for you?

Re(3): Marranos pt. 1: Jewish
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 11:48:50 AM by MK

on the Jewish Tribal Review site--
"THERE IS NOTHING MORE FRIGHTENING THAN ACTIVE IGNORANCE." -- Goethe

Yes MG, you are frightening!

Re(4): Marranos pt. 1: Jewish
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 12:43:37 AM by Mitchell Levine

He mistranslated it from the German - grammatically, it should be "there's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action!

Re(3): Marranos pt. 1: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 03:19:46 PM by Mitchell Levine

Specifically, what middle class meant was being a trade artisan in the fields mentioned, which were NOT well-paid professions, like cobbling, leather tanning, etc. That hardly makes one a "economic oppressor." Even those fields were closed to Jews when it suited the needs of the Throne to have someone carry out unpopular "tax farming."

As the source demonstrated, what typically happened is not that truths were told about the Talmud, but lies were spread about subjects like well-poisoning and ritual murder.

The relevance of the material quoted is that it refutes your claim that the motivation for becoming a crypto-Jew was some kind of economic opportunity. It was due to various forms of oppression targeting Jews, as well as medieval ignorance.

Re(1): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 10:29:15 PM by mg

CONTINUED:
Famous Jewish Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal explains his perceptions of the Jewish dimensions to the Christopher Columbus expedition like this:

"Why did [Christopher] Columbus personally supervise the roll-call? So I
began to look at the roll he called. One tenth of his crew was Jews; some of
them, I learned later, may have been rabbis. But, even though nine-tenths of the
crew wasn't Jewish, there was no priest aboard. Very unusual at sea! Then I
am looking into the financing of his voyage. This business of Queen Isabella
hocking her jewels to pay for it is all legend. With the help of Marrano [secret
Jewish] ministers of hers, the mission was entirely financed by Jewish money
... I began to ask myself, ' Simon went on, 'why the Jews financed Columbus
when all others had refused for years. Who was he and what did the Jews want from him? ... Not only are there a number of Jewish names, but later I learn that
several in Columbus' crew spoke Hebrew and a couple of them may have
been rabbis. And who was the interpreter on board? Luis de Torres, who had
been interpreter for the Governor of Murcia, which had a large Jewish population.
It took me two weeks to confirm that Luis de Torres had been the governor's interpreter of Hebrew. Now the only possible explanation of this is that Columbus expected to reach countries in which Jews lived and governed.' From research
on Columbus that began around 1965, Wisenthal was convinced 'that the Jews, concerned about their deteriorating situation in Spain, were looking for a
homeland, a place to flee to, where they could find a protector. And so, in
the belief that the ten lost tribes had found refuge in 'India,' they financed the expedition of Columbus: a man they could trust.' Simon says Columbus was
surely a Converso [convert from Judaism to Christianity] and quite likely a
Marrano [a convert to Christianity who secretly remained Jewish]." [LEVY, A.,
1993, p. 20, 21]


Upon their expulsion from Spain, many Jews emigrated to the country next door, Portugal. Within the next hundred years, despite restrictions and persecutions in the new country, "there was no stratum to which the New Christians [Conversos] did not penetrate. This was the case even more in Portugal than in Spain ... Their wealth was enormous ... They almost monopolized commerce." [ROTH, p. 76] "Some of the richest of the Portugese Marranos were able to establish branches of their enterprises in England and on the Continent, and many ventured into the New World to take advantage of the extraordinary opportunities for their diversified commerical undertakings ... The wealth of these Portugese immigrants, according to figures which have come down to us, was staggering." [OPRINZ, J., 1973, p. 127]

One such Jew, Joao Miquez, son of the physician of the King of Portugal and nephew of famous bankers, eventually emigrated to Turkey, publicly renounced Christianity (choosing back the Jewish name Joseph Nasi), and rose to a lofty position in the Turkish Royal Court "so that for a time he was virtually the ruler of the Turkish Empire, then the most powerful in Europe." [ROTH, p. 203] Miquez was influential in the election of a new king in Poland, he encouraged a revolt in the Netherlands, and was influential in the Turkish seizure of Cyprus from Italy. "No Jew of his time," notes Joachim Prinz,

"or probably of any time before the emancipation of the eighteenth century, played
such an important role in world affairs ... His most ingenious political dealings
concerned the Marranos [secret Jews] of the world. From his strong position
in the powerful [Jewish] Mendes family, Joseph Nasi devised what can be called
a specific Marrano strategy, a plan for economic and political revenge against
those who had mistreated Marranos. The Mendes family determined that if
a country or a town discriminated against Marranos, theywould have to pay
for it ... the ruin of those who hated them." [PRINZ, J., 1973, p. 140, 141]

Racial purity and obsessive endogamy was still an issue for the Jews (Marranos) of Belmonte, Spain, even in the 1940s. The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia noted that "these [people] pride themselves on being descended directly, and with no admixture of foreign blood, from the old Portuguese Jews." [UN. JEW, p. 367]

Re(2): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 10:35:34 PM by mg

Poor, poor Jews! All the oppression they've faced. They had it SO hard!

Baaaaad Spain! BAD Spain!

Re(3): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 06:55:22 PM by MK

"Poor, poor Jews! All the oppression they've faced. They had it SO hard!

Baaaaad Spain! BAD Spain!"

Ah, MG...please wipe the drool from your chin.

Re(3): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 11:58:36 AM by Mitchell Levine

Forcing people out of their homes in your nation because you wish to steal their wealth, and have decided to crush their religion with your state church, IS bad by any definition.

The fact that the people in question managed to turn it around and make a virtue of necessity doesn't change that at all.

Re(4): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 01:55:05 PM by mg

YOU SAY: Forcing people out of their homes in your nation because you wish to steal their wealth, and have decided to crush their religion with your state church, IS bad by any definition.

RESPONSE: Yes, it is bad. The only thing is that the wealth STOLEN was by Jews, often legalized via their usury monopoly.

YOU SAY: The fact that the people in question managed to turn it around and make a virtue of necessity doesn't change that at all.

RESPONSE: I have no idea what this is supposed to mean to you.

Re(5): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 03:35:50 PM by Mitchell Levine

A) That wealth wasn't "stolen" by those people in any way; they were tax collectors and moneylenders in a society in which they were primarily given few to no choices otherwise. Neither taxes nor interest from loans constitutes "theft," unless you belong to the Posse Comitatus, which wouldn't be surprising.

Taxes are taxes, whether one likes it or not, and interest is agreed upon at the time one voluntarily takes out a loan. They didn't have a "monopoly"; the Church forbid lending money at a profit, so the government set wheels in motion to make sure there would be Jews around to lend money, because it was expedient and they weren't restricted from it religiously.

Your charges of theft are, like most of your charges, groundless. If you don't like paying interest, don't borrow money. You're hardly justified in claiming anyone's stolen from you otherwise.

B) Obviously, what the sentence in question means is that simply because the Jews driven out of their homes, yet managed to create success for themselves elsewhere, you aren't justified in claiming that there was any valid reason for driving them out of their homes.

As the genuine history already cited demonstrated, the motivation for the Edict of Explusion were self-interest on the part of the monarchy and the Inquistion, which was financed by what they confiscated, and didn't exactly arbitrate judiciously.

Re(4): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 01:39:40 PM by Mitchell Levine

Why don't we examine evil scumbag Jenks' lies concerning the Inquisition?:

"In 1478 Pope Sixtus IV granted Fernando's and Isabel's request that the Spanish crown be permitted to appoint Inquisitors to attack the heresy they said was rife in Andalucia. Simultaneously they revived the laws of 1412 that required the physical separation of Jewish and Moslem living quarters from those of Christians. By January of 1481 forced relocations were taking place throughout the Peninsula and the Inquisition had begun hearings in Seville. The early targets were almost exclusively conversos, most of them people who had fled Seville to escape the rumored threats of the Inquisition. And they were preponderantly from the empowered classes, including numbers of municipal and court officials. In Aragon Fernando reactivated the Inquisitorial tribunals that had previously existed, coordinating them with those of Castile. The initial feeble resistance to the establishment of the Inquisition was quickly crushed. Because the non-assimilation of conversos was seen to be strongest in Andalucia, the early Inquisition was most active there. The royal chronicler Andrés Bernáldez estimated that in its first eight years of operation in Seville alone the Castilian Inquisition burned 750 men and women ( Baer 1966, 2:327). Additionally, in 1483 all Jews were required to leave Andalucia, ostensibly to deny them influence over the conversos there...

Yet a basic understanding of what it (the Inquisition) was and how it operated is fundamental to understanding the 250-year survival of crypto-Jewish culture in Spain. The Inquisition impelled crypto-Judaism to develop strategies of secrecy. It influenced the choice of which Judaic customs would survive and which would quickly atrophy. In many ways it helped to create the very culture it was dedicated to eradicate…In its organization the Inquisition was hierarchical and bureaucratic. During the whole of its history it was administered by monks; during the first two centuries a large percentage of them were Dominicans. The Pope appointed the Inquisitor General, but at the behest of the King. Other appointments were at the discretion of the Inquisition itself. The first and second Inquisitors General were Fray Tomás de Torquemada and Fray Diego de Deza, both Dominicans and both conversos. The governing body was a council, the Consejo de la Suprema y General Inquisición, appointed by the King. Although the ultimate power derived from the papacy, from its inception the Spanish Inquisition was in essence a tool the Spanish monarchy used to consolidate and then maintain power in the throne.

During the early years tribunals were convened and dissolved as need arose, that is, when a center of crypto-Judaism was identified and until it was eradicated. By the mid-sixteenth century there were standing tribunals, twelve in Castile and four in Aragon. Each of the district tribunals was headed by two Inquisitors who were the examining judges. Each had an asesor who combined the duties of legal advisor and defense attorney, a prosecuting attorney called a fiscal, bailiffs called alguaciles, and a coterie of scribes. During most of the Inquisition's existence it also employed networks of paid informers called familiares, but it relied more heavily on voluntary informants, whom Jews and conversos stigmatized with the Hebrew term malsin. Operating methods were standardized in accord with centrally authorized manuals of procedures. The Inquisition was sustained financially by confiscations." [Ibid., pp. 12-13]

Well, maybe dickhead Jenks' "scholarship" concerning the true motivation for "crypto-Judaism" was slightly faulty. It looks like the Inquistion did have a little to do with it:

"In function the Inquisition was quasi-judicial. When the Inquisitors formally entered a particular city, the first event would be the public reading to the assembled populace of an Edict of Grace (later called an Edict of Faith)… The Edict of Grace required people who considered they might be guilty of some heretical practice or thought to come forward during a "grace period" of some finite number of days to confess and be assigned penance, warning that any heresy later discovered in those who did not voluntarily come forward would be severely punished. It also required information from anyone who knew of someone else's heretical behavior, or even who knew that someone else might know…

Eventually -- occasionally after many years -- the Inquisition would render a decision. Sometimes accused Judaizers were set free for insufficiency of evidence to convict. These were not acquittals but merely suspensions of the case, which could be reopened at any time if new evidence came to light. Even those who were eventually released without formal penalty paid a price in temporary loss of freedom, damage to reputation, and in some cases loss of health. The financial burden was great as well, since from the moment of arrest all assets of the accused would be attached to use for the maintenance of the prisoner and for court costs…
In practice the Inquisition pursued not only religious goals but also political, social, and economic ends in the name of religion. The very first wave of trials in Seville singled out conversos who occupied positions of administrative or economic influence. As much as it was a religious crusade, Inquisition activity was a sustained attack on the Iberian converso middle class. Over the Inquisition's long history its judges did not always evaluate evidence with the same thoroughness or equanimity, or sense of fairness. At times it seemed that punishment was more important than reconciliation, and that the governing motive was the extirpation of the caste of conversos. This was particularly true of the trials of the 1480s and 1490s, in which convictions were based on relatively slim testimony, few witnesses were disqualified, and the maximum penalty was levied with alarming frequency…

But all this changed radically in the 1480s with the coming of the Inquisition. As can be imagined, the effect on the converso communities at the time was devastating. The substantial number of conversos who continued to identify themselves as Jews and to practice Jewish customs fled for their lives at the first hint of the Inquisition's commencing hearings in their town. Trial records of the 1480s in both Castile and Aragon vividly communicate the sense of panic that overtook converso communities with the coming of the Inquisition. Some crypto-Jews rushed to emigrate, fleeing to nearby Christian countries, North Africa, or, with a sense of messianic immediacy, to the Holy Land in Ottoman Turkey ( Baer 1966, 2:338, 381). Crypto-Jews learned from the Andalusian excesses, so that large numbers of them bolted when they learned that the Inquisition was on the way…

Judaizers were not the only ones who were afraid, for suspicion tended to fall on the entire caste of new-Christians. Conversos who were attempting to assimilate quaked in fear that some vestigial Jewish custom -- even something so trivial as a physical aversion to eating pork -- would brand them as heretics. What had been gray now suddenly became black and white. Assimilationist conversos were now compelled to shun any association with Judaism or with family members who continued to Judaize. It had been enough for them to be scrupulously Catholic in the present; now they had to find ways to mislead eyes prying into their pasts, to cover up any period of ambiguity in their family's history of becoming Catholic. Judaizing conversos, on the other hand, were now clearly outlaws who had to hide to survive. Public pressure shaped private behavior, for, as Stephen Gilman has shown, (to be a converso is not just a way of being to oneself; it is more importantly a way of being with others." [Ibid. pp.23-

Apparently, becoming a marranos wasn't really just a career move!

Re(5): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 02:28:38 PM by Mitchell Levine

Also, it turns out, the backstory to both the persecution of the Jews and their expulsion is just slightly more complex than Jenks' claim of widespread popular revolt against his usual horseshit "Jewish hegemony." In reality, they were manifestations of ecclesiastical and royal manipulation of ignorant antisemitic superstitions - blood libel, well-poisoning, supposed desecrations of sacramental hosts - in the service of economic and political self-interest:

"For these people (residual middle-class burghers), who undoubtedly constituted the majority of the crypto-Jews, Judaism ceased to be an autonomous, self-referential system. Instead, Christianity became their common reference point, the template against which their cryptoJewish beliefs and practices were measured. Increasingly they were not Judaizers who were therefore different from the Christians, rather they were Judaizers insofar as name only…

Coupled with Inquisition activity was an intensification of the propaganda campaign that portrayed Jews as the perpetrators of ritual crimes against Christians. Until the mid-fifteenth centurySpain had been relatively free of the stream of accusations of ritual crimes that flowed in northern European anti-Semitic propaganda, beginning with the ritual murder accusation in Norwich in 1144. But in 1435 a Majorcan Jew was accused of having crucified a Moslem slave. As a result four Jews were burned in Palma, even though the bishop's investigation found that the slave in question was still alive. In 1454 the Franciscan Alonso de Espina accused some Jews of Tavara (Valladolid) of having ritually crucified a Christian child. After torture, several Jews confessed to the crime, even though a royal investigation found that the child had been killed by common thieves who wanted to steal a gold chain from his neck.After a similar unproved accusation in Sepúlveda in 1468 the town's rabbi and several other Jews were burned.

The anti-Jewish propagandists of the late fifteenth century, particularly Fray Alonso de Espina, whose 1460Fortalitium fidei circulated widely during those decades, bear substantial responsibility for the Expulsion. The political strategy of these lobbyists -- Franciscan and Dominican monks for the most part -- was to bring pressure on the throne to convert as many Jews as possible to Christianity, to ensure the orthodoxy of the converts, to expel the Jews who would not convert, and to extirpate any converts who were not exclusively faithful to the new religion. Their pamphlets, which highlighted the diabolical interpretation of the Jews' activities, gave voice in Spain to libels that were current north of the Pyrenees: Jews poison wells; Jews spread disease; Jewish doctors murder Christian patients. Whether from ignorance or malice, these propagandists conceived of Jewish worship only in Christocentric terms. They ignored halakhah: for them the central tenet of Judaism was its rejection of the divine Christ as the Messiah. Thus Jewish worship was said to exalt the anti-Christ. And Jewish ritual was said to feature anti-Christian acts: parodies of the crucifixion, parodies of the mass, and violent mistreatment of Christian cult objects from consecrated hosts to crucifixes and images of the saints. 61 Espina was particularly encyclopedic in his recycling of these northern European myths. 62 He fanned the flames in both the Valladolid and Sepúlveda incidents. Accusations brought in the La Guardia case all but summarize the legendary libels Espina catalogued in his Fortalitium fidei…Public outcry made it ever more difficult for the Catholic Monarchs to resist the pressures to expel the Jews and to curb the upstart, sacrilegious conversos.

The Edict of Expulsion that was signed in the newly conquered city of Granada on March 31, 1492, and promulgated to Castile and Aragon in late April, gave the two kingdoms' Jews until July 31 to depart or become Christian. The decision emerged from the political philosophy that had shaped the conduct of the Granada war. Fernando's and Isabel's decision to intensify the war against Granada, the sole surviving Islamic kingdom in Iberia, was among other things a stratagem to induce Spanish nobility to channel their aggression against the Moslems (whom the Spaniards called Moors) instead of against each other or their sovereigns. That is, it was designed to unite in common cause enemies who were veterans of the twentyyear civil wars of succession in the two kingdoms…

The decision to expel the Jews, which had been brewing for decades, was a logical next step. It was signed into law in Granada only eighty-eight days after the city's capture… These were not the only reasons for the Expulsion; historians have demonstrated economic, political, and nationalistic concerns as well."

[Secrecy and Deceit: The Religion of the Crypto-Jews; David M. Gitlitz; 1996, pp.26-27]

-Furthermore, the impetus to become a marranos was just a little more nuanced then the incompetent propagandist Jenks appears to imply. Nor do terms like "faker" or "fraud" accurately describe the true religious sentiments of many of those whom adopted Spanish crypto-Judaism as a item of necessity:

"While some measures were taken to facilitate emigration, the particulars of the Expulsion order imposed great hardships on those Jews who might choose to leave. For many the order meant financial ruin. Christians were required to allow the Jews to sell their property under equitable terms, but at the same time Jews were forbidden to take with them any precious metals or jewels. The appearance of so much Jewish property on the market at the same time depressed prices of real estate and other immovable goods. Exile meant inflated transportation costs and exposure to the very real physical dangers of the road. Exile meant leaving behind one's language, climate, customs, and friends. Exile often meant leaving behind one's converso family members and the graves of one's ancestors. Exile was a step into the unknown.

For Jews staunch in their religious convictions, or persuaded of the inevitability of persecution in Spain and their eventual ruin, the choice to leave was simple. But for large numbers of half-assimilated Jews, Jews from divided families, and Jews financially entangled or skeptical about the duration of these hard times the choice was much harder. For these Jews the acceptance of baptism might seem a rather trivial price to pay for security, even the very problematic security of an Inquisition-dominated environment. Some converted with the intent to continue to Judaize behind closed doors, to liquidate their property at a convenient pace that would ensure a maximum price, and eventually to emigrate at their leisure
Others converted with the intention of waiting out the storm, confident that before long they might begin to practice Judaism again openly. Some converted because the pull of their Catholic loved ones, their possessions, their home towns, or the opportunity for social mobility as Christians was stronger than the weak attraction of their Judaism. Others were caught up in the enthusiasm of the missionaries who went door-to-door in the Jewish districts inviting conversion…Still others converted because they interpreted the Expulsion as final evidence that Christianity had truly replaced Judaism as God's favored religion. " [Ibid., p. 28]

Re(5): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 02:00:58 PM by mg

Hey "evil scumbag" Levine, your distortion of history is pathetic.

"Some current histories," said Cecil Roth in 1932, "appear to assume the Jews were sole victims of the Spanish Inquisition ... Strictly, this is so far from the truth that a precisian might retort that [the Jews] never came under the [Inquisition's] scope, save in exceptional cases, since the activities were essentially confined to [Christian] apostates and renegades." [ROTH, p. 141] Those "Jews" who risked trouble were those among the Marranos/Conversos, who disingenuously represented themselves as Christians and were thereby subject to the same scrutinization for religious conformance as that directed upon any other Christian. Widely targeted were Christian heretics, not the Judaic faith. As M. Hirsh Goldberg notes,

"Contrary to popular belief, Jews who openly remained Jews were
not tortured or killed as part of the inquisition proceedings. The
Inquisition was specifically authorized by the Church to root out
heresy among Catholics, so only heretical Christians and Jewish
converts to Christianity accused of secretly reverting to Judaism
were prosecuted." [GOLDBERG, M. H., 1979, p. 16]

"[T]he Holy Inquistion in Portugal," notes Arnold Wiznitzer, "did not persecute Jews who never had been Catholics. Only persons of Jewish origin who had been born Catholic, or those, born Jews and baptised later, who had deserted Catholicism openly or secretly were subject to the Inquisition since they were considered as being apostates." [WIZNITZER, A., 1957, p. 64]

"The Inquistion," notes Joachim Prinz,

"is considered one of the many traumatic experiences of Jewish history, and as
such, it is always spoken of with dread. But, of course, the Inquistion had no
power over Jews at all. It was established for the purpose of dealing with
Christians who had deviated from their faith. The Marranos who were called
into account for their secret practices appeared not as Jews but as allegedly
heretical Chrisitans ... No unconverted Jews were ever called to the tribunals."
[PRINZ, J., 1973, p. 44]


"Living under the Inquisition," adds Goldberg in another volume,

"caused Jews to make some curious adjustments, as can be seen
in the family of Manoel Pereira Coutinho, who had five daughters --
all nuns in a convent in Lisbon -- while in Hamburg his sons were
living openly as Jews." [GOLDBERG, M. H., 1976, p. 109]

"All Jews know about the Inquisition," wrote David Goldstein, a Jewish apostate, "but of Jewish [-perpetrated] injustices they know hardly anything." [GOLDSTEIN, p. 117] "The name of Torquemada," wrote Jewish author John Cournos in 1937, "the loathsome Grand Inquisitor, was a byword among us children, as it was in other Jewish households." [GOLDSTEIN, p. 117] This view that the Inquisition somehow centered on Jews still remains widespread in the community today, as proclaimed in a 1990 issue of the American Jewish Congress magazine devoted to the subject of Jewish identity. Ignoring the Christian target groups of the heresy trials, Zvi Bekarman remarked that "The Inquisition is brought to us as one more proof of the suffering of the Jews." [BEKERMAN, p. 14]

Despite all the Jewish lamenting of pogroms and massacres upon their ancestors, the Catholic-Protestant massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day in the 1500's was as spectacularly horrible as any Jewish medieval misfortune to that time. Nor, adds Roth, "was persecution of the Jews in its acutest form [ever] systematic." (The later World War II Holocaust scenario, which of course was systematic, will be addressed later at length in its own chapter).

Jews were often blamed for the epidemic of the Plague and the Black Death that swept Europe in the Middle Ages (while Jewish communities were relatively free from the disease, [HERTZLER, p. 95] but such causal connection to medieval minds was not to the detriment of Jews only. Non-Jews were also accused of, and murdered for, causing the Plague in Palermo in 1526, in Germany in 1530, 1545, and 1574, at Casale Monferrat in 1536, and other places throughout Europe. In Breslau, in 1349 sixty Jews were executed for having caused a town fire, "but," says Roth, "when one recalls that 300 years afterwards the Great Fire of London was [blamed upon] the Papists, one realizes that the Jews had no monopoly on unjust accusations." [ROTH, p. 144]

Jewish communities themselves had irrational superstitions to scapegoat others and to explain disease and other misfortunes. Says Zborowski and Herzog:

"If an epidemic strikes the shtetl, prayers are, of course, offered up.
Other steps consist chiefly in marrying off two orphans or cripples,
so that God will be mollified by the good deeds of the worshippers...
Whenever there was an epidemic in the shtetl they used to blame it
on peoples' sins. They tried to find the guilty ones and expose them
to the public ... Another method for getting rid of an epidemic was
to get two orphans if possible and to marry them off on the cemetery
..." [ZBOROWSKI, p. 224]

Throughout Europe, "it was.... dangerous to be an old woman in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries"' when witch hunts put 100,000 unfortunates on trial for sorcery in Germany alone. [ROTH, p. 145] Some 30,000 such victims are reputed to have been burned alive or torn to pieces in England, and over a two hundred year period in Scotland, an average of two hundred "witches" were burned at the stake each year. Throughout Europe gypsies were sporadically singled out for persecution and blame, and various Christians and other non-Jews from time to time were executed for the charge of cannibalism.

Lest modern Jews feel too smug in the brutal superstitions of the ancient Gentiles, the Talmud itself notes an instance when eighty Jewish women were hung at one time at the instigation of a fellow Jew, "Simeon the Son of Shetach," in Ashkelon for the crime of being witches. [HARRIS, p. 174] When coming across a witch, the Talmud recommends that the passerby "should mutter thus, 'May a potsherd of boiling dung be stuffed in your mouths, you ugly witches!'" [HARRIS, p.189] Some rabbis even opined that a witch may be either male or female, but "most women are witches." [HARRIS, p. 190] Even "the best among women," said Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, "is a witch." [HARRIS, p. 191]

The Talmud also details the various manners of stoning, strangling or beheading Jewish "blasphemers and idolaters." Such criminals were also buried up to their knees in manure, and their mouths forced open by strangling. Molten lead could then be poured "into his bowels." [HARRIS, p. 170]

The persistence of the Jewish mythology of unique persecution, says Roth, has much to do with their longevity and communal dispersal throughout Europe and the world. The persecution of the Albigensians of France, for instance, is known by hardly anyone today because their destruction was singularly localized, they were completely wiped out, and there is no one interested in heralding their suffering. Likewise the Waldenses of France, and various others. "The Jews," notes Roth, "are an inseparable element in the history of every country in Europe ... and thus have an advantage, as it were, of a superior publicity service; and no historian, even a Gentile, could fail to be impressed by this insistent, pathetic, unique record." [ROTH, p. 147]

Roth goes to the essence of the Jewish mythos of communal agony:

"In the classical period ... with its holocausts and heroes, the lot of
the Jewish people was much the same as that of the ancient Britons,
the Iberians, and the Gauls; and the leaders of those peoples' struggles
for freedom deserve to be remembered as much as the Jewish martyrs
who are commemorated each year on the ninth of Ab. But this is far
from the case. Generally, they are forgotten, save by a few industrious
antiquarians; and they have no place today in the proud memories of
any people. The reason is very plain. The races for which they fought
are long since dead. The Jews are still alive." [ROTH, p. 147]

Re(6): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 03:13:31 PM by Mitchell Levine

Yet another simple-minded, sleazy manipulation by the despicable, incompetent Jenks, pathetically trying to get over on an audience, which, like all audiences, is far more intellectually skilled than he is.

"Some current histories," said Cecil Roth in 1932, "appear to assume the Jews were sole victims of the Spanish Inquisition ... Strictly, this is so far from the truth that a precisian might retort that [the Jews] never came under the [Inquisition's] scope, save in exceptional cases, since the activities were essentially confined to [Christian] apostates and renegades." [ROTH, p. 141] Those "Jews" who risked trouble were those among the Marranos/Conversos, who disingenuously represented themselves as Christians and were thereby subject to the same scrutinization for religious conformance as that directed upon any other Christian. Widely targeted were Christian heretics, not the Judaic faith. As M. Hirsh Goldberg notes,

- As a typical evil, propagandizing scumbag, Jenks again tries to evade the issue, in the vain hope that no one will notice. What was being claimed was NOT that the Jews were the ONLY victims of the Inquisition: what was being claimed was that the Inquisition was the primary impetus for both conversion and crypto-Judaism, and not his stupid distortion about some supposed windfall benefit for secretly maintaining their Hebrew beliefs.

"Contrary to popular belief, Jews who openly remained Jews were
not tortured or killed as part of the inquisition proceedings. The
Inquisition was specifically authorized by the Church to root out
heresy among Catholics, so only heretical Christians and Jewish
converts to Christianity accused of secretly reverting to Judaism
were prosecuted." [GOLDBERG, M. H., 1979, p. 16]

"[T]he Holy Inquistion in Portugal," notes Arnold Wiznitzer, "did not persecute Jews who never had been Catholics. Only persons of Jewish origin who had been born Catholic, or those, born Jews and baptised later, who had deserted Catholicism openly or secretly were subject to the Inquisition since they were considered as being apostates." [WIZNITZER, A., 1957, p. 64]

- Yet again, we have selective quoting and fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of Scumbag Jenks: of course the Inquisition didn't torture Jews openly practicing Judaism - as Gitlitz's commentary already demonstrated, the majority of Jews at that time were either "conversos" or marranos, due to antisemitic activities targeting them as previously described. Also, it's typical of Jenks that he has to quote two or three lines from many sources to fabricate unintended significations through patchwork. Even worse, he slips in a line about Portugal, as if no one would notice that, in fact, what was under discussion was Spain.

"All Jews know about the Inquisition," wrote David Goldstein, a Jewish apostate, "but of Jewish [-perpetrated] injustices they know hardly anything." [GOLDSTEIN, p. 117] "The name of Torquemada," wrote Jewish author John Cournos in 1937, "the loathsome Grand Inquisitor, was a byword among us children, as it was in other Jewish households." [GOLDSTEIN, p. 117] This view that the Inquisition somehow centered on Jews still remains widespread in the community today, as proclaimed in a 1990 issue of the American Jewish Congress magazine devoted to the subject of Jewish identity. Ignoring the Christian target groups of the heresy trials, Zvi Bekarman remarked that "The Inquisition is brought to us as one more proof of the suffering of the Jews." [BEKERMAN, p. 14]

Despite all the Jewish lamenting of pogroms and massacres upon their ancestors, the Catholic-Protestant massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day in the 1500's was as spectacularly horrible as any Jewish medieval misfortune to that time. Nor, adds Roth, "was persecution of the Jews in its acutest form [ever] systematic." (The later World War II Holocaust scenario, which of course was systematic, will be addressed later at length in its own chapter).

Jews were often blamed for the epidemic of the Plague and the Black Death that swept Europe in the Middle Ages (while Jewish communities were relatively free from the disease, [HERTZLER, p. 95] but such causal connection to medieval minds was not to the detriment of Jews only. Non-Jews were also accused of, and murdered for, causing the Plague in Palermo in 1526, in Germany in 1530, 1545, and 1574, at Casale Monferrat in 1536, and other places throughout Europe. In Breslau, in 1349 sixty Jews were executed for having caused a town fire, "but," says Roth, "when one recalls that 300 years afterwards the Great Fire of London was [blamed upon] the Papists, one realizes that the Jews had no monopoly on unjust accusations." [ROTH, p. 144]

Jewish communities themselves had irrational superstitions to scapegoat others and to explain disease and other misfortunes. Says Zborowski and Herzog:

"If an epidemic strikes the shtetl, prayers are, of course, offered up.
Other steps consist chiefly in marrying off two orphans or cripples,
so that God will be mollified by the good deeds of the worshippers...
Whenever there was an epidemic in the shtetl they used to blame it
on peoples' sins. They tried to find the guilty ones and expose them
to the public ... Another method for getting rid of an epidemic was
to get two orphans if possible and to marry them off on the cemetery
..." [ZBOROWSKI, p. 224]

- Of course, nothing in this set of irrelevant references even remotely relates to the topic of discussion, as the intended purpose of the accurate historical sources cited was to demonstrate the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Jenks' shamelessly moronic assertion that economic self-interest somehow stereotypically characterized the motivation for Spanish Jews to become marranos. What he deceitfully tries to do here, since his thesis has already been refuted, is slip in a few paragraphs from various sources about how Jews shouldn't complain about the Inquisition because other groups had it bad too, or that torturing people on the basis of bogus ritual murder cases shouldn't be criticized because Jews had prescientific superstitions as well.

As soon as one of his malicious lies has been exposed, he tries to cover his tracks like any other miserable lowlife by immediately switching off to another deception. And this is from a guy who claims to be a researcher!
This is an excellent introduction to the intellectual quality of the "research" his inane hate site has to offer.

Re(3): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 26, 2003 at 10:36:48 PM by mg

You know, Levine. You'd better lay low for a while. People are going to think I'm paying you to play Bozo the Clown for me.

Re(4): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 05:51:32 PM by Mitchell Levine

Every time you post your evil lies, I'll be there to dispose of them with the truth. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance against sick, repulsive maggots like you.

Luckily, you're an incompetent dickhead, which makes things easy.

Re(5): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 08:25:19 PM by mg

Poor, poor Jews! Oh, that everyone everywhere has persecuted them!


The exploitive nature of Jewish usury invariably alienated the Christian populace. The Cortes of Portugal, for instance, complained in 1361 that Jewish usury was becoming "an unbearable yoke upon the population." [LEON, p. 165] Guido Kisch, in a probable understatement, notes that "the continual complaints against Jewish moneylenders, coming from all classes of the medieval population, particularly in the 14th and 15th centuries, necessarily made the Jew an unpopular figure." [KISCH, p. 328] Usurious Jews who did no physical labor, who were segregated in their own communities, who did not serve in the local military, and who were agents of the hated aristocracy, were commonly accused of parasitism by local non-Jewish populaces. "Jewish money lending," says Salo Baron, "[was a] lucrative business ... For the most part, the accepted rate ranged between 33 and 43 per cent, although sometimes they went up to double and treble those percentages, or more ... When the European economy entered a period of deceleration in the late thirteenth century, further aggravated by recurrent famine and pestilence, such exorbitant charges, though economically doubly justified because of the increased risks, created widespread hostility." [BARON, EHoJ, p. 45] Money lending was not usually for a borrower's business expenses or expansion, but for subsistence survival. [MACDONALD, p. 263] We are talking about desperate people who often enough stood to perish from their web of increasing debt.

"It was not luxury needs," says Abram Leon, "but the direct distress which forced the peasant or the artisan to borrow from the Jewish usurer. They pawned their working tools which were often indispensable to assure their livelihood. It is easy to understand the hatred that the man of the people must have felt for the Jew in whom he saw the direct cause of his ruin ... [LEON, p. 171] In this role as petty usurers exploiting the people, [Jews] were often victims of bloody uprisings..." [LEON, p. 83] [uprisings that were] "first and foremost efforts to destroy the letters of credit which were in [Jewish] possession." [LEON, p. 171]

In 1431, for instance, armed peasants demanded that the city of Worms surrender its Jews to them, "in view of the fact that they had ruined [the peasants] and taken away their last shirt." [LEON, p. 172]

Usury was in fact considered immoral by Jews too. The great Jewish theologian, Maimonides, wrote "why is [usury] called nesek [biting]? Because he who takes it bites his fellow, causes pain to him, and eats his flesh." [MINKIN, p. 362] Usury was forbidden to Jews, as well as Christians, in the Old Testament. (The Islamic Quran also expressly states its prohibition of "interest.") But there was a qualifier. Jews conjured a double moral standard; usury upon others in their own community was prohibited, but usury upon non-Jews was acceptable. The Torah states that one cannot practice usury upon a brother, but can to a stranger. [DEUTERONOMY, 23:20] Who is a brother and who is a stranger? "Brother," in Jewish religious teachings means "Jew." "Stranger" is anyone else.

St. Ambrose (339-397), the bishop of Milan and writer whose works influenced later medieval Christian thinking, "considered lending to a stranger a legitimate hostile act against an enemy." [BARON, p. 53] St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a well-known Christian theologian of his time, sounded an idealized, universalized Christian ethic about the Deutoronomic double standard:

"The Jews were forbidden to take usury from their brethren,
i.e., from other Jews. By this we are given to understand
that to take usury from another man is simply evil, because
we ought to treat every man as our neighbor and brother..."
[NELSON, p. 14]
<![endif]>
"All Jewish converts [to Christianity] of early sixteenth century Germany," says R. Po-Chia Hsia, "attacked the practice of Jewish money lending." One convert, Johannes Pffeferkorn, argued that profits from usury was the main reason that Jews remained Jews, that they were reluctant to become Christians and do "honest work." Another, Anton Margaritha, argued that such "honest work by Jews would humble them." [HSIA, p. 172] (Conversely, in England, the Jewish "monopoly of usury brought them such wealth that some Christians undoubtedly went over to Judaism in order to participate in the Jewish monopoly in lending.") [LEON, p. 140, quoting BRENTANO]

Re(6): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 09:50:33 PM by Mitchell Levine

For a slightly more nuanced, less deceptively edited presentation, let's take a quick look at:

"We have to distinguish between "lending" and "usury" as these were defined in medieval times, for the difference was between moral behavior and sin…In short, any interest whatever constituted usury, and usury was immoral. Even ordinary commercial gain--buying and selling merchandise for profit--was by strict interpretation unacceptable. The same applied to a "mortgage," whereby a creditor received temporary usage of an estate, including receipt of its produce and income, until a loan was repaid: all was usury. These ideas fitted the traditional Germanic "gift economy" grounded in personal relationships and reciprocity but of course they were unrealistic for what had now become a vibrant commercial economy.

But many Christian merchants were no less willing than Jews to lend money, and despite whatever pressure of public opinion they had to endure, they routinely charged interest at the same high rates and earned as much profit as they could. In fact, despite the inescapable connection between Jews and moneylending, they soon came to be outnumbered by their Christian counterparts. Of three major ecclesiastical gatherings (Lateran Councils) in the twelfth century, two made a point of condemning usury. On one such occasion, in 1179, the pope spoke out harshly against Christian lenders, even declaring them ineligible for communion or Christian burial and ordering that clergy who indulged them were to be suspended and investigated.

Given this climate of opinion, it was obviously expedient for many people, including the clergy to turn to Jews rather than Christians for loans--especially when it was known that a Jew would find difficulty gaining support from the usual authorities when pressing for repayment. Thus, for example, no less eminent a Christian than Peter the Venerable, abbot of the great monastery at Cluny, turned mainly to Jewish lenders when the monastery fell on hard times, handing over to them sacred treasures in pawn.

Jewish moneylenders were burdened with uncertainty and insecurity of a sort almost never experienced by Christian lenders. They were vulnerable to assault and robbery by brigands who knew that they would probably escape punishment. The nobility, ostensibly their protectors, might turn on them at any time with exorbitant demands, refusal to repay loans, and even with threats of expulsion. Locked into an occupation that represented only the husk of what they had once done, many Jews succeeded at it and sometimes even became immensely wealthy. But the wealth was never really their own, and it must have brought them the unease that is the lot of those who have what others want…

Despite the hazards of their situation, many Jews prospered and a few became exceedingly wealthy, at least for a time. But for several reasons Jewish moneylenders, however wealthy, were forever insecure. First, functioning solely as sources of capital, they lost their independent identities and became the property of others, owned in the most literal sense: to be managed, protected, and carefully exploited. The term for them was Judei nostri, "our Jews." The highest-ranking nobility, including the king, agreed to respect one another's property rights by neither enticing Jews into their own domains nor accepting those who moved (or fled) from another region. Second, most Jews could expect relentless extortion from their "protectors": frequent requests for loans (not always repaid), heavy taxes, fees and fines of every sort…

Finally, there was the fear of outright physical oppression. Jews who could not satisfy their overlords were subject to brutal mistreatment: imprisonment, torture, starvation to death. That this must have happened often is evident from a letter addressed by Pope Gregory IX in 1233 to the archbishops and bishops of France. Despite the perfidy of the Jews, he begins, they must be tolerated and preserved, "for they bear the image of our Savior, and were created by the Creator of all mankind." … [pp. 17 - 26, Abraham's Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe, Leonard B. Syracuse University Press, 1999.]

-Evidently, this wasn't all as voluntary as douchebag Jenks wishes to infer. Here, for example, is a representative case scenario of how much "freedom" Jews of the period were given to elect to make a living:

In 1274, an ecclesiastical council meeting in France under the pope's sponsorship urged that usury be abolished entirely and that Jews in particular be forced into "productive" labor. Edward, an uncommonly pious man, obeyed promptly. In 1275 he issued a "Statute of the Jews" declaring that they were no longer to lend money but were to be permitted to become merchants and artisans--a rather ridiculous expectation for people who had been socially ostracized so completely for so long. That the isolation would continue was ensured by the inclusion in the same statute of a repeated order that all Jews above age seven wear a badge on their clothing.

A few Jews tried commerce in wool, wheat, or jewelry on a modest scale, but most were already too impoverished and too demoralized to venture seriously into new occupations. Others resorted to desperate actions. One path was conversion, from which some then tried to retreat, only to be punished severely. A number turned to crime, with similar prospects. Aside from outright robbery, which was not unknown, many Jews engaged in "coin clipping"--shaving small amounts of silver from coins and melting this into bars for sale. The penalty for clipping had been banishment, but now it was changed to execution; and although more Christians than Jews were involved in this practice, it was more often Jews who were arrested and severely punished.

To add to their despair, Jews were enduring more persecution for imagined crimes (ritual murder and blasphemy against Christianity, for example) than ever before, and there were frequent riots in which Jews were murdered and their homes pillaged. A number of towns had expelled them altogether, and others had issued explicit prohibitions against their settling, so that by this time there were fewer than twenty Jewish communities in all of England.

Most significantly, the Jews were no longer consequential contributors to the royal coffers. They were paying about one-fourth of what they had been able to pay in the late twelfth century, and whereas that had constituted nearly fifteen percent of the total intake, their present contribution was little more than one percent. Foreign consortia from France and Italy were now operating far more effectively in England than the Jews ever had, being better equipped to finance large loans." [Ibid., p.231]


Re(7): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 06:58:45 PM by mg

Well, Levine. This is good, now that the ADL is funneling apologetics for you.

When I get some time, I'll select a few of your own oropagandistic citations and deconstruct them.

Suffice it to say, for immediate purposes, your task has been to veil Jewish (Marrano) domination of Spain in much the same way you veil Jewish domination of Hollywood.

And you do not succeed.

Re(8): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 29, 2003 at 07:40:51 PM by Mitchell Levine

_How is the ADL involved in any of this? I just used a library card. It's not like anyone has to do any extensive research to invalidate your claims.

All that's needed is a couple of secondary sources, or, usually, a copy of any of your primary sources. You invariably misquote, distort, quote out of context, and use patchworks of multiple sources to try and establish themes entirely contrary to the intentions of their authors. You've even had people post to your guestbook demanding that you remove references to their work in your online book/ ludicrous pile of steaming horseshit, because they felt you fraudulently misrepresented their point of view.

That's not really the hallmark of competent journalism or academic research.

Re(8): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 29, 2003 at 09:11:28 AM by MK

"oropagandistic"

This "word" is not found in any english dictionary.

Must be pig latin.

MG: Oink

Re(8): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 09:27:18 PM by Mitchell Levine

You are a moron. For the benefit of future generations, please kill yourself.

In medieval Spain, Spanish culture was dominated by someone often referred to as "THE KING OF SPAIN," YOU IDIOT!!!

Re(9): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 10:44:44 PM by mg

Your violent nature has overcome you, Levine. Obsessed with eliminating the truth? Stand up off the floor, stop pulling your hair and kicking your cat, take a deep breath, and confess:

"I, Mitchell Levine, am a plagued rat's asshole."

Better yet, recant, and start throwing flowers at me. I hear "Jews for Jesus" will forgive guys like you.

Re(10): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 11:33:47 PM by MK

MG. Shut up before I come to MI and bitch slap you!

Re(10): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 11:30:28 PM by Mitchell Levine

What you're peddling isn't truth: it's anti-truth.

And at least I said "please."

Re(6): Marranos pt. 2: Jewish
Posted on July 27, 2003 at 08:32:40 PM by MK

"Poor, poor Jews! Oh, that everyone everywhere has persecuted them!"

-Thanks not quite true is it? Now drink your milk and go to bed.

Understanding Jewish Hegemony in Hollywood
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 07:15:47 PM by Moishe the Goyim

FIRM can NEVER be in a position to advance its goals without a clear understanding of what it is up against: an ENORMOUS Jewish defensive Wall that forbids ANY investigation into Jewish power and influence, in Hollywood or anywhere.

The central problem facing FIRM is not Jewish influence in Hollywood per se. The problem is the MASSIVE defensive wall and exertion of censorial power in behalf of chronic Jewish ethnocentrism.

The author of the following article, Kevin MacDonald, is a professor of psychology in California who, of course, has come under attack by the Jewish Lobby as being "antisemitic."

Forget Jewish defenisve apologetics. When afforded the facts, what do you think?



http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/km-understanding.html

Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism,by Kevin MacDonald, Occidental Quarterly, Volume 13, No. 2

Abstract: Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations
have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western
societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence:
ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness,
with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism
in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in
its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism,
self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary,
authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat. Jewish populations
have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside
because of several qualities that are central to Judaism as a group
evolutionary strategy: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and
able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups.
Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence
in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic
world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities
that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness.
The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological
intensity, and aggressiveness result in Jews being able to produce formidable,
effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects
on the peoples they live among. In the modern world, these traits influence
the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus
amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies.
However, Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in
societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers. It is remarkable
that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list
of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers
in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance
in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes
and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a
defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of
non-Jews.1 Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained
their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year
Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New
World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive
reaction to the economic and political domination of these "New Christians."2
Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth
century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution
that created the Soviet Union, and they remained an elite group in the
Soviet Union until at least the post-World War II era. They were an
important focus of National Socialism in Germany, and they have been
prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and ethnic revolution in the
United States, including the encouragement of massive non-white immigration
to countries of European origins.3 In the contemporary world, organized
American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the Bush
administration and the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign
policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.
How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of
the West? This article is the first of a three-part series on Jewish
influence which seeks to answer that question. This first paper in the
series provides an introduction to Jewish ethnocentrism and other background
traits that influence Jewish success. The second article discusses Zionism
as the quintessential example of twentieth-century Jewish ethnocentrism
and as an example of a highly influential Jewish intellectual/political
movement. A broader aim will be to discuss a generalization about Jewish
history: that in the long run the more extreme elements of the Jewish
community win out and determine the direction of the entire group. As
Jonathan Sacks points out, it is the committed core—made up now especially
of highly influential and vigorous Jewish activist organizations in
the United States and hypernationalist elements in Israel—that determines
the future direction of the community.4 The third and final article
will discuss neoconservatism as a Jewish intellectual and political
movement. Although I touched on neoconservatism in my trilogy on Jews,5
the present influence of this movement on U.S. foreign policy necessitates
a much fuller treatment.

Re(1): Understanding Jewish Hegemony in Hollywood
Posted on July 29, 2003 at 09:04:25 AM by MK

Comedy at it's best. MacDonald makes statements that have no basis in fact. His position is that any attacks on Jews were defensive. THat's a typical "blame the victim" mentality. This is the same reasoning used by wife beaters who blame the woman for making them angry.

My experience is that there is no reasoning with this type of bigot who's only goal is to rewrite history to coincide with their hatred.

People like MG are on a mission to justify their hatred by making broad statements without evidence.

People like MacDonald and MG can be put in the same class of degenerates that claims all Blacks are lazy, all Irish are drunks, all Italians are in the Mafia, and all arabs are terrorists.

We can only pity people like this who are consumed hatred.

Re(2): Understanding Jewish Hegemony in Hollywood
Posted on July 29, 2003 at 07:16:02 PM by Mitchell Levine

Actually, it's not just that he's consumed by hatred, it's that he wants to motivate others to be equally consumed with hatred.

Re(3): Understanding Jewish Hegemony in Hollywood
Posted on August 1, 2003 at 10:05:57 PM by mg

Read MacDonald's works.

Short of that, you don't know what you're talking about.

Re(4): Understanding Jewish Hegemony in Hollywood
Posted on August 2, 2003 at 09:07:09 AM by MK

This is MG trying to boost fellow bigot MacDonald's book sales. It is clear that MG only believes what he would like to believe.

It is very funny to read the pattern of his posts. Here are the MG rules:

1. If something negative is written about Jews, it's true.
2. If something positive is written about Jews, it's false.
3. If somthing negative is written about Jews by a Jew, it's true
4. If someting positive is written about Jews by a Jew, it's propaganda.

Re(5): Understanding Jewish Hegemony in Hollywood
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 10:56:01 PM by mg

In fact, because Jews dominate so incredibly much of modern culture, when was the last time you heard ANYTHING negative about "Jews"?

Jews forbid it. Our culture forbids it, because Jewish defensive propaganda is such a potent force.

The Jews at this little forum even are intent upon roasting Cones and Jaeger for the MILDEST of criticm. Even when they bend over backwords semantically separating "Jews who run Hollywood" from "Jewish domination of Hollywood" they STILL get flack!

The attack dogs are everywhere.

Re(6): Understanding Jewish Hegemony in Hollywood
Posted on August 4, 2003 at 12:16:00 AM by MK

This coming from the number one Nazi Rottweiler.

Down boy!

Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 11:02:48 PM by mg



Schwarzenegger moves beyond his father's Nazi past,
by Robert Salladay, San Francisco Chronicle, July 13, 2003

"Gustav Schwarzenegger was a police officer and postal inspector in the tiny Austrian village of Thal. In 1938, soon after Germany annexed Austria in the Anschluss, he applied for membership in the Nazi Party and was accepted three years later. This information is known because Gustav Schwarzenegger's son, Arnold, asked the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles to research his father's background in the late 1980s. Some political operatives assume Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Nazi background" could haunt him in a potential gubernatorial campaign, but it's clear the actor and bodybuilder has rejected that part of Austrian history. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Wiesenthal Center, said Schwarzenegger has been a generous donor to the Jewish human rights organization -- "every time he does a movie, he writes a check" -- and has been granted its National Leadership Award for his humanitarian work. "It's not a proud moment for anyone when you learn your father was a member of the Nazi Party," Hier said in an interview. "But Arnold is not his father, and Arnold has to be judged for who he is. I have always found him to be interested in the issues of the museum. He has been very friendly and supportive." Hier said nothing could be found in Berlin archives that any war crimes or atrocities were committed by the actor's father, who remained in police service after the war and died in 1972. "He said whatever it is, he wanted to know about it," the rabbi said about Arnold Schwarzenegger. "He wanted to be in a position to know what the facts are" ... Hier recently told the Jerusalem Post. "To suggest that Arnold's an anti-Semite is preposterous. He's done more to further the cause of Holocaust awareness than almost any other Hollywood star."

Re(1): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on July 28, 2003 at 11:31:20 PM by MK

Thanks for the post. You see, Arnold is viewed as his own man, as it should be. He's not defined by anything other than what he has done as a person.

You should try this approach with Jewish people as well. You might find that you actually like one or two of them.

Re(2): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on July 29, 2003 at 07:13:26 PM by Mitchell Levine

What he's complaining about is his alliance with Jews in the movie industry, not that he's being unfairly perceived as a crypto-Nazi. Of course, that excludes his other alliances, like the one with his best buddy, Kurt Waldheim.

Re(3): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 1, 2003 at 10:04:31 PM by mg

Here Hollywood screenwriter Levine indicts The Terminator as a closet Nazi.

Herein lies the foundation of Jewish Hollywood and Jewish identity generally: the omnipresent radar looking for the "antisemite."

Re(4): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 1, 2003 at 11:36:18 PM by Mitchell Levine

Here deranged non-entity/ worthless scumbag Jenks demonstrates he's incapable of distinguishing between the Terminator, the equally fictious public persona of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the actor that played them both.

Herein lies the foundation of fascist identity generally: the omnipresent radar looking for new ways to stigmatize Jews and other outgroups, and hopefully convince others to do the same.

Re(5): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 07:37:02 PM by mg

Hey, Levine. Mimicry doesn't serve you well.

Better to wear your original skunk outfit. The one with the pearls.

Re(6): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 09:29:15 PM by Mitchell Levine

You can't come off any better than the evil scumbag being mimiced - that's the point.

That's why you should stick to what you do best: being a hilariously incompetent public laughingstock, and unintentional promoter of moderate tolerance through your repulsive counterexample as a sick-making, racist dinguswad.

Re(7): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 10:24:04 PM by mg

Hey. You're a purple pork ring boiled in sewer drippings half-copulating with an inflated hookworm.

You're so great a scumbag that they're thinking about renaming the vast
Everglades swamp in your honor: Levine Heights.

Na-na, na-na-na.

Gosh. Levine. Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.

We're down to your slithering level, in some cave. What you touch, spoils.

Re(8): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 11:10:27 PM by Mitchell Levine

Jenks, have your doctors up the dosage on your Haldol. You're becoming even more incoherent - and everyone thought that was an impossibility.

Re(9): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 11:21:17 PM by mg

Gosh, Levine. They said the same thing to Einstein.

Of course, since I never heard of Haldol, can I borrow yours?

Re(10): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 4, 2003 at 12:13:03 AM by MK

Einstien was a genius. You are a moron. Perhaps you want to choose your comparisons more carefully in the future.

--Haldol (Haloperidol) is used to treat symptoms of certain types of mental conditions, to control movements or effects of Tourette's syndrome or to control severe behavioral problems in children.--

Sad you've never heard of it. It would make a huge difference in your sorry life.

Re(11): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 4, 2003 at 11:27:34 PM by mg

Since you guys seem to have boxloads of these kook pills in your closets, there must be a reason for it.

Tastes good in your daily coke fix, does it?

Re(12): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 5, 2003 at 06:19:35 AM by MK

No, I just have broader knowlege than you. So put down that jug of moonshine and get some help.

Re(13): Schwarzenegger's Jewish Hollywood
Posted on August 5, 2003 at 06:09:41 PM by Mitchell Levine

Are YOU suggesting that Jenks' erudition and the "research" on his site are limited, questionable, and biased???

WHAT ARROGANCE!!!

View of the ADL
Posted on August 1, 2003 at 06:17:17 PM by John Cones

The following quote comes from a Special Report ofthe Civil Rights Division of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. It is entitled "Alleged Jewish 'Control' of the American Motion Picture Industry" and is posted here at the FIRM site under "Background Information". My question is: isn't this view the same that we at FIRM have been expressing with respect to who controls Hollywood? And why are we called anti-Semites for expressing the same concept apparently endorsed by the ADL?

John Cones



In an essay headed "Who Says Jews Control Hollywood?" published in the February/March 1995 issue of Midstream magazine, Steven G. Kellman, a professor at the University of Texas in San Antonio, wrote: "Boosters and antisemites agree: Jews have been prominent and predominant in all phases of the [motion picture] business: production, distribution and exhibition." He noted that, at the time, "Of the 100 most powerful people in the industry according to a recent survey by Premiere, most, including the top 12, are Jewish," but observed, "Though individual Jews control Hollywood, Jewishness does not." In fact, Hollywood studios are publicly owned corporations and motion pictures are made by the efforts of individual men and women, some of whom are Jewish, many of whom are not.

Re(1): View of the ADL
Posted on August 1, 2003 at 06:44:40 PM by Mitchell Levine

Because, John, they say "though individual Jews control Hollywood, Jewishness does not." You agree on the former, but reject the latter.

Also, they don't blame whatever they dislike about Hollywood on that putative "Jewishness."

Re(2): View of the ADL
Posted on August 2, 2003 at 11:13:52 AM by John Cones

Mitchell:

You are so uninformed about my position that I'm embarrassed for you. It is blatantly false for you to allege that i "agree on the former, but reject the latter." There is nothing in my writing that suggests that the "Jewishness" of anybody has anything to do with their behavior, nor do I blame what I dislike about Hollywood on anyone's "Jewishness". You are just wrong on the point. The following quote, for example, is taken from my speech "What's Really Going On In Hollywood". Similar quotes which accurately represent my position are found in the book "What's Really Going On In Hollywood". Good grief man, don't come on this site and post blatantly inaccurate or dishonest gibberish!

John Cones

"What I'm NOT Saying

I am not saying that the behavior of this narrowly-defined Hollywood control group (a majority of not more than twenty-five individuals at any given time) is in any way representative of the 5.5 million or more members of the much broader so-called Jewish community here in the U.S., so I'm clearly not talking about Jews generally. Second, I'm not suggesting that any of the members of the Hollywood control group behave the way they do because they are Jewish. I am only observing and merely criticizing the well-documented, business-related behavior of a small group of unrepresentative individuals, who in all likelihood and at certain levels, are behaving just like anyone else under the same or similar circumstances. After all, as human beings, we all tend to want to associate with people who are more like ourselves, and since movies tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers (no matter who they are), the motion pictures of any particular group will tend to reflect the interests of that group. In addition, since the motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas, it is essential in a democracy (based on a marketplace of freely competing ideas) that we consumers of motion picture product and victims of its legacy know as much about the backgrounds of these individual mass-media communicators as possible." Excerpt from the speech "What's Really Going In Hollywood" by John W. Cones

Re(3): View of the ADL
Posted on August 2, 2003 at 08:24:07 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, John, in classic legal fashion, you hide behind nominal disclaimers and boilerplate, but your true intentions still leak through anyhow.

George Shelps pegged it spot on when he noted that the central flaw of your argument was your claim that the "clan" would, though its supposed group cohesion and ethnocentric social validation, necessarily reinforce deceitful and malicious behavior. It's rather disingenous of you on the same score to further claim that this behavior doesn't also reflect the 5.5 million members of the "so-called" Jewish community, each of whom equally participate in that "clan-like" group cohesion.

If the true effect of group polarization is the incitement and condoning of unethical behavior, why would it be limited just to Hollywood? Why wouldn't it flourish anywhere that group identity existed?

Also, I doubt that you'd feel this theory would be justifiable if it were applied to demographs outside the "Hollywood Control Group." If, for example, Jewish producers had released a film which suggested that "group cohesion" among Catholics was responsible for the atmosphere of tolerance for vice that resulted in widespread sexual abuse in the Diocese, you would have immediately denounced it, and cited it as yet another example of Hollywood victimization.

That's hardly the only disingenuous behavior you've engaged in. Another example is your assertion that you don't support ethnic quotas despite your admission that, even if the studios are breaking no existing antidiscrimination laws, new legislation would need to be put into effect. When asked to describe exactly what that new legislation would entail, if not a quota system, you've always chosen to simply not respond.

Re(4): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 06:58:39 PM by mg

LEVINE SAYS: If the true effect of group polarization is the incitement and condoning of unethical behavior, why would it be limited just to Hollywood? Why wouldn't it flourish anywhere that group identity existed?

RESPONSE: It DOES exist whereever Jewish "group identity exists." The best example is the racist fraud state of Israel. It is rampant with corruption of every sort: it's a center for the international prostitution trade, it's an important base for the Jewish "Russian" mafia, it's a major trafficker in human organs, it institutionalizes Jewish racism, ad nauseum).

LEVINE SAYS: If, for example, Jewish producers had released a film which suggested that "group cohesion" among Catholics was responsible for the atmosphere of tolerance for vice that resulted in widespread sexual abuse in the Diocese, you would have immediately denounced it, and cited it as yet another example of Hollywood victimization.

RESPONSE: The Judeocentric, Jewish-dominated mass media has embarked on an assassination of Catholicism. Rabbi sexual vice and exploitation is AT LEAST as rampant, and rabbi corruption in money matters is probably far higher. (See documentation at Jewish Tribal Review).

But the (Jewish) mass media focuses in on Catholicism, ignoring Judaism's versions of the same things (and worse).

Re(4): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 01:11:11 AM by James Jaeger

>George Shelps pegged it spot on when he noted that the central flaw of your argument was your claim that the "clan" would, though its supposed group cohesion and ethnocentric social validation, necessarily reinforce deceitful and malicious behavior. It's rather disingenous of you on the same score to further claim that this behavior doesn't also reflect the 5.5 million members of the "so-called" Jewish community, each of whom equally participate in that "clan-like" group cohesion.

So Mitchell what are you saying? Are you suggesting that Jews in general DO condone the behavior of Jews anywhere else, including the control group in Hollywood?

>If the true effect of group polarization is the incitement and condoning of unethical behavior, why would it be limited just to Hollywood? Why wouldn't it flourish anywhere that group identity existed?

Sounds to me like you are agreeing with Jim Jenk's thesis in part; that Jews, whether in Hollywood or in Kansas City, act as one mind, one clan, one group, perhaps one supra-national political party. And therefore any predatory, illegal or unethical behavior by Jews in the Hollywood control group is ignored, condoned or supported as a "cost of business" or a means justified by an end. This would cast a negative shadow on Jews in general. I am sure John Cones is NOT suggesting this because this is outside the scope of his research, the scope of his research being WHO are the makers of movies and WHAT effect do these movies have on the public. On the other hand, I would say Jim Jenks IS suggesting this.

But what seems to me might be going on may reside somewhat in the middle. What might be going on is that Jews in the control group are conducting business anyway they see fit (in order to survive in perhaps the world's most competitive atmosphere) and, if the outside world criticizes them, they take refuge behind their fellow Jews in general and cry anti-Semitism in order to thwart and invalidate the criticism. Their fellow Jews being, for the most part, good, but ignorant chaps in the expediencies of the film business, rally to the control group's call tropistically. In this sense, Jews in and out of the Hollywood control group are acting like a tribe or a cohesive group -- AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS AS ALL GROUPS OR TRIBES DO THE SAME. But what's wrong is that the Jews in the control group are maliciously using their fellow Jews in general to obfuscate, condone or justify their unethical or criminal conduct. Thus Jews in the control group are victimizing Jews that are NOT in the control group -– and part of this victimization is that Jews in the control group won’t even let their fellow Jews INTO the control group no matter what their sacrifice or how fervorant of an apologist they may be.

I would say that if this is what is actually happening, Jews in general will eventually realize the game and put a stop to it. If, after a reasonable amount of time, they don't put a stop to it, one might be justified in taking a (more) serious look at Jim Jenk's research to ascertain its implications.

James Jaeger

Re(5): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 01:22:13 PM by Mitchell Levine

>George Shelps pegged it spot on when he noted that the central flaw of your argument was your claim that the "clan" would, though its supposed group cohesion and ethnocentric social validation, necessarily reinforce deceitful and malicious behavior. It's rather disingenous of you on the same score to further claim that this behavior doesn't also reflect the 5.5 million members of the "so-called" Jewish community, each of whom equally participate in that "clan-like" group cohesion.

So Mitchell what are you saying? Are you suggesting that Jews in general DO condone the behavior of Jews anywhere else, including the control group in Hollywood?

- No, Jim - the point here is that the above antisemitic assertion is the natural consequence of Cones' argument. That's why I feel he's been seen as antisemitic, justly or unjustly. You're interpreting it too literally.

And if Jews truely acted as one clan, though some fearsome interglobal neural network allowing millions of individuals to share one mind, you probably wouldn't see the divisions between, say, American Jews and Israelis. Or for that matter, Chasids and the Reformed.

You also wouldn't see tensions between Jews who study the Kaballah and Conservatives; or those who support Israel and Zionism, and those who don't; or those who support the JDL and the Kahanecai and the majority who do not.

Jews don't form one cooridinated monolithic entity anywhere, and are a diverse group, physically, ideologically, and politically. It's hardly true that Jews in the "Hollywood Control Group" are victimizing other Jews. It may be so that there are Jews that are struggling to make it in the business, but that doesn't mean that they are being "victimized," because struggling is often simply part of trying to make it.

Jenks does not conduct research, he simply collects quotations that he thinks he can manipulate to sound anti-Jewish, and discards everything that doesn't support his bigotry. He makes no attempt to be objective, and just tries to warp everything he encounters to fit his preconceived prejudices.

This leads him to, for example, make complaints about Hollywood not supporting "democracy," and at the same time bitch about 11% of Congress being Jewish, regardless of the fact that they were all democratically elected by their constituents.

Re(6): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 07:17:34 PM by mg

YOU sAY: And if Jews truely acted as one clan, though some fearsome interglobal neural network allowing millions of individuals to share one mind, you probably wouldn't see the divisions between, say, American Jews and Israelis. Or for that matter, Chasids and the Reformed.

RESPONSE: Jews don't function from the level of a communal Vulcan Mind Meld. But studies by Jewish agencies find very, very many common denominators in Jewish popular opinion (which you constantly obsfuscate). Allegiance to the Clan (and especially Israel) is NEWS TO NO ONE, and you know it. That there are a relatively few Jews who go against the Jewish GRAIN does not negate the communal push of the Jewish Collective.

YOU SAY: You also wouldn't see tensions between Jews who study the Kaballah and Conservatives; or those who support Israel and Zionism, and those who don't; or those who support the JDL and the Kahanecai and the majority who do not.

RESPONSE: What a stupid argument! Even the Nazis didn't act in every detail of their daily lives with one head. Again, for the thousandth time: what defines an atheist Jew, a Chabad Jew, a Zionist, an anti-Zionist Jew, and all the rest as "Jews" is the subject worth discussing. Levine, who fills the "Jewish" stereotype as a rabid Zionist who moved to Israel AND who is one of the half-billion Jews in the film industry, is on pretty shakey ground championing intra-Jewish "diversity."

YOU SAY: Jews don't form one cooridinated monolithic entity anywhere,

RESPONSE: Of course they do. If they don't, then what's a "Jew?" If they're as diverse as your propaganda declares, then the term "Jew" is meaningless.

Your scam is as old as Zionism: Jews like you seek to veil your ethocentric allegiance (you moved to Israel!) behind false fronts of American universalism. That's a form of fraud, pure and simple.

YOU SAY: and are a diverse group, physically, ideologically, and politically.

RESPONSE: All Jewish agency studies prove the essence of your assertion to be false. Unless you're talking about "diversity" as fat Jews, skinny Jews, short Jews, tall Jews ...

YOU SAY: It's hardly true that Jews in the "Hollywood Control Group" are victimizing other Jews.

RESPONSE: The Jewish Lobby/Collective (which includes ALL major Jewish organizations) are determining the fate of the Jewish future. In that sense, they are all getting SCREWED. But, overwhelmingly, the Jewish community adheres to its veiled racism, neurosis, power grabs, and exploitation factories.

YOU SAY:Jenks does not conduct research, he simply collects quotations that he thinks he can manipulate to sound anti-Jewish, and discards everything that doesn't support his bigotry.

RESPONSE: Levine, you're a disgusting fraud. The foundation of academic research, since you don't know, is to find evidence in support of a thesis. And the thesis is to EXPOSE the JEWISH version of BIGOTRY, which is rampant and dominant throughout American culture. You exemplify this. In the tons of research we have done, and in Cones' research too, you concede virtually nothing.

You're a fraud of the first order. And you are EVIDENCE PACKET #1 of the Jewish neurosis of which I always speak. Veil, obfuscate, and defend the Jewish power elite at any cost.

YOU SAY: He makes no attempt to be objective, and just tries to warp everything he encounters to fit his preconceived prejudices.

RESPONSE: Read our web site. It's about as "objective" as one can get. Your sense of "objectivity" is the naked propaganda monster of the ADL.

YOU SAY: This leads him to, for example, make complaints about Hollywood not supporting "democracy," and at the same time bitch about 11% of Congress being Jewish, regardless of the fact that they were all democratically elected by their constituents.

RESPONSE: You are a total simpleton. Jews are 2.5% of the population. If Jews can dissimulate and, via the Judeocentric media, government, and schooling system (Holocaust! Holocaust! Holocaust!) be instrumental in constructing the artifice of "public opinion," will 85% of our Congress be enough for you? Hey! We need MORE Jews in Hollywood don't you think?

Re(7): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 09:14:43 PM by Mitchell Levine

RESPONSE: Jews don't function from the level of a communal Vulcan Mind Meld. But studies by Jewish agencies find very, very many common denominators in Jewish popular opinion

- Actually, it's typically just the same perspective held by other liberal, college educated individuals. That doesn't make the mass of Jewish individuals any kind of conspiratorial entity.

(which you constantly obsfuscate). Allegiance to the Clan (and especially Israel) is NEWS TO NO ONE, and you know it.

- That hardly means that Jews are more loyal to those ethnic ties then the Irish or Italians are.

That there are a relatively few Jews who go against the Jewish GRAIN does not negate the communal push of the Jewish Collective.

YOU SAY: You also wouldn't see tensions between Jews who study the Kaballah and Conservatives; or those who support Israel and Zionism, and those who don't; or those who support the JDL and the Kahanecai and the majority who do not.

RESPONSE: What a stupid argument! Even the Nazis didn't act in every detail of their daily lives with one head.

- What a stupid asshole! The Nazis accepted all of their ideology unquestioningly from Hitler, with little to no noticable dissension. That's why their customary defense at the Nuremburg Trials was "I was just following orders." This is not true of the Jewish Community, which has a spectrum of beliefs without an ideological center at all, except generally a respect for rationalism. Most of the responses given by Jewish people to opinion polls are similar to those given by non-Jews of their socio-economic status and level of education.

Again, for the thousandth time: what defines an atheist Jew, a Chabad Jew, a Zionist, an anti-Zionist Jew, and all the rest as "Jews" is the subject worth discussing. Levine, who fills the "Jewish" stereotype as a rabid Zionist who moved to Israel AND who is one of the half-billion Jews in the film industry, is on pretty shakey ground championing intra-Jewish "diversity."

- I'm no rabid pro-Zionist; I wouldn't even vote for Sharon, as I don't agree with any of his policies. However, it appears that anyone who believes that Israel should be allowed to continue to exist is a "rabid pro-Zionist."

YOU SAY: Jews don't form one cooridinated monolithic entity anywhere,

RESPONSE: Of course they do. If they don't, then what's a "Jew?" If they're as diverse as your propaganda declares, then the term "Jew" is meaningless.

- What the hell are you taling about, you idiot? Simply being a Jew does not entail being part of any coordinated monolithic entity in any way. What the term Jew signifies is being ethnically related to a social group which traditionally held a set of religious beliefs. It doesn't imply that you necessarily have anything else in common with that group. A child born in a log cabin to Jewish parents will still be a Jew, even if the child knows nothing else about being Jewish. That hardly makes him part of any "monolithic" collective mass in anything other than a demographic sense.

YOU SAY:Jenks does not conduct research, he simply collects quotations that he thinks he can manipulate to sound anti-Jewish, and discards everything that doesn't support his bigotry.

RESPONSE: Levine, you're a disgusting fraud. The foundation of academic research, since you don't know, is to find evidence in support of a thesis. And the thesis is to EXPOSE the JEWISH version of BIGOTRY, which is rampant and dominant throughout American culture. You exemplify this. In the tons of research we have done, and in Cones' research too, you concede virtually nothing.

- Yes, Jenks, you nauseating, execrable maggot, it's supposed to be to validate a thesis, but it's also supposed to be OBJECTIVE. You are not supposed to distort, fabricate, quote out of context, and intentionally overlook evidence because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas. That's all you do, typical for your true identity as a despicable, worthless piece of retarded dogshit. You have no interest in the truth. Your only interest is attacking Jews out of bigotry and hatred. It's a good thing you're so fucking stupid.

You are a total simpleton. Jews are 2.5% of the population. If Jews can dissimulate and, via the Judeocentric media, government, and schooling system (Holocaust! Holocaust! Holocaust!) be instrumental in constructing the artifice of "public opinion," will 85% of our Congress be enough for you? Hey! We need MORE Jews in Hollywood don't you think?

- Moron, if the voters wanted to elect Jews as 100% of Congress, it would still be fine. In the United States of America, elected leaders are chosen on the basis of their appeal to their constituents, not on the basis of their religion. That's what democracy is about, not your typically asinine idea of "ethnic balance," which the Founding Fathers couldn't have cared less about. Under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, ethnic balance means nothing and individual liberty means everything. If you don't like it, move to China.

Re(8): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 10:08:40 PM by mg

My dear Mr. Levine. Kind Sir, in the spirit of your own intellect, I introduce the following with your style of greeting:

Asshole, dickhead, moron, dope, scumbag, pig testes, gelatin cretin, half-wit, black fart, garbage mouth, etc.

I haven't got the time to respond to you point by point with citations. Just to whet your perverse appetite, here's a nice little survey of American Jews that finds that Jewish opinion is NOT an echo of Americans.

Only 2% of American Jews were "strongly unsupportive" of Israel. 89% were "strongly" or "somewhat" favorable to the racist, ethnocentric, and violent Jewish Machine. BIG RANGE of "diversity!"

Results of Poll Sponsored by Israel Policy Forum, the Jewish Week, and the Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies Studies,
Jewish Week, November 20, 2001

This poll of Jewish Americans found "the most important issue or problem facing the Jewish community in the United States today" to be 1) anti-Semitism [23%], 2) Peace and Security for Israel, 3) Terrorism [13%], 4) Intermarriage [i.e., marrying non-Jews - 12%], and 5) U.S.-Israeli relations [8%]. Public education was 8th, poverty and hunger 9th, and the environment 10th [all with 1%]. 89% of respondents were "strongly favorable' or "somewhat favorable" to Israel. (Another 5% ventured no opinion, 1% didn't respond, 3% were "somewhat unsupportive, and 2% "strongly unsupportive.") 59% were even "strongly favorable" or "somewhat favorable" to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who faced a possible trial in Belgium for war crimes in Lebanon.

Re(7): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 07:51:16 PM by MK

YOU SAY: Jews don't form one cooridinated monolithic entity anywhere.

RESPONSE: Of course they do. If they don't, then what's a "Jew?" If they're as diverse as your propaganda declares, then the term "Jew" is meaningless.

--No they don't. You just want to believe that so you can put a rope around them all. The fact is that it is a religious group, but what's wrong with being clannish? There is safty in numbers. This is why ethnic and religious groups are formed. Generally it's anti-social loners that resent these groups because they feel as if they are outcasts. You feel that way, don't you MG?

Re(2): View of the ADL
Posted on August 1, 2003 at 10:09:09 PM by mg

The ADL is a propaganda organization that states the fact that people of Jewish descent dominate Hollywood but then puts some semantic spin on it all.

"Jews" dominate Hollywood as even the ADL agrees. But, of course, "Jewishness" does too, which entails a very distinct world view (anti-Christian, pro-Israel, pro-porno, hedonism, nihilism, etc.)

Re(3): View of the ADL
Posted on August 1, 2003 at 11:36:51 PM by Mitchell Levine

I rest my case.

Re(4): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 07:21:35 PM by mg

What "case?" The racist Israeli albatross that dangles like a hippo down your back?

Damn! Yeah. You deserve a rest carrying that all around.

Re(5): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 08:32:37 PM by Mitchell Levine

Much like that brutal, racist albatross called the PLO you carry around your back, Jenks!

Re(4): View of the ADL
Posted on August 2, 2003 at 01:54:25 AM by James Jaeger

I think the difference is subtle: While Hollywood is dominated by Jews, Jews do not dominate Hollywood. Unless you are of the opinion that Jews in general are a vast monolithic conspiracy and that what any part of Jewishness thinks or does, all parts of Jewishness think or do, I don't believe it's accurate to implicate Jews in general with Hollywood control. I know many Jewish people who have nothing to do with Hollywood and I know Jewish people who are struggling to make it in the Hollywood business just as other groups are.

One thing that DOES distress me is seeing Jews blindly defend Jews who DO dominate in Hollywood. My experience with FIRM these past five or so years has shown me that Jews in general DO tend to be very defensive about anything they even remotely perceive as a criticism of Jews anywhere, including Hollywood. On the other hand I am happy to report that a number of some of the most vocal Jewish people I have debated FIRM issues with, have, upon more careful study, realize that our criticism of Hollywood (FIRM, John Cones, myself) is not intended to be leveled at Jews, but only at lack of diversity, and a number of them have, to their credit, been able to acknowledge this.

It is regretful that Jews, being one of the major elements in the control group demographic, have been caught in the cross fire of this criticism, but I assure you that were any other demographic as dominate, they too would be equally addressed in the call for more diversity.

James Jaeger

Re(5): View of the ADL
Posted on August 2, 2003 at 02:26:42 AM by George Shelps


Our criticism of Hollywood (FIRM, John Cones, myself) is not intended to be leveled at Jews, but only at lack of diversity, and a number of them have, to their credit, been able to acknowledge this.

It is regretful that Jews, being one of the major elements in the control group demographic, have been caught in the cross fire of this criticism, but I assure you that were any other demographic as dominate, they too would be equally addressed in the call for more diversity.

___More diversity is not necessarily
a good thing, and since more diversity
means fewer Jews in Hollywood, your
critics are correct in feeling concerned about FIRM.


But far worse is your refusal to repudiate or challenge the views of
Jenks/Baker/whoever. His website is
full of slurs, such as calling
"The New Republic" the "Jew Republic."

And yet you extoll him as some sort of
"researcher" whose views you take seriously.

Re(6): View of the ADL
Posted on August 2, 2003 at 11:56:07 PM by James Jaeger

>___More diversity is not necessarily a good thing, and since more diversity means fewer Jews in Hollywood, your critics are correct in feeling concerned about FIRM.

In a zero-sum game you would be right, but I'm not suggesting a zero-sum game. In a zero-sum game, increasing diversity in Hollywood WOULD mean reducing the number of Jews in the industry. I am NOT suggesting this as a road to reform as I don't feel that would be fair to the many Jewish people who have worked hard to found the movie business, a business that Gentiles snubbed for many decades, and thus have not deserved to enjoy the fruits of the labor.

What I am suggesting now is that we should recognize a turning point in the development of the film industry. And this turning point is that, from March 15, 1998, the date FIRM was founded, all forms of discrimination that are going on in the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry should cease and a more diverse control group should be fostered. This growth would NOT exclude any Jewish people that are already working, it would simply allow others who were NOT ‘politically liberal, not-very-religious, white Jewish males of European heritage’ to get involved in the control group. Paul Rosenfield, in his book THE CLUB RULES, estimates that this control group, what he calls "the Club," consists of about 1,000 people as of 1992. I am thus suggesting that the control group be expanded to perhaps 2,000 to 3,000 people and that the additional 1,000 to 2,000 people be of a more diverse demographic. What's so horrible about that?

>But far worse is your refusal to repudiate or challenge the views of
Jenks/Baker/whoever. His website is full of slurs, such as calling "The New Republic" the "Jew Republic." And yet you extoll him as some sort of "researcher" whose views you take seriously.

As I have said many times, I am not qualified to either extol or repudiate Jim Jenk’s research. I feel that, since the mainstream media refuses, or fails, to give his research platform, the responsibility falls upon other people in the media who have less of a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or who recognize that bias in the media (read a book called BIAS for details) is counter productive in a democratic society where the free flow of ideas is its life blood.

James Jaeger

Re(7): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 03:52:22 AM by George Shelps



>___More diversity is not necessarily a good thing, and since more diversity means fewer Jews in Hollywood, your critics are correct in feeling concerned about FIRM.


In a zero-sum game you would be right, but I'm not suggesting a zero-sum game.

____Furthermore, diversity is no
guarantee of business ethics...organized
crime is diverse, besides the Italian
Mafia branch, you have the Jewish, Russian, Chinese, and Afro-American
branches....


In a zero-sum game, increasing diversity in Hollywood WOULD mean reducing the number of Jews in the industry. I am NOT suggesting this as a road to reform as I don't feel that would be fair to the many Jewish people who have worked hard to found the movie business, a business that Gentiles snubbed for many decades, and thus have not deserved to enjoy the fruits of the labor.

___You know, the "Gentiles" controlled
the movie business until 1916, roughly...but they tried to form a trust and the Supreme Court broke it up....


What I am suggesting now is that we should recognize a turning point in the development of the film industry. And this turning point is that, from March 15, 1998, the date FIRM was founded, all forms of discrimination that are going on in the Hollywood-based U.S. motion picture industry should cease and a more diverse control group should be fostered. This growth would NOT exclude any Jewish people that are already working, it would simply allow others who were NOT 'politically liberal, not-very-religious, white Jewish males of European heritage' to get involved in the control group.

___So...get out there and raise money to make films, and stop with FIRM.

Paul Rosenfield, in his book THE CLUB RULES, estimates that this control group, what he calls "the Club," consists of about 1,000 people as of 1992. I am thus suggesting that the control group be expanded to perhaps 2,000 to 3,000 people and that the additional 1,000 to 2,000 people be of a more diverse demographic. What's so horrible about that?

___I read THE CLUB. Rosenfield never
says this is a "control group." Just
a group of influential insiders....based on a certain social cachet...there are
other powerful people are not
members of the "Club."

>But far worse is your refusal to repudiate or challenge the views of
Jenks/Baker/whoever. His website is full of slurs, such as calling "The New Republic" the "Jew Republic." And yet you extoll him as some sort of "researcher" whose views you take seriously.

As I have said many times, I am not qualified to either extol or repudiate Jim Jenk's research.

__Oh? Then jibes like "The Jew Republic"
are OK by you? That alone should be
enough to prove he's a bigot...and I saved the page in case he tries to take
it down.

The Control Group & The Club
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 07:43:32 PM by James Jaeger

____Furthermore, diversity is no
guarantee of business ethics...organized
crime is diverse, besides the Italian
Mafia branch, you have the Jewish, Russian, Chinese, and Afro-American
branches....

Nothing in life is guaranteed. I'm not "guaranteeing" a better Hollywood just because it's more diversified. There are other problems with Hollywood that I have tried to address at this forum, but they went undiscussed because it seems that all anyone wants to do is talk about Jews.

>___You know, the "Gentiles" controlled
the movie business until 1916, roughly...but they tried to form a trust and the Supreme Court broke it up....

Yes, I am aware of this and this supports John Cones' contention that
any "small group of unrepresentative individuals, who in all likelihood and at certain levels, are behaving just like anyone else under the same or similar circumstances." In short: when the Gentiles were the CONTROL GROUP in the movie business, they were just as bad as the current control group is today, perhaps worse.

>___So...get out there and raise money to make films, and stop with FIRM.

I am. I'm trying to raise money for a low-budget feature which I will direct and may co-produce. The budget is anticipated to be between $250,000 and $1,000,000 and it will be a 35mm shoot shot on the Main Line outside Philadelphia. I already have at least one screenplay that is great and can be shot for the above budget. I was able to get distribution for my last feature even though it was shot on 3/4 inch tape. The film was called OVER EXPOSED and stars Monique Gabrielle. Look it up at http://www.imdb.com The film sold to Scandinavia, one of the 5 major territories. It is currently being re-edited and will be sold to the other territories. The feature has already earned the equivalent of its cash budget back. This track record indicates that I will be able to do a second feature, such higher quality and on 35mm, and that I should be able to accomplish at least what I accomplished with OVER EXPOSED, i.e., get a distributor, sell rights, recoup the cash outlay. If I can shoot a 35mm feature that does well in a major or semi-major festival, gets a distributor for a at least a limited NA theatrical deal (25 - 50 prints) and retain all or part of my foreign rights, the foreign rights will be worth between $1 million and $10 million 18 - 24 months after theatrical release.

>___I read THE CLUB. Rosenfield never
says this is a "control group." Just
a group of influential insiders....based on a certain social cachet...there are
other powerful people are not
members of the "Club."

No he does say they are a control group. He says on page 11, "There are a thousand people floating around the top of this world -- They are the club that CONTROLS show business." (emphasis added)

Further, he says on page 2 that "I discovered that the club members are more alike than they are unalike: Most of them are white males, forty or older, Jewish for the most part, heterosexual for the most part, usually fathers, of shorter-than-average height."

I would like to emphasize that THE CLUB in Rosenfield's world is not the same as the CONTROL GROUP in John Cones' world. Whereas THE CLUB consists of about 1,000 people (of the above description), the CONTROL GROUP consists of about 24 people (described as politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage) who hold the top three positions at the 7 MPAA studio/distributors.

Thus the way we can sum this up is simple:

1. The CONTROL GROUP is at the core of THE CLUB.

2. Members in both are more alike than unalike.

3. Diversity is scarce in both.

4. The CONTROL GROUP is nominated to power from THE CLUB "membership."

5. Members of the CONTROL GROUP flow from position to position amongst themselves, but sometimes take permanent or temporary retirements in THE CLUB.

6. You are usually, or always, in THE CLUB before you can get into the CONTROL GROUP.

7. Once you are in THE CLUB you are in for life.

8. Once you are in the CONTROL GROUP, you are probably on a particular post for about 1 or 2 years.

All this brings up an interesting question: Is Hollywood reformed by reforming THE CLUB or by reforming the CONTROL GROUP? In other words, does the lack of diversity of the CONTROL GROUP hold in place the lack of diversity in THE CLUB or does the lack of diversity in THE CLUB result in a lack of diversity in the CONTROL GROUP?

>__Oh? Then jibes like "The Jew Republic" are OK by you? That alone should be enough to prove he's a bigot...and I saved the page in case he tries to take it down.

You apparently read Jenk's site far more than I. I am not really that interested in studying Jenk's site and sitting in judgment on it. I am only interested in the movie industry from the point of view of working in it and doing my part to make it the best industry it can possibly be.

James Jaeger

Re(1): The Control Group & The Club
Posted on August 4, 2003 at 00:51:10 AM by George Shelps


____Furthermore, diversity is no
guarantee of business ethics...organized
crime is diverse, besides the Italian
Mafia branch, you have the Jewish, Russian, Chinese, and Afro-American
branches....

Nothing in life is guaranteed. I'm not "guaranteeing" a better Hollywood just because it's more diversified.

___Don't play word games. There is
no necessary connection at all between
diversity and business ethics.

There are other problems with Hollywood that I have tried to address at this forum, but they went undiscussed because it seems that all anyone wants to do is talk about Jews.

__This is mainly due to Jenks at this
point.

>___You know, the "Gentiles" controlled
the movie business until 1916, roughly...but they tried to form a trust and the Supreme Court broke it up....



Yes, I am aware of this and this supports John Cones' contention that
any "small group of unrepresentative individuals, who in all likelihood and at certain levels, are behaving just like anyone else under the same or similar circumstances." In short: when the Gentiles were the CONTROL GROUP in the movie business, they were just as bad as the current control group is today, perhaps worse.

___They formed an illegal monopoly
which was broken up by the courts.

Please show a similar illegality today.

(I forgot to mention that the Lubin
Studios located in Philadelphia were
part of the trust...and Lubin was
Jewish)

>___So...get out there and raise money to make films, and stop with FIRM.

I am. I'm trying to raise money for a low-budget feature which I will direct and may co-produce. The budget is anticipated to be between $250,000 and $1,000,000 and it will be a 35mm shoot shot on the Main Line outside Philadelphia. I already have at least one screenplay that is great and can be shot for the above budget.

__You've talking about this for a decade or more.

I was able to get distribution for my last feature even though it was shot on 3/4 inch tape. The film was called OVER EXPOSED and stars Monique Gabrielle. Look it up at http://www.imdb.com The film sold to Scandinavia, one of the 5 major territories. It is currently being re-edited and will be sold to the other territories. The feature has already earned the equivalent of its cash budget back. This track record indicates that I will be able to do a second feature, such higher quality and on 35mm, and that I should be able to accomplish at least what I accomplished with OVER EXPOSED, i.e., get a distributor, sell rights, recoup the cash outlay. If I can shoot a 35mm feature that does well in a major or semi-major festival, gets a distributor for a at least a limited NA theatrical deal (25 - 50 prints) and retain all or part of my foreign rights, the foreign rights will be worth between $1 million and $10 million 18 - 24 months after theatrical release.

___Good luck then.

>___I read THE CLUB. Rosenfield never
says this is a "control group." Just
a group of influential insiders....based on a certain social cachet...there are
other powerful people are not
members of the "Club."


No he does say they are a control group. He says on page 11, "There are a thousand people floating around the top of this world -- They are the club that CONTROLS show business." (emphasis

___An informal social situation composed of powerful actors, directors, writers
and producers at the top levels of
the movie industry IS the movie
industry...not a "control group."


>__Oh? Then jibes like "The Jew Republic" are OK by you? That alone should be enough to prove he's a bigot...and I saved the page in case he tries to take it down.

You apparently read Jenk's site far more than I.

___I read it once in a while.

I am not really that interested in studying Jenk's site and sitting in judgment on it.

___You should "sit in judgment on it."
You've peddled his views to me and to
others in private e-mails.

Why don't you give your opinion of
his use of slurs like "The Jew Republic?"

Re(8): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 07:34:08 PM by mg

Shleps, you're a very, very ignorant narrow-minded man. Our "Jew Republic" reference won't be coming down any time soon. It's accurate.


The New Republic was purchased by Martin Peretz, as former Leftist who is an avid Zionist and apologist for Israel. One of its principal editors has been Leon Wieseltier, who is pretty much a clone. The New Republic has long featured a Judeocentric view of the world.

Peretz is "one of the most militant defenders of Israel." [GOLDBERG, p. 299] Peretz, once a bankroller of the left-wing Ramparts magazine, was described by a New Republic foreign editor as "a very emotional guy. He has certain passions in life, one of which is Israel. I hate to keep bringing in the Israeli thing, because I consider myself just as pro-Israeli, but it colored his whole view of the world." [CURTISS, p. 325]

Also of particular note in this regard was NR's venomous attack on John Sack's book (Sack is Jewish, and the book, An Eye for an Eye, addressing the post-war atrocities committed by Jews in Eastern Europe) came from the New Republic. Sack wrote a point by point rebuttal to their review, but the magazine refused to publish any of it in their Letters to the Editor section. "But," noted the Nation, "the magazine made the remarkable decision to sell him ad space to run it ($525 for five column inches). The ad was typeset, but the magazine then chose to reject it." [WIENER, p. 287] Leon Wieseltier, the Jewish literary editor of the New Republic, was even quoted as saying, "I'm not embarrassed to say that as part of my job of policing the culture, I felt that the sooner we stopped this book, the better.... It's one of the stupidest books I ever read, and I frankly resolved to do as much damage as I could." [LOMBARDI, p 18]

Re(9): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 08:07:06 PM by MK

Well Jenks, you would be insulted if someone posted something like the "Bigot Republic" wouldn't you.

You are nothing more than a huckster for hatred, A scammer, practicing deciet and treachery. You favor the terrorists that bomb our cities and hijack our planes because they hate the Jews as much as you do. You are anti american. You go against everything this country stands for. Which is why your kind will never reach positions of power. Decent people will not allow it.

Jenks/Jim/MG/Stu or whatever the fuck your name is. Move to Canada, you traitorous bastard!

Re(10): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 09:11:42 PM by John Wayne


YOU SAY: You are nothing more than a huckster for hatred, A scammer, practicing deciet and treachery. You favor the terrorists that bomb our cities and hijack our planes because they hate the Jews as much as you do. You are anti american. You go against everything this country stands for. Which is why your kind will never reach positions of power. Decent people will not allow it.

RESPONSE: "Decent" people have been turned into mind-controlled robots by fraudsters and mindless mud-flingers like you. People will start ousting the Israeli hold on America once they have access to the information they need to understand how America (let alone Hollywood) has been hijacked by a band of ethnocentric brigands.

YOU SAY: Jenks/Jim/MG/Stu or whatever the fuck your name is. Move to Canada, you traitorous bastard!

RESPONSE: A strange response coming from a member of a Klan that holds an allegiance to Israel over the U.S. Dusted off your dual passport lately?

Re(11): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 09:46:47 PM by MK

Sorry Hitler, I'm not Jewish. Typical that you assume that I am. We are not talking about Israel. We are talking about the USA. You know, the country that you make dirty by your presence.

Perhaps you should move to the middle east and fight along side your comrades for the Jihad. Or maybe your part of a cell here in the USA. You are using many of their tactics.

Re(11): View of the ADL
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 09:17:29 PM by Mitchell Levine

"Decent" people have been turned into mind-controlled robots by fraudsters and mindless mud-flingers like you. People will start ousting the Israeli hold on America once they have access to the information they need to understand how America (let alone Hollywood) has been hijacked by a band of ethnocentric brigands.

- Congratulations! This is the most paranoid, irrational, counter-realist bullshit yet posted on the site! You've outdone yourself!

Mind Reader
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 10:44:24 AM by John Cones

Where there you have it! The reason Mitchell Levine knows that I am not sincere when my actual words are used to communicate exactly what I mean is because Mitchell Levine has the ability to read my mind. That pretty much says it all!

John Cones

Re(1): Mind Reader
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 12:39:47 AM by Mitchell Levine

I didn't claim to read your mind. I just read your post, and drew my conclusions - which is the best I could possibly do.

It's also evident that, once again, you've still evaded dealing with the actual content of my arguments, and simply rely on condescension and ad hominem attacks to distract attention from that fact.

Robert Evans: former hotshot head of Paramount Studios
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 09:00:21 PM by Moishe the Goyim

More examples from Robert Evans' biography. I'm half way through it. More to be posted later. Evans is classically Jewish Hollywood: womanizer, hustler, tightly wound in the Jewish ring of advancement. Evans original surname was Shapera. He opens the book with an exchange between him and Sidney Korshak, the Jewish Mafia-linked "Godfather" of Hollywood.

Evans was appointed to be head of Paramount by Charles Bluhdorn (head of the Gulf + Western conglomerate which bought Paramount) and Marvin Davis. They were both also Jewish. Evans appointed his "right hand man" to be journalist Peter Bart. Bart is also Jewish (today he's Editor-in-Chief of Variety).

Evans, Robert. The Kid Stays in the Picture, Hyperion, New York, 1994

Appointed production chief at Paramount in 1967. Produced Love Story, The Godfather, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, and many other feature films. "Discovered" actor Jack Nicholson -- Nicholson's agent was Bernie Sohn (p. 161)

Robert Evans opens the book with an exchange he had with Jewish lawyer Sidney Korshak. [Note: Korshak, referred to by some as the "Godfather of Hollywood," was known to have strong ties to the criminal underworld.]

p. 4, "[Sidney Korshak was] the man whom The New York Times called one of the five most powerful people in the United States. For close to twenty years Sidney was not only my consigliere, but my godfather and closest friend."



p. xii, Evans "was an actor who had never produced a picture, much less run a studio, being awarded sweeping responsibility over one of Hollywood's most fabled movie factories."


p. xii, ""Evans brought me in as his right hand man." -- Peter Bart, also Jewish

xii, hired by "Australian financier" Charles Bluhdorn, who bought Paramount [Bluhdorn was chariman of Gulf + Western]. "There was another instant expert in the wings as well. Martin Davis had been a press agent at Paramount when he came up with the idea of luring Bluhdorn into buying the studio." [Both Bluhdorn and Davis are Jewish]

p. 7, Evans calls Henry Kissinger [also Jewish, and President Nixon's world ambassador] to come to the opening of The Godfather [Marlon Brando had refused to come to any movie premieres, and a super celebrity was necessary for added media attention]. Kissinger agreed to come.

p. 11, At The Godfather movie premiere dinner, Evans tries to get Mafia-linked mogul Sidney Korshak to come to his table and sit with Kissinger. "Like a vice, [Korshak] grabbed my arm. 'Don't ever bring me and Kissinger together in public. Ever! Now go back to your table, spend some time with your wife, schmuck."

p. 13, Robert Evans was born "Robert Shapera." "Both my parents were second-generation Jews."

p. 24, Evans started out as an actor. His agent, "my mentor," was Charles Abrahamson.

p. 26, Evans met Jewish film producer Mike Todd (who eventually married Elizabeth Taylor). "I enjoyed nothing more than showing off [in a boxing gym] in front of [Todd], for in total awe was I of this adventurer, gambler, entrepreneur, showman, and, oh yes, cocksman to boot."

p. 29, Todd's words of advice to Evans: "Don't forget, if it ain't written down, it ain't collectible; everyone remembers things different."

p. 35, Evans turns from acting to clothing promotion: "One morning in the elevator, a man tapped me on the shoulder. 'Nat Moskow -- Cardinal Clothes. Hear you're one helluva salesman.' Before I got a word out, he blabbered, 'How'd you like to rep my line on the West Coast?'

p. 36, Then works for his brother, Charles, who with Joseph Picone started a women's skirt line called Evan-Picone.

p. 38, Frances Loeb was "the buyer at Lord and Taylor." [Loeb later married Jewish TV mogul Norman Lear and became editor of LEAR'S magazine].

p. 74, Evans accuses Charlie Einfeld, head of marketing and distribution at Fox, of ruining his film career by mis-advertising a movie he was in.

p. 77, "From the moment we met, Jerry Wald [of Twentieth Century-Fox] and I became fast friends. Jerry was by far the most entrepreneurial producer in Hollywood. No one had a greater flair with both industry and press."

p. 103, Her second shiksa wife, model Camilla Sparv, discovers he had been having numerous affairs: "One by one, she named the friends of hers I'd fucked on the sly."

p. 105, "I met Peter Bart, the West Coast correspondent for The New York Times, through Abby Mann, whom I'd hired to write the screenplay of The Detective." Bart wrote a feature article about for the New York Times even though Evans "had yet to produce my first picture."

p. 106, The New York Times article attracted the attention of Charles Bluhdorn, who just bought Paramount studios.

p. 107, With Bluhdorn "was Martin Davis, his top capo, who was the one responsible for the go-go conglomerate, Gulf + Western."

p. 113, Evans was eventually hired to run Paramount Studios. Bluhdorn and Davis fired Howard Koch ... "It didn't take long before Howard was one of Hollywood's top producers."

p. 113, "Everyone at Gulf + Western and Paramount thought bringing Peter Bart in as my right-hand man was unconscionable. A nosey, smart-ass journalist in a conglomerate?"

p. 123, "Looking at the rushes of Skidoo!, I was the one who almost had a cardiac arrest. 'Go back,' I told the projectionist, 'I want to see it again.' There in a prison scene was a face I'd never seen on screen before. But I knew to whom it belonged: Jaik Rosenstein, publisher, editor, and writer of HOLLYWOOD CLOSE-UP. The guy who'd coined the phrase 'Bluhdorn's Blow Job' [in reference to Evans] was getting a weekly paycheck from Bluhdorn. It was so sick, I had to laugh. I couldn't tell Bluhdorn. If he did, he would close Paramount down before I could zip up my fly."

p. 125, Jack Lemmon's agent: Lennie Hirshan. Abe Lastfogel "headed William Morris for half a century."

p. 130, "Charles Feldman was more than a close personal friend. In many ways he looked upon me as the son he never had. He was not a bad guy to call your friend. Not only was he a big shot in the film industry, but he represented all that was glamorous in the world of film ... As an independent agent, he had by far the top client list in town and was a successful producer as well. He also had one of the town's most prestigious art collections."

p. 148-149, "From time to time, even if it was a casual hello, I'd pick up a magnetic quality of a car-less wannabe actress. With no strings attached, I'd rent her a Mustang convertible. Cost -- $148 bucks a month from my pal, David Shane, who owned Hollywood-U-Drive-It. Was I looking for reciprocity? No, I didn't have the time. Was I propositioned? By some, because they thought it was necessary. Did I have liasons with any? A few. Was my gesture altruistic? No, selfish. What greater turn-on is there than knowing that at a moment in time in another's life your presence made the difference between growth or compromise? Ali MacGraw and I were getting married in October 1969. How could I tell her that I was renting cars for fourteen girls? .. Today, of the fourteen girls, six have become internationally famous stars, none earn less than a million bucks a year. Four married men whose wealth is such that their state tax is more than I make in a year. The others I've lost track of."

p. 153, GOODBYE COLUMBS: producer: Stanley Jaffe. Screenplay: Arnold Schulman. From a novel by Philip Roth. Ali MacGraw was to star as a Jewish American Princess in the film.

p. 169, How did the cult film HAROLD AND MAUDE get produced? "Stanley Jaffe's brother, Howard," gave the screenplay to Peter Bart who convinced Evans to make it.

p. 171, New chief executive in New York, for Parmount, at the Gulf + Western office: Stanley Jaffe.

p. 172, "Stanley, Peter Bart, and I spent time together strategizing the future of Paramount."

p. 178, Ali MacGraw's agent: Ben Benjamin.

p. 179, Arthur Hiller to direct LOVE STORY, the novel by Eric Segal. LOVE STORY's production manager: David Golden. Hiller's agent: Phil Gersh (p. 177)

p. 180, Tommy Tannenbaum, "an agent pal of mine."

p. 189, "my stockbroker, Stanley Garfinkle."

MORE FORTHCOMING ...

Re(1): Robert Evans: former hotshot head of Paramount Studios
Posted on August 5, 2003 at 08:48:08 PM by Sisu

According to Ansen, mob lawyer Sidney Korshak was more
powerful than Kissinger or Redstone.

Excerpts:

The Kid Is All Right

He was the king of Hollywood until drugs, scandals and strokes
brought him down. But don't count Robert Evans out. A new film has
made this larger-than-life man hot and hip again—and he's enjoying
every moment

By David Ansen
NEWSWEEK
http://www.msnbc.com/news/780015.asp

July 22 issue — "Three years ago I was over and out," declares the
producer Robert Evans. "I was a 68-year-old, infamous, over-the-hill
Jew trying to get a job. There are miracles in life."

But if Evans's escapades with glamorous women have gotten the most
headlines, the true secret of his success may be his talent for
seducing some of the most powerful men in America. These are the
relationships upon which his career is built: Zanuck, Bludhorn, Henry
Kissinger, the late mob lawyer Sidney Korshak and Sumner Redstone,
chairman of Viacom, which now owns Paramount, where Evans has his
current deal.

Korshak may be the least well known of these men (which was how he
wanted it) and the most powerful. They met at the Racquet Club in
Palm Springs in 1955; in 1996, Evans gave the eulogy at his
funeral. "From the '40s through the '70s, organized crime was
controlled by one person, and no one knew it," Evans says with casual
authority. "He was totally legitimate and he was not Mafia. The Mafia
went to him. He could press a button and close down Las Vegas. The
country was Sidney's and I was his godson."

Is it any wonder the movie Evans most wants to make is about
Korshak? "It's the quintessential story of power."

Re(1): Robert Evans: former hotshot head of Paramount Studios
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 09:04:48 PM by mg

Note: virtually all the names cited in the Evans excerpts are Jewish. Except Ali MacGraw, who was -- true to Jewish Hollywood form -- one of a string of "shiksa" wives.

Re(2): Robert Evans: former hotshot head of Paramount Studios
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 10:03:03 PM by MG

Okay, I confess. I am a little man with an undersized penis. Honestly, I hate Jews because they are better than me at everything.

I was abandoned by my parents at birth due to the horns growing from my forehead, and the number 666 on my ass.

I peddle hatred because I am an unhappy, unloved slob with no skills and no talent.

Re(3): Robert Evans: former hotshot head of Paramount Studios
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 10:06:47 PM by mg

Hey wait, I didn't write that. How did you know about my parents?!

It's a Jewish donspiricy, yeah, thats it! The Jews are to blame for everything!

Re(4): Robert Evans: former hotshot head of Paramount Studios
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 10:13:48 PM by MK/Mithcell Levine


OK, I confess. We Jews can't win any argument about ourselves so we resort to focusing on our collective penis. True, we're psychologically impaired because Jewish tradition mutilates it.

Our neurosis is so great that we have to steal other peoples' names and continue or sordid frauds in every direction, in every way.

In what other way will people think we are, as we say, so intelligent?

Re(5): Robert Evans: former hotshot head of Paramount Studios
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 11:13:29 PM by Mitchell Levine

If you really think this enhances your credibility, you're even a bigger fool than everyone takes you for.

Anti-Catholic (Jewish) Hollywood
Posted on August 3, 2003 at 11:17:13 PM by MG

Compare this story to the way Mel Gibson's alleged "antisemitic" "The Passion" is being pre-emptively crucified by the Jewish-dominated
media, including the New York Times.

Miramax is a company owned by the Jewish Weinstein brothers.

href="http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08022003/saturday/80509.asp

New film resurrects charges of anti-Catholic bias in Hollywood,
By Angela Aleiss, Salt Lake City Tribune
(from Religion News Service), August 2, 2003


"The Magdalene Sisters," the story of several "fallen women" who were
incarcerated at church-run Magdalene laundries in 1960s Ireland, has
resurrected charges of anti-Catholic bias in Hollywood and incurred
the wrath of conservative church leaders. The film, which took home
the top prize at the Venice and Toronto film festivals last year, is
being released in select cities this month by Miramax Films, which earlier
angered Catholic leaders with films such as "Priest" in 1994 and "40
Days and 40 Nights" last year. Controversial religious themes in movies are nothing new. Since the relaxed censorship rules of the late 1960s, Hollywood has been freely carping at religion, especially the Catholic Church and its institutional dogma. At other times, today's movies seem to play religion for all its mystery and thrills, like "Stigmata." But now the Catholic Church has received a whacking in a few recent movies

... Here in the United States, the outspoken Catholic League for Religious
and Civil Rights criticized Miramax's long-standing record for distributing
what it believes are anti-Catholic films. Louis Giovino, director of
communication for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights,
believes a general animus exists in Hollywood against the Catholic Church,
or against any orthodox religion for that matter."