Microsoft v. Hollywood
Posted on September 10, 2003 at 09:21:07 PM by James Jaeger

The studio control group (the MPAA studio/distributors, a.k.a. "Hollywood") is trying to tie up the computer code that would allow movies to be responsibly networked within the home by means of emerging WiFi technology and the new CODEC that Microsoft has created (Media 9) that will bypass the inordinately lengthy MPEG deliberations, a CODEC that provides VASTLY SUPERIOR image quality (resolution) ON A PC as compared to any non-PC media device (such as a DVD player, VCR or TV, digital or analog).

The issue comes down to this: Either Microsoft and it's allied PC-centric industries/methodologies will control the future of filmed entertainment OR the MPAA studio distributors will control the future of filmed entertainment by attempting to hold Microsoft and PC-centric firms hostage to their content base.

Microsoft will inevitably win and Hollywood's days are numbered for the following reasons:

1. The movie-going audience is on Microsoft's side because they just want content cheap and anyway they can get it, on all devices possible.

2. Technology is on Microsoft's side because the digital universe will replace the analog universe upon which much of Hollywood is still based.

3. The Internet, as an alternative distribution network, is on Microsoft's side because it removes the studio/distributors’ monopoly on distribution, hence financing.

4. The fact that the Independents are by far the majority content providers works in Microsoft's favor because this takes the premium off the studios’ content, especially as quality increases due to technology and production funding frees up due to alternative distribution.

5. The probability that Microsoft represents the first Bose-Einstein condescent we have ever seen in a scale-free network (i.e., the network of Windows operating system users forms a scale-free network that now makes it almost a physical impossibility that any other corporation (or group of corporations, such as the MPAA studios) will be able to dominate the OS infrastructure of the PC-centric market. Not even Unix, Linux or Mac (which Hollywood predominantly uses), comes even close to Microsoft’s 86% market share in the OS universe.

Here’s an excerpt from a WIRED article on the issue of control as it pertains to Hollywood and Microsoft: "But outsiders warn that the recording and film industries are not about to substitute marketplace experimentation for plying Capital Hill. Microsoft may consider legislation to be poison. To Hollywood, it's Valium. 'The IT guys don't think of integrating into the Washington power structure. The Hollywood guys do that like breathing,' says Mike Godwin, senior technology counsel for Public Knowledge, a tech policy organization. 'This is a real philosophical battle between sectors. If you told the major studios they could either make twice as much money or have more control, they'd pick more control. Same of Microsoft.'"

To those who think Hollywood's basic motivation is money, and that every decision is "just modern economics," I would say wake up.

James Jaeger

----------------
(1) For details, see the article about Hollywood's fight with Microsoft in the July 2003 edition of WIRED mag.

What is the MPAA?
Posted on September 10, 2003 at 10:27:02 PM by James Jaeger

In the MPAA's own words:

"The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serve as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically through the MPAA and internationally through the MPA.

"Today, these associations represent not only the world of theatrical film, but serve as leader and advocate for major producers and distributors of entertainment programming for television, cable, home video and future delivery systems not yet imagined.

"Founded in 1922 as the trade association of the American film industry, the MPAA has broadened its mandate over the years to reflect the diversity of an expanding industry. The initial task assigned to the association was to stem the waves of criticism of American movies, then silent, while sometimes rambunctious and rowdy, and to restore a more favorable public image for the motion picture business.

"The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) serves its members from its offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. On its board of directors are the Chairmen and Presidents of the seven major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States. These members include:

"Walt Disney Company;
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.;
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.;
Paramount Pictures Corporation;
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.;
Universal Studios, Inc.; and
Warner Bros."

Source: http://www.mpaa.org

Re(1): What is the MPAA?
Posted on September 10, 2003 at 11:07:08 PM by James Jaeger

>What is the MPAA?
>In the MPAA's own words:

>The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serve as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, . . .

Oh really?! Hey my company is in the American motion picture industry. Can it join the MPAA? If not, why not?

>Today, these associations represent not only the world of theatrical film, but serve as leader and advocate for major producers and distributors of entertainment programming . . .

But this association ignores minor producers, the producers who produce MOST of the product?!

>for television, cable, home video and future delivery systems not yet imagined.

So the MPAA is going to represent the interests of the MAJOR producers for industries not yet even imagined! Wow! Talk about tentacles that reach everywhere, even into the future. How come TIME magazine doesn't put the MPAA studios on its cover like it did the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY back in the mid-1990’s?

>Founded in 1922 as the trade association of the American film industry,. . .

THE trade association. I see. Hey I'm in the American film industry, can I join? The MPAA wouldn't discriminate against me just because I'm not a MAJOR movie producer would it?

>the MPAA has broadened its mandate over the years to reflect the diversity of an expanding industry.

Oh great, so I guess they WILL give me a job as President of Production in one of their companies even though I'm not Jewish and I have a German last name. And when I get on post, I am going to bring my buddy who's Black in there and try and get him a job as President of Production at the MPAA studio across the street. Will this be in line with the mandate, right? I bet Jack can’t wait to invite me, and all my buddies, to join. Hey Jack, my number is 610-688-9212. I’m in the HCD too.

>The initial task assigned to the association was to stem the waves of criticism of American movies,

Well they sure have silenced me and Cones. Can’t have any waves rocking the control group’s boat.

>then silent, while sometimes rambunctious and rowdy,

Yep, these MPAA movies are definitely NOT as rowdy as they used to be. And it helps to have infinite amounts of blood all over the screens so you can’t really tell what’s going on.

>and to restore a more favorable public image for the motion picture business.

Yep, the multi-cultural society really loves the ol' motion picture business -- especially the Arabs and white guys in the American south -- thanks to Jack and THE seven companies that have so far been allowed to join the past 100 years.

>The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) serves its members from its offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

And as Jack says, movies are nuttin’ but mere entertainment. But I guess it's a good idea to have an office in DC anyway just in case a politician’s arm needs a little twisting now and then.

>On its board of directors are the Chairmen and Presidents of the seven major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States.

Wow. THE seven. Hey, I have a friend who's Hispanic and he has a really neat production company, called MEGA STUDIOS, do you think he can join the MPAA too? He says that it's just a matter of time before his company will be as big as WARNER BROS. (and they won’t ALL be illegal aliens). Or does he have to become as big as WARNER BROS. BEFORE he can join? Oh well, Bill Gates did it, so I guess he can too.

>These members include:

"Walt Disney Company;
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.;
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.;
Paramount Pictures Corporation;
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.;
Universal Studios, Inc.; and
Warner Bros."

Wow. They must be the players. Me and my buddies can’t wait to play too. Thanks MPAA and Jack.

James Jaeger

Re(2): What is the MPAA?
Posted on September 10, 2003 at 11:13:41 PM by George Shelps

What is the MPAA?

Now we know.

It is an international conspiracy
designed to keep James Jaeger out of the
movie business.

Re(3): What is the MPAA?
Posted on September 10, 2003 at 11:32:51 PM by James Jaeger

>It is an international conspiracy
designed to keep James Jaeger out of the movie business.

But, but, but they said that have a mandate to diversify...

James

Ownership vs. Management
Posted on September 11, 2003 at 03:47:40 PM by John Cones

George:

It seems you still haven't quite understood the distinction between the activities of Hollywood's corporate ownership and management. As my original study demonstrated, most of the Hollywood major studios did not and do not have a single individual majority owner. Often, however, the single owner of the most shares, even when not a majority of shares, serves as the Chairman of the Board. Sometimes that individual Chairman is active in helping to make decisions relating to the film side of the business and sometimes not (historically speaking). In any case, the pattern I observed was that whenever an outsider came in to the Hollywood community and sought to purchase a studio (going back as far as Joseph Kennedy, Howard Hughes, TransAmerica, Coca Cola, Kirk Kerkorian and Rupert Murdoch), such individuals or entities would invariably consult with at least some of the leading Hollywood insiders. These Hollywood insiders would invariably advise that the studio should be run by Hollywood insiders, and there was the underlying threat that if that did not happen most of the rest of the Hollywood insider community would not be supportive of that studio. And that is exactly what happened time and time again, and I see no evidence that there has been any significant change from that pattern. Further, you have provided no evidence of a significant change. You have merely pointed to a few instances where you think a single individual Chairman is somewhat active in making important decisions relating to film. Actually, maybe Kirk Kerkorian is but I doubt if Rupert Murdoch gets that involved on the film side. If you want to show a significant change from the pattern I observed, do a similar study of who makes the "greenlight" decisions at the Hollywood studios and consider their backgrounds. If a clear majority all share the same or similar background as disclosed by my study then your unsupported claims of a change are inaccurate. Certainly, the few examples you offer are inadequate to make your point.

Re(1): Ownership vs. Management
Posted on September 11, 2003 at 08:23:47 PM by George Shelps

such individuals or entities would invariably consult with at least some of the leading Hollywood insiders. These Hollywood insiders would invariably advise that the studio should be run by Hollywood insiders, and there was the underlying threat that if that did not happen most of the rest of the Hollywood insider community would not be supportive of that studio. And that is exactly what happened time and time again, and I see no evidence that there has been any significant change from that pattern.

__When Kirk Kerkorian bought MGM, he
did bring in Hollywood "insider" Frank
Yablans to run the studio, but this did not result in significant support for
studio as you claim. Indeed, Yablans
regime was a failure. The current
MGM regime is not composed of Hollywood
insiders. The studio is now traded on
the NYSE and doing better than ever.

When the Begelman scandal hit Columbia,
the board did not turn to a Hollywood
insider, but deliberately went outside
the industry to select Fay Vincent.

Later on Vincent selected British producer David Puttnam to run Columbia--about as far from a Hollywood
insider as you could imagine.

In all these decisions, the controlling
shareholder Coca Cola had a significant
input as well as insider Herbert Allen.

The problem with your whole approach
is its unilateralism. Yes, there
is an influential group in Hollywood---but there is in any industry. That doesn't mean that it
operates in an illegal, unethical or
arbitrary manner in most cases.

Re(2): Ownership vs. Management
Posted on September 12, 2003 at 11:57:57 AM by John Cones

No, the problem George is that you tend to mentally run things together that are not logically tied together. For example, your following statement:


"Yes, there is an influential group in Hollywood---but there is in any industry. That doesn't mean that it
operates in an illegal, unethical or
arbitrary manner in most cases."

Of course, the fact that there is a dominant insider group in Hollywood doesn't mean it operates in an illegal, unethical or arbitrary mannner, that's never been FIRM's position. The consistent and well documented pattern of unfair, unethical, unconscionable, anti-competitive, predatory and/or illegal business practices of the Hollywood insider group is not caused by the fact that there's an insider group. This phenomenon could occur with or without an insider's group, it just so happens that in this industry, in this 100 year instance, both elements are present. That does not necessarily mean there is a causal connection between the two. In other words, the fact of the existence of an insider's group (and that is an undisputed fact in Hollywood)does not inevitably cause the history of inappropriate business practices (also well documented and undisputed). On the other hand, as noted in earlier discussions, the fact of the existence of an insider's group does make it more difficult to bring such business practices back into the realm of the fair, ethical and legal, because the loyalties of the insider's that make up the group are greater to each other and the group than to any other standard.

John Cones

Re(3): Ownership vs. Management
Posted on September 12, 2003 at 05:38:52 PM by George Shelps

On the other hand, as noted in earlier discussions, the fact of the existence of an insider's group does make it more difficult to bring such business practices back into the realm of the fair, ethical and legal, because the loyalties of the insider's that make up the group are greater to each other and the group than to any other standard.

___This statement supports my view
that you are tying the existence of
a control to unethical business practices---which was my original
point that you dismissed.

The insiders ~condone~ the unethical practices because of their group loyalty---that is what you are claiming.

Re(3): Ownership vs. Management
Posted on September 12, 2003 at 04:47:00 PM by Mitchell Levine

"On the other hand, as noted in earlier discussions, the fact of the existence of an insider's group does make it more difficult to bring such business practices back into the realm of the fair, ethical and legal, because the loyalties of the insider's that make up the group are greater to each other and the group than to any other standard."

- It doesn't logically follow that, because an "insider's group" might exist in a community, that therefore "the loyalties of the insiders that make up the group are greater to each other and the group than to any other standard."

For example, no "insider's group" could possibly be stronger in our culture than the nuclear family unit traditionally, but that didn't stop the Unabomber's brother from turning him into the authorities.

That fact that a number of successful executives in Hollywood are Jewish males doesn't establish the existence of a "tribal loyalty" that overrides every other consideration or value, any more than the fact that many of them are gay does.

For example, try reading Katzenberg's letter and then identify indications of tribal loyalty there. That "tribal loyalty" would have to function within an environment of intense competition between the various studios as well, where there's very little evidence of any kind of "loyalty" restraining their cut-throat rivalries .

The existence of a sociological group which typically demonstrates loyalties so strong that they override ever other consideration would be an almost unheard of phenomenon. It usually only exists in the minds of guys handing out broadsides for Lyndon Larouche and that idiot Jenk's hate site.

Re(4): Ownership vs. Management
Posted on September 12, 2003 at 06:24:04 PM by John Cones

Right George! After the fact, the greater loyalty to the group condones the abusive business practices. But, that is different from what you were falsely alleging (i.e, that membership in a particular ethnic group causes the abusive business practices). See, you were confusing the two different sides of the transation. Further, this generalization regarding human conduct is a broad generalization that applies equally to most groups. Most people tend to be loyal to their group or groups, thus the specific ethnicity in this case is neither the cause of the abusive business practices, nor the cause of condoning the business practices. You keep trying so hard to stretch what I'm saying into something objectionable and you keep repeating yourself. Since you don't seem to be learning anything, maybe you should move on.

John Cones

Off Topic
Posted on September 16, 2003 at 10:42:27 PM by John Cones

Gosh, you guys just don't seem to learn. This discussion is about film industry reform. If you'd like to discuss that topic, and keep your discussion on that topic, you are welcome to post here. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

John Cones

ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 18, 2003 at 04:01:06 PM by James Jaeger

Looks like the Jewish Lobby is out for Mel's head. For him there may be no turning back as he's been publicly declared to be an official "antisemite" by the ADL.

Will this harm his Hollywood career? Of course not, I have been assured by many Hollywood apologists that there IS NO BLACKLISTING in Hollywood.


Foxman: Gibson Spewing 'Anti-Semitism' ADL leader says statements by 'The
Passion' director 'paint the portrait of an anti-Semite,'
by Eric J. Greenberg, Jewish Week, September 18, 2003

"Mel Gibson's mouth has turned into a lethal weapon. So suggests Abraham
Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, following a series of published and oral comments made by the award-winning Hollywood actor and director concerning his controversial upcoming movie about the death of Jesus of Nazareth. "Recent statements by Mel Gibson paint the portrait of an anti-Semite," Foxman told The Jewish Week Tuesday. While the debate has been raging for months over "The Passion" and its negative portrayal of Jews, no mainstream Christian or Jewish community
leader has until now made such a direct charge against Gibson, who is directing and financing his $30 million labor of love ...

But Foxman says it is clear now that the 47-year-old Gibson, an ultra-conservative Catholic who does not accept the Vatican reforms, is
spouting "classic anti-Semitism." Foxman adds that it is clear the actor
doesn't fall far from the tree. Gibson's 85-year-old father, Hutton, has
been quoted as saying far fewer Jews died in the Holocaust than 6 million,
and is a conspiracist who says Jews are behind recent Vatican reforms. "There's no longer a debate where [Mel Gibson] is coming from," Foxman said
Tuesday. "He is a true believer that the true story of the suffering [of
Jesus] is that the Jews made him suffer."

Foxman cited Gibson's statements at an interfaith screening of "The
Passion" in Houston last month, and in the Sept. 15 issue of The New Yorker
magazine. In the latter, the Oscar-winning director of "Braveheart" portrays himself as being persecuted like Jesus for making the film, and as a victim of a murderous cabal who forced him to make changes in the film that could end his career. Foxman notes that in the magazine, Gibson regrets excising a scene in which the high priest recites the curse from the Gospel of Matthew proclaiming that the blood of Jesus is upon him and his children. Said Gibson: "But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me," referring to the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among other
critics, correspondent Peter J. Boyer writes. Later, Boyer reports that
Gibson accuses "modern secular Judaism" of blaming "the Holocaust on the Catholic Church. And it's a lie. And it's revisionism. And they've been working on that one for a while." "When you put those things together," said Foxman, "that is a portrait of an anti-Semite. To me this is classic anti-Semitism."

Gibson's spokesman Alan Nierob said this is the first time he's heard a charge of anti-Semitism directed at Gibson. "It's an irresponsible statement," Nierob said. "I won't even dignify it with a response." Foxman's declaration comes on the heels of several significant developments about the movie, slated for release next spring. Two senior Vatican officials publicly endorsed the film and made ominous statements about its critics."

Source:
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8445

Re(1): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 18, 2003 at 05:40:42 PM by Mitchell Levine

It is an unjustified charge, and Foxman's overreacting, despite the fact that Gibson's religious sect specifically blames the death of Christ on Jews, as bizarre as that is.

But for Mel Gibson to have included the scene with the Pharisee swearing "his blood upon us and our children," would have been just as monumentally insensitive in its way as teaching the Merchant of Venice in public schools was, and he should know that. Just as insensitive as Mandingo or Birth of a Nation.

Particularly so since no modern biblical scholar believes in its historicity.

Re(2): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 19, 2003 at 11:50:28 AM by John Cones

Anyone who believes that a statement or portrayal in a movie may influence someone's belief or behavior is merely confirming one of the main theses of the FIRM site, that the motion picture is a powerful medium for the communication of ideas, and that ideas have always and will always influence the thinking and behavior of human beings. Thus, those expressing their fear that Mel Gibson's movie may influence people's attitudes are agreeing with FIRM, and for that I am grateful.

On the other hand, anyone who would refer to Mel Gibson as an "anti-Semite" merely because he chose to portray one of his sincerely held beliefs or what he may consider to be an historically accurate incident doesn't understand what an anti-Semite is. Where is the requisite "hatred"? Hatred is clearly a required element of anti-Smitism. Where is the hatred expressed toward Jews generally? Or, where is the hatred expressed toward one or more Jews because they are Jewish? One or the other of these two elements must be present in order for anti-Semitism to exist. It would appear to me that none of these elements are present in the mere depiction of an incident in a motion picture.

Further, it is difficult to understand what all the fuss is about. Most thinking people today see the scene of concern to some, as merely a motion picture portrayal of an incident that may or may not have occurred (after all, no one knows for sure) and even if it did occur, it occurred several thousand years ago, and nothing occurring several thousand years ago, commits anyone today to a particular belief. The whole thing is irrational. But, once again, this mis-treatment of Mel Gibson, illustrates why greater diversity at the top in Hollywood is absolutely necessary in order to protect the free marketplace of ideas (as expressed through this powerful communication medium)which, in turn, underlies our democracy.

John Cones

Re(3): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 19, 2003 at 06:57:08 PM by Mitchell Levine

Anyone who believes that a statement or portrayal in a movie may influence someone's belief or behavior is merely confirming one of the main theses of the FIRM site, that the motion picture is a powerful medium for the communication of ideas, and that ideas have always and will always influence the thinking and behavior of human beings. Thus, those expressing their fear that Mel Gibson's movie may influence people's attitudes are agreeing with FIRM, and for that I am grateful.

- No one could possibly deny this "thesis," as it's a simple tautology: film is, by definition, a communications medium; and the reason people make statements in general is to influence other people. The question is about your particular theory of specifically how and why film influences beliefs.

On the other hand, anyone who would refer to Mel Gibson as an "anti-Semite" merely because he chose to portray one of his sincerely held beliefs or what he may consider to be an historically accurate incident doesn't understand what an anti-Semite is. Where is the requisite "hatred"? Hatred is clearly a required element of anti-Smitism. Where is the hatred expressed toward Jews generally? Or, where is the hatred expressed toward one or more Jews because they are Jewish?

- You see, Mr. Cones, bigotry is not a simple one-dimensional affair. There are many types of bigots, and different degrees of bigotry as well. At the most extreme, we have exterminationist hatred, and at the other, the simple tendency to prejudge people in stereotypes without even any conscious animosity. No one is saying Mel exhibits the former, but that doesn't mean his film isn't supportive of an antisemitic agenda.

Making an ultra-realist movie which suggests that an entire ethnic demograph is culpable for the murder of God, and is eternally cursed for endless generations thereby, is, whether intended or not, perpetrating an evil, which is, as Mr. Gibson certainly knows, responsible for the persecution and murder of countless numbers of people over thousands of years.

Saying on the one hand that you don't hate Jews, and following up with "but I think they're goddamn Christ-killers anyways," is just slightly disingenuous. Especially when independent scholars have long held that much of this portrayal is based on conscious distortions of the texts due to ancient animosities between Christian Jewish converts and those that chose to remain traditional.

People practice discrimination without necessarily posessing feelings of emotional hatred all the time. That doesn't mean they aren't bigots. People insist on viewing others in terms of stereotypes constantly, and, often, they don't always feel "hatred" for those they demean either. Even Jenks claims he doesn't "hate" Jews. Mel Gibson is probably not in the class of that detestable scumbag, but that doesn't mean his film isn't antisemitic.

One or the other of these two elements must be present in order for anti-Semitism to exist.

- Not necessarily. Many antisemites don't "hate" Jews; they fear them. In fact, that might be the true defining characteristic of antisemitism.

It would appear to me that none of these elements are present in the mere depiction of an incident in a motion picture.

- That's quite a double standard you're applying, Johnny. You certainly don't believe this is true about the "patterns of bias" you claim the Hollywood studios demean other groups with. However, when Jews are the target suddenly you begin saying that a cinematic portrayal of an incident CAN"T be antisemitic? Then I guess the same must be true about cinematic depictions of Vodou and Southern sherrifs.

Most scholars believe that the Gospels as narratives are primarily ahistorical and largely, but certainly not completely, fictionalized. Mel Gibson is making artistic choices in his representation of the events of Christ's death, so it hardly constitutes an unbiased account of history. He's choosing to present them the way he does for ideological reasons, as his sect specifically condemns Jews for deicide.

Further, it is difficult to understand what all the fuss is about. Most thinking people today see the scene of concern to some, as merely a motion picture portrayal of an incident that may or may not have occurred (after all, no one knows for sure) and even if it did occur, it occurred several thousand years ago, and nothing occurring several thousand years ago, commits anyone today to a particular belief.

- Yeah, tell that to all our grandmothers that got raped by Cossacks, or everyone tattooed and cremated at Aushwitz. It's hardly true that such things have no influence. If it's wrong when the studios stigmatize others, it's wrong when Mel Gibson does it. If it were any group other than Jews that was being targeted, you'd have uploaded a new web page in protest of it already.

The whole thing is irrational.

- No, trying to scapegoat an entire ethnicity for events occuring in the first century is irrational, but, unfortunately, that hasn't stopped it from happening.

But, once again, this mis-treatment of Mel Gibson, illustrates why greater diversity at the top in Hollywood is absolutely necessary in order to protect the free marketplace of ideas (as expressed through this powerful communication medium)which, in turn, underlies our democracy.

- Mel Gibson has not had any rights violated. No one has a "right" to have their movie distributed, nor does the Constitution even hint that such a right exists. In fact, the freedom of the press also protects the studios in their right to produce what they wish. No matter who was in charge of the studios, no one would be very likely to greenlight a film in a dead language without subtitles.

The right of groups like the ADL to express their concerns about Mel Gibson's actions, and use whatever legal and ethical means they have to lobby him to consider their sensitivities is just as important to a healthy democracy as Mel Gibson's right to free speech.

If it were Mediterraneans protesting My Big Fat Greek Wedding, instead of Jews protesting Mel Gibson's depiction of them, you'd be applauding.

Re(4): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 00:10:13 AM by James Jaeger

>- No, trying to scapegoat an entire ethnicity for events occuring in the first century is irrational, but, unfortunately, that hasn't stopped it from happening.

I don't think Mel Gibson is trying to scapegoat anyone. He's simply making a movie about the events recorded in the Bible. You gonna tell me that the Jewish religious leaders of the time DIDN'T want Christ crucified? They did. This is a fact. Whether their actions reflected the desires of Jews in general, of the time, is the same question as whether the Jews that control Hollywood are reflective of Jews in general today. In each case I would say there is no reasonable evidence to consider that they are reflective of Jews in general. So just as Mel is NOT implicating Jews in general in the 1st Century for killing Christ, FIRM is not implicating Jews in general in the 21st century for the negative business practices of the MPAA studio/distributors.

But certain people in the Jewish community, such as Abraham Foxman and Mitchell Levine, being overly-sensitive just don't seem, or want, to get this.

James Jaeger

Re(5): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 01:08:24 AM by Mitchell Levine

I don't think Mel Gibson is trying to scapegoat anyone. He's simply making a movie about the events recorded in the Bible. You gonna tell me that the Jewish religious leaders of the time DIDN'T want Christ crucified? They did. This is a fact. Whether their actions reflected the desires of Jews in general, of the time, is the same question as whether the Jews that control Hollywood are reflective of Jews in general today. In each case I would say there is no reasonable evidence to consider that they are reflective of Jews in general. So just as Mel is NOT implicating Jews in general in the 1st Century for killing Christ, FIRM is not implicating Jews in general in the 21st century for the negative business practices of the MPAA studio/distributors.

- Sorry, Jim, but having the Pharisee alderman state "his blood upon us and our children," as Gibson's original cut of the film did, is a specific condemnation of all Jews in perpetuity, was pronounced so by the Church historically, and is explicitly acknowledged as such by Gibson's "traditionalist" sect today.

That's why it's seen as antisemitic, as charging all Jews everywhere as guilty of the murder of God forever, and therefore cursed, is a little harsh, particularly since it's one of the underlying causes of the Holocaust.

By the way, love the comparison between the Crucifixion and FIRM; yes, Jim, you are SUCH a Christ-like figure!

Re(6): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 25, 2003 at 10:31:12 AM by mg

Question: when do Catholics start demanding Jewish adjustments to their overwhelmingly negative perceptions of Christians? And when are Catholic lobbying groups going to be writing policy papers about this? When to do we get to see a major magazine article entitled: "How the Catholics Changed Jewish Thinking?"

Below is a link to an examination of Jewish lobbying and infiltration of the Catholic religous hierarchy towards the successful Jewish dictate to tell rank-and-file Catholics what they must believe about Jews, distinct from New Testament scripture. This is an excerpt from a very long article which should be read in full at its original online site to get a sense of Jewish influence
in changing Catholic theology to suit them.

http://www.stthomasaquinas.net/look.html

How The Jews Changed Catholic Thinking,
by Joseph Roddy, stthomaquinas.net, (originally
from Look magazine, January 25, 1966, Volume 39, No. 2

Re(7): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 25, 2003 at 08:39:01 PM by Mitchell Levine

Question: when do Catholics start demanding Jewish adjustments to their overwhelmingly negative perceptions of Christians?

- Never, because this is just yet another of your evil lies.

And when are Catholic lobbying groups going to be writing policy papers about this?

- When the majority believe collectively as a group that it's true, which will also never happen, because most people, Catholics like my mother's side of the family as much as anyone, aren't racist, psychotic dickheads like you.

When to do we get to see a major magazine article entitled: "How the Catholics Changed Jewish Thinking?"

- Hopefully not before we see an article called "How Psychopharmacologists and Osteopathic Neurosurgeons Changed Jenks the Dickhead's Thinking."

Below is a link to an examination of Jewish lobbying and infiltration of the Catholic religous hierarchy towards the successful Jewish dictate to tell rank-and-file Catholics what they must believe about Jews, distinct from New Testament scripture.

- Jews have every right to ask not to be demonized and persecuted. That's what the Founding Fathers created freedom of speech for. Lobbying is no crime. There's no reason in the world they shouldn't have appealed to Church's good will, and it's much to the latter's credit that it instituted the Vatican reforms.

If some people want to retain their bigoted beliefs, it's their right, but that doesn't mean the Equal Protection clause stopped applying to the case of the Jews.

Re(6): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 02:05:54 PM by James Jaeger

>- Sorry, Jim, but having the Pharisee alderman state "his blood upon us and our children," as Gibson's original cut of the film did, is a specific condemnation of all Jews in perpetuity, was pronounced so by the Church historically, and is explicitly acknowledged as such by Gibson's "traditionalist" sect today.

Well I agree this line should have been taken out as it is potentially or unnecessarily insightful. Besides IMO it's wrong to hold future generations accountable for something that was done in the past. But Mel DOES still have the right to have it in his script if he so chooses or because he believes that all future generations of Jews ARE to be condemned. Here I may differ with Mel, but I feel he has a right to have this line in his movie. The MPAA studios certainly would have gall to ask him to remove it when they allow non-stop offensive lines about all manner of others. And if the ADL is supported by the MPAA, directly or indirectly, it should recognize how hypocritical IT is for them to bristle over this issue -- after all doesn't the MPAA assure them that it's merely entertainment.

>That's why it's seen as antisemitic, as charging all Jews everywhere as guilty of the murder of God forever, and therefore cursed, is a little harsh, particularly since it's one of the underlying causes of the Holocaust.

Well if people anywhere and everywhere throughout time are branded sinners because Adam ate the apple, isn't this basically the same? Why should the Jews yap about being branded forever when the entire human race is branded forever anyway. Besides no one needs to stay branded, all they have to do, according to the Bible, is accept Jesus as their personal savior and they are UNbranded. No? So maybe that's why Mel wanted to put that in there, because the Bible says this is the situation (and over a billion people on the planet believe that this is the way it is) thus this is a way for them to find out they are branded and how they can undo it.

>By the way, love the comparison between the Crucifixion and FIRM; yes, Jim, you are SUCH a Christ-like figure!

Thanks, that touch was just for you.

James

Re(7): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 03:12:35 PM by Mitchell Levine

>- Sorry, Jim, but having the Pharisee alderman state "his blood upon us and our children," as Gibson's original cut of the film did, is a specific condemnation of all Jews in perpetuity, was pronounced so by the Church historically, and is explicitly acknowledged as such by Gibson's "traditionalist" sect today.

Well I agree this line should have been taken out as it is potentially or unnecessarily insightful.

- "Insightful"????

Besides IMO it's wrong to hold future generations accountable for something that was done in the past.

- Thanks, Jim. That's a courageous stand.

But Mel DOES still have the right to have it in his script if he so chooses or because he believes that all future generations of Jews ARE to be condemned.

- Certainly he has a right to have it in his script if he wishes; that's his Constitutional perogative, and no one's arguing it's not. On the other hand, the studios also have a right not to distribute it, if they find it offensive.

Here I may differ with Mel, but I feel he has a right to have this line in his movie. The MPAA studios certainly would have gall to ask him to remove it when they allow non-stop offensive lines about all manner of others.

- The MPAA's job is to act in an advisory capacity concerning appropriate content. They didn't force him to take it out; they simply called upon him to edit it as the right thing to do.

Even if they hadn't acted correctly in previous instances, it hardly means they therefore shouldn't have done their job in this one. This line of thinking is similar to the argument that O.J Simpson should have been acquitted despite being guilty, because the Rodney King jurors wrongly acquitted the LAPD.

And if the ADL is supported by the MPAA, directly or indirectly, it should recognize how hypocritical IT is for them to bristle over this issue -- after all doesn't the MPAA assure them that it's merely entertainment.

- This is a ridiculous argument. The ADL's job is to act as an advocate for the Jewish community: it would be hypocritical for them NOT to speak up when they perceive defamation of Jews.

You're buying into Cones' argument about "patterns of bias" way too deep. It's completely methodologically flawed, as he didn't even see many of the films he's claiming were defamatory; had no control group to help ensure that his own personal biases didn't distort his conclusions; and he took no account of the fact that most of such depictions come from eras way before modern political correctness.

In earlier years of the film era, all of society was much less sensitive to racism, and portraying groups stereotypically was considered completely acceptable by the majority of the public. If you don't believe that, rent Racist Disney, and watch how Uncle Walt portrayed the Japanese during WWII. That should be enough to convice you that being non-Jewish didn't make him any less "ethnocentric."

Many of the films that Cones takes as being typical of Hollywood couldn't even get made today.


Well if people anywhere and everywhere throughout time are branded sinners because Adam ate the apple, isn't this basically the same? Why should the Jews yap about being branded forever when the entire human race is branded forever anyway.

- For one, because Jews don't believe that - it's a doctrine completely alien to them. Imposing it on them is the height of religious bigotry. Not to mention the fact that coversion to Christianity, even if sincere, hardly removed the stigma in the eyes of many.

Besides no one needs to stay branded, all they have to do, according to the Bible, is accept Jesus as their personal savior and they are UNbranded.

- Once again, a completely bigoted notion that no one has the right to impose on others. If Mel Gibson wants to pump into his flick, that's his right, but there's no reason in the world Jews should have to be happy about it, or refrain from taking whatever legal and ethical measures they can to protest it. That includes refusing to distribute it. And, by the way, many Christian denominations taught that there was no way to remove the onus of "killing Christ" from one's heredity, converted or not.


No? So maybe that's why Mel wanted to put that in there, because the Bible says this is the situation (and over a billion people on the planet believe that this is the way it is)

- That doesn't give them the right to impose it on other people who don't wish them to. Branding Jews as "cursed" for killing Christ is the ultimate form of religious bigotry.
For him to be saying this bullshit on the one hand, and on the other that it's unfair to call him "antisemitic," is an incredible load of horsecrap. This is as antisemitic as it gets.

thus this is a way for them to find out they are branded and how they can undo it.

- You're right, Jim. How could ANYBODY get the idea that this was a little intolerant???

>By the way, love the comparison between the Crucifixion and FIRM; yes, Jim, you are SUCH a Christ-like figure!

Thanks, that touch was just for you.

-You're welcome, Jim - I'm sure his films would have gone direct-to-video too. You've really been tortured for your faith.

Re(6): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 09:29:15 AM by George Shelps

Sorry, Jim, but having the Pharisee alderman state "his blood upon us and our children," as Gibson's original cut of the film did, is a specific condemnation of all Jews in perpetuity, was pronounced so by the Church historically, and is explicitly acknowledged as such by Gibson's "traditionalist" sect today.
That's why it's seen as antisemitic, as charging all Jews everywhere as guilty of the murder of God forever, and therefore cursed, is a little harsh, particularly since it's one of the underlying causes of the Holocaust.

___The "curse" can only be construed
as anti-semitic if taken from context.

In terms of the event depicted, it can
be seen as an expletive uttered in
anger and frustration, not a metaphysical curse.

The Bible has often been a source of
mistaken theology when reduced to slogans. The whole conceot of faith and
belief in Jesus, for example, has often
reduced to belief in the idea that
Jesus was the Son of God---which is
a theological doctrine.

Re(7): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 02:21:52 PM by Mitchell Levine

The "curse" can only be construed
as anti-semitic if taken from context.

In terms of the event depicted, it can
be seen as an expletive uttered in
anger and frustration, not a metaphysical curse.

The Bible has often been a source of
mistaken theology when reduced to slogans. The whole conceot of faith and
belief in Jesus, for example, has often
reduced to belief in the idea that
Jesus was the Son of God---which is
a theological doctrine.

- Of course, it doesn't have to be interpreted in an antisemitic way: even if the crowd had really said it, which is pretty doubtful, why would God have therefore been obliged to enforce it? And why wouldn't the Bible have explicitly said so? You'd think that God's breaking of an eternal covenant would rate at least a few pages of coverage in the scriptures.

The Bible never even stipulates that the entire crowd was Jewish, or even that anyone was necessarily "guilty" of the death of Christ. According to Christian theology, Christ's death was an act of human redemption by God specifically to remediate original sin.

The thing about "the Jews killing Christ" is a cultural belief, not a religious one - although some churches have taught it as a doctrine, including, apparently, Mel Gibson's.

The idea that all Jews are "cursed" by God for fulfilling his wishes is really more along the lines of an ignorant superstition which is never mandated by the Bible, much like racist interpretations of the Hamitic curse. Unfortunately, that hasn't neutralized the effects it's had on real people, but that's not all Christians' fault, or even Mel Gibson's.

He could have been a little more sensitive to the understandable fears of the Jewish community. Foxman and the ADL had every right to petition him to consider their concerns. But, if he wants to make the film the way he does, there's not really anything that can be done, as he does have his free speech rights as well.

Personally, I think Foxman's making way too big a deal over it, but I don't date back to a time when people really took such things seriously, like my father and aunts did.

Re(4): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 19, 2003 at 11:40:41 PM by mg

Look. I thought the subject was "FILM."

Levine says this: "Yeah, tell that to all our grandmothers that got raped by Cossacks, or everyone tattooed and cremated at Aushwitz."

No one challenges him. Cones forbids "off-topic" stuff, but Levine manuevers the Jewish martyr complex into the discussion with regularity.
Why? Because the "off topic" subject of "antisemitism" is absolutely endemic to ANY discussion of Jews, and the subject of "antisemitism" radiates out into EVERY direction.

He expects everyone to kiss Jewish Butt because Jews, in his cosmology, are categorical victims.

"Cossacks raping Jews?" I beg your pardon. Jews dominated the turn-of-the-century "white slavery" traffic, as I have noted. Modern Israel is a cornerstone of the international prostitution trade where Eastern European women (some "Cossacks") are SOLD as sex slaves in the Jewish state.

Levine is allowed to use the Jewish martyr/victim tradition to bully everyone else into bowing to the "poor" Jewish moguls who run Hollywood (and so much else).

If Cones doesn't censor this kind of crap of "off-topic," then I have every right to point out that the Cossacks were oppressed by the Jewish arendators, Jews mercilessly exploited the peasantry throughout Eastern Europe, Jews dragged non-Jewish women into sexual servitude, etc. etc.

Auschwitz was merely a small fragment of a WORLD WAR in which many milions of people died beyond Jews, and which non-Jews ALSO died at Auschwitz.

Cones, you'ure letting Levine carry the with subject wherever he wants, always aiming at the "You Owe Jews" undercurrent to his argmentnative (?)(foundation.

Be consistent.

If you ban contextual information about Jewish domination of Hollywood, you must, in all fairness, ban Levine's endless championing of the "oppressed" Jew scenario which, in full historical context, is a form of fraud.

CAUSE AND EFFECT is the history of the world. Including Hollywood.

Re(5): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 02:20:08 AM by Mitchell Levine

Look. I thought the subject was "FILM."

- Yes, we were discussing the implications of Gibson's film and its difficulties finding a distributor.

Levine says this: "Yeah, tell that to all our grandmothers that got raped by Cossacks, or everyone tattooed and cremated at Aushwitz."

- Can't do it, can you?

No one challenges him. Cones forbids "off-topic" stuff, but Levine manuevers the Jewish martyr complex into the discussion with regularity.

- Cones' declaration that "events related in the Bible, and their implications have no bearing on the present" is mistaken; that explains why it's mistaken.

Why? Because the "off topic" subject of "antisemitism" is absolutely endemic to ANY discussion of Jews, and the subject of "antisemitism" radiates out into EVERY direction.

- Every time you open your goddamn mouth!

He expects everyone to kiss Jewish Butt because Jews, in his cosmology, are categorical victims.

- No, but you can kiss my Jewish butt, you bigoted, moronic cryptofascist.

"Cossacks raping Jews?" I beg your pardon. Jews dominated the turn-of-the-century "white slavery" traffic, as I have noted. Modern Israel is a cornerstone of the international prostitution trade where Eastern European women (some "Cossacks") are SOLD as sex slaves in the Jewish state.

- Yes, by Jews just like Irving Hamer.

Levine is allowed to use the Jewish martyr/victim tradition to bully everyone else into bowing to the "poor" Jewish moguls who run Hollywood (and so much else).

- No one's bowing to anyone. We were discussing the status of Gibson's "right" to have his film distributed. It has nothing to do with feeling sorry for film moguls.

If Cones doesn't censor this kind of crap of "off-topic," then I have every right to point out that the Cossacks were oppressed by the Jewish arendators, Jews mercilessly exploited the peasantry throughout Eastern Europe, Jews dragged non-Jewish women into sexual servitude, etc. etc.

- More of your lies.

Auschwitz was merely a small fragment of a WORLD WAR in which many milions of people died beyond Jews, and which non-Jews ALSO died at Auschwitz.

- Those millions of people weren't all selected for systematic genocide, and no one's claiming that the Gypsies, Serbs, Communists, Gays, physically disabled, and others weren't victims too. It's not a sympathy contest.

Cones, you'ure letting Levine carry the with subject wherever he wants, always aiming at the "You Owe Jews" undercurrent to his argmentnative (?)(foundation.

- There's no such subtext. The discussion was specifically about why there's a legitimate concern about Gibson's film: because the deicide charge led to thousands of years of persecution, and, not inconsequentially, to the Holocaust. That's why the ADL wanted him to revise it. They had a completely legitimate right to ask him to consider that, and use whatever legal and ethical means they had to convince him that their concerns were just ones. All of this is completely on-topic, unlike your falsehood-packed, ignorant bullshit harrangues.

Be consistent.

- He is. He's consistently deleting your moronic, off-topic horsecrap.

If you ban contextual information about Jewish domination of Hollywood, you must, in all fairness, ban Levine's endless championing of the "oppressed" Jew scenario which, in full historical context, is a form of fraud.

- What's a fraud is you and your evil, intellectually incompetent lies. You even completely hijacked this thread and distorted it just to try and frame it as showcase for your usual hateful antisemitic propaganda.

CAUSE AND EFFECT is the history of the world. Including Hollywood.

- Yes, because you constantly post offtopic bullshit, and make hilarious logical, factual, historical, geographical, and grammatical errors in every single post without fail, the effect is that no one takes you and your subnormal IQ seriously, not even other antisemitic scumbags. And no one ever will.

Love Your Enemies, LevinE
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 03:51:07 PM by James Jaeger

- Every time you open your goddamn mouth!
- No, but you can kiss my Jewish butt, you bigoted, moronic cryptofascist.
- More of your lies.
- your falsehood-packed, ignorant bullshit harrangues.
- He is. He's consistently deleting your moronic, off-topic horsecrap.
- What's a fraud is you and your evil, intellectually incompetent lies.
- your usual hateful antisemitic propaganda.
- Yes, because you constantly post offtopic bullshit, and make hilarious logical, factual, historical, geographical, and grammatical errors in every single post without fail, the effect is that no one takes you and your subnormal IQ seriously, not even other antisemitic scumbags. And no one ever will.

Hey, LevinE. If you were a good Christian you would "love your enemies" as does George Shelps.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Love Your Enemies, LevinE
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 07:53:24 PM by George Shelps

Hey, LevinE. If you were a good Christian you would "love your enemies" as does George Shelps.

___"Loving your enemies" means wishing
the best for them. It can be "tough
love." In the case of a trashmouth
bigot like Jenks, anything that Mitchell
Levine says that might shock him into
rethinking his base and evil attitudes
is a form of "tough love."

Re(1): Love Your Enemies, LevinE
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 04:40:22 PM by Mitchell Levine

Guess what, dumbass? I'm not Christian!

Re(2): Love Your Enemies, LevinE
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 11:50:35 PM by James Jaeger

>Guess what, dumbass? I'm not Christian!

Duh. That was an invitation to convert. You know, get with the program.

James

Re(3): Love Your Enemies, LevinE
Posted on September 21, 2003 at 10:34:30 AM by Mitchell Levine

And you wonder why no one wants to do business with you?

Re(6): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 09:03:28 AM by mg

Look. I thought the subject was "FILM."

- Yes, we were discussing the implications of Gibson's film and its difficulties finding a distributor.

*** The "Cossacks" and tradiitonal Jewish exploitation of them, according to Cone's working premise of "on-topic/off-topic" at this forum, have nothing to do with Hollywood movies.

Levine says this: "Yeah, tell that to all our grandmothers that got raped by Cossacks, or everyone tattooed and cremated at Aushwitz."

- Can't do it, can you?

*** Learn how to write. What are you talking about? In answer to your question, no, I can't tell your grandmother anything because she's probably dead.

No one challenges him. Cones forbids "off-topic" stuff, but Levine manuevers the Jewish martyr complex into the discussion with regularity.

- Cones' declaration that "events related in the Bible, and their implications have no bearing on the present" is mistaken; that explains why it's mistaken.

*** Then you support the introduction of the entirety of the Jewish Tribal Review material as contextually relevant to Jewish Hollywood. Of course it is, but Cones has set up arbitrary standards here of relevance to movies, and your legends about Cossacks "raping" every Jewish woman in sight, including your grandmother, is absurd.

Hmmm. I guess this means you're part Cossack, right, Levine? Know any Ukrainian?

Why? Because the "off topic" subject of "antisemitism" is absolutely endemic to ANY discussion of Jews, and the subject of "antisemitism" radiates out into EVERY direction.

- Every time you open your goddamn mouth!

*** You can't speak without being vulgar. You can't speak without an epithet. You can't speak without an insult. And YOU frame yourself on the moral high ground at this forum.

He expects everyone to kiss Jewish Butt because Jews, in his cosmology, are categorical victims.

- No, but you can kiss my Jewish butt, you bigoted, moronic cryptofascist.

*** There you go. Nothing of substance. Just epithet. The more you scream, the more you hope the truth will fade away.

"Cossacks raping Jews?" I beg your pardon. Jews dominated the turn-of-the-century "white slavery" traffic, as I have noted. Modern Israel is a cornerstone of the international prostitution trade where Eastern European women (some "Cossacks") are SOLD as sex slaves in the Jewish state.

- Yes, by Jews just like Irving Hamer.

*** No. By Jews like Armand Hammer. Read Epstein's biography of him. What a corrupt man!

Levine is allowed to use the Jewish martyr/victim tradition to bully everyone else into bowing to the "poor" Jewish moguls who run Hollywood (and so much else).

- No one's bowing to anyone. We were discussing the status of Gibson's "right" to have his film distributed. It has nothing to do with feeling sorry for film moguls.

*** Jewish suffocation of the Cossacks, per Cones' "rules," have nothing directly to do with Hollywood. There's a dual standard here. Levine, the Jew, gets special treatment. He can post whatever he wants.

If Cones doesn't censor this kind of crap of "off-topic," then I have every right to point out that the Cossacks were oppressed by the Jewish arendators, Jews mercilessly exploited the peasantry throughout Eastern Europe, Jews dragged non-Jewish women into sexual servitude, etc. etc.

- More of your lies.

*** That's your standard fare. You insult, defame, slander, curse, and spew your vomit, declaring any citation we've got about unpleasant aspects of Jewish history are "lies." What I say is true.

Look it up Levine. Jews were the exploiters of Eastern European peasantry, including Cossacks. We've got the citations at our web site. But you prefer Jewish fairy tales: Jew=saint. Non-Jew = raping antisemite.

Auschwitz was merely a small fragment of a WORLD WAR in which many milions of people died beyond Jews, and which non-Jews ALSO died at Auschwitz.

- Those millions of people weren't all selected for systematic genocide, and no one's claiming that the Gypsies, Serbs, Communists, Gays, physically disabled, and others weren't victims too. It's not a sympathy contest.

*** There was a program of selective destruction for non-Jewish Poles. Read Lucas' THE FORGOTTEN HOLOCAUST (University of Kentucky Press). You won't, because you're a Judeocentric bigot and you don't want any of your legends to be challenged.

Gypsies WERE on a track no different than Jewry. Gypsies have a word for their own "Holocaust." Ask Ian Hancock (a Roma gypsy who teaches at the University of Texas) about how the Gypsy "Holocaust" has been treated by ethnocentric Jews like you. He's written about Jewish racism in denying the Gypsy story: a form of Jewish "Holocaust denial."

Cones, you'ure letting Levine carry the with subject wherever he wants, always aiming at the "You Owe Jews" undercurrent to his argmentnative (?)(foundation.

- There's no such subtext.

*** There is ALWAYS this subtext.

-- The discussion was specifically about why there's a legitimate concern about Gibson's film: because the deicide charge led to thousands of years of persecution, and, not inconsequentially, to the Holocaust.

*** Nonsense. Jews like that explanation, because it singularly displaces their responsibility for their OWN history into others' laps. The key to understanding the "Holocaust" is traditional Jewish ethnocentrism and racism, Jewish power and influence in the German Weimar republic, and rising German nationalism against JEWISH nationalism.

-- That's why the ADL wanted him to revise it. They had a completely legitimate right to ask him to consider that, and use whatever legal and ethical means they had to convince him that their concerns were just ones.

*** Jews in today's society funcition as a Thought Police to enforce an antiseptic view of Jewish history. The Christian Bible says Jews were important in the killing of Christ. JEWS CLAIMED THIS ALSO IN THEIR OWN TRADITION, AS YOU SHOULD KNOW, AND I HAVE REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU (READ "TOLEDUT YESHU.")

Last I heard, there was supposed to be freedom of religion in the West. Jews don't want this. They want to dictate other peoples' religions, always kissing Jewish Butt.

-- All of this is completely on-topic, unlike your falsehood-packed, ignorant bullshit harrangues.

*** Of course you're legends are on-topic. The same way that Jewish Tribal Review negates them. I'm merely stating that Cones has allowed a double standard to occur: Levine gets to spew anything out his ass in the name of "film." You are allowed to determine context to Hollywood. I'm pointing out that this is the norm not only at FIRM, but throughout American culture.

Be consistent.

- He is. He's consistently deleting your moronic, off-topic horsecrap.

*** Nothing again. Just slander.

If you ban contextual information about Jewish domination of Hollywood, you must, in all fairness, ban Levine's endless championing of the "oppressed" Jew scenario which, in full historical context, is a form of fraud.

- What's a fraud is you and your evil, intellectually incompetent lies. You even completely hijacked this thread and distorted it just to try and frame it as showcase for your usual hateful antisemitic propaganda.

*** YOU are the "liar." YOU are the real "bigot." You are the "hijacker" who, like so many in the fraudulent pack, bend history to suit their martyr legends. You are the "propagandist" and it is relentless.

CAUSE AND EFFECT is the history of the world. Including Hollywood.

- Yes, because you constantly post offtopic bullshit, and make hilarious logical, factual, historical, geographical, and grammatical errors in every single post without fail, the effect is that no one

*** Mr. Levine. People are waking up to guys like you. Not dotting an "i" does not impugn the moral and intellectual fiber of one who champions truth and justice.

You're a fraudster, completely, in "every one of your posts."

Shame!

Re(7): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 04:39:07 PM by Mitchell Levine

Look. I thought the subject was "FILM."

- Yes, we were discussing the implications of Gibson's film and its difficulties finding a distributor.

*** The "Cossacks" and tradiitonal Jewish exploitation of them, according to Cone's working premise of "on-topic/off-topic" at this forum, have nothing to do with Hollywood movies.

- Yes, Evil Scumbag, poor Jews living in a Shetl "oppressed" Cossacks that had a higher standard of living than they did. Good thinking!

I mentioned it in passing in my post dealing specifically with his prior discussion of Gibson's movie; you on the other hand simply pump antisemitic propaganda into anything you can to ventilate your cognitive pathologies, and keep you just sane enough that you don't fulfill your inevitable destiny of ending up in a bell tower with a Weaver carbine, just like the rest of your buddies at the Aryan Nations compound.

*** Then you support the introduction of the entirety of the Jewish Tribal Review material as contextually relevant to Jewish Hollywood.

- No, Evil Scumbag, I admit that you're a slow-witted incompetent that throws a bunch of stupid, counterfactual horseshit with no historical or journalistic integrity onto a server, and thinks that makes him an intellectual. In reality, you should really back off and try desperately to find something you might be good at.

Of course it is, but Cones has set up arbitrary standards here of relevance to movies

- Yes, Evil Scumbag, that's why they call the site "the Film Industry Reform
Movement," and not the "Evil Scumbag Ventilates his Emotional and Mental Pathologies Movement."

and your legends about Cossacks "raping" every Jewish woman in sight, including your grandmother, is absurd.

- Not a legend at all. In fact, it was actually much like your first day in the federal pen will be after you finally snap and end up serving twenty or thirty consecutive life sentences, ultimately realizing your innate human potential.

Hmmm. I guess this means you're part Cossack, right, Levine? Know any Ukrainian?

- Do you know any English? It's hard to tell from your site.

*** You can't speak without being vulgar. You can't speak without an epithet. You can't speak without an insult. And YOU frame yourself on the moral high ground at this forum.

- It's simply how a despicable pile of steaming, worthless horsecrap like you deserves to be addressed.

*** No. By Jews like Armand Hammer. Read Epstein's biography of him. What a corrupt man!

- At least, unlike you, a corrupt non-Jewish man, he could stitch a competent sentence together.

Levine is allowed to use the Jewish martyr/victim tradition to bully everyone else into bowing to the "poor" Jewish moguls who run Hollywood (and so much else).

- No one's bowing to anyone. We were discussing the status of Gibson's "right" to have his film distributed. It has nothing to do with feeling sorry for film moguls.

*** Jewish suffocation of the Cossacks, per Cones' "rules," have nothing directly to do with Hollywood. There's a dual standard here. Levine, the Jew, gets special treatment. He can post whatever he wants.

- It's just one of the many advantages of being your intellectual superior.

If Cones doesn't censor this kind of crap of "off-topic," then I have every right to point out that the Cossacks were oppressed by the Jewish arendators, Jews mercilessly exploited the peasantry throughout Eastern Europe, Jews dragged non-Jewish women into sexual servitude, etc. etc.

- More of your lies.

*** That's your standard fare. You insult, defame, slander, curse, and spew your vomit, declaring any citation we've got about unpleasant aspects of Jewish history are "lies." What I say is true.

- Every time you post anything it quickly gets refuted and shown to be the irrational conscious distortions of an incompetent, psychotic mental defective anyhow. Why bother to let you take up space on the server?

Look it up Levine. Jews were the exploiters of Eastern European peasantry, including Cossacks

- I did. It's bullshit, just like your similar simpleminded lies concerning the Inquisition.

. We've got the citations at our web site. But you prefer Jewish fairy tales: Jew=saint. Non-Jew = raping antisemite.

- Your citations are also intellectually dishonest, counterfactual lies, often quoted completely out of context, misquoted, distorted, and virtually always formed from a patchwork of sources fraudulently manipulated to produce antisemitic implications completely unintended by their authors. You've even had people flame your guestbook because they saw your bogus, fabricated use of their materials on the inane hate site, and wanted to dispute your pseudointerpretations.

Auschwitz was merely a small fragment of a WORLD WAR in which many milions of people died beyond Jews, and which non-Jews ALSO died at Auschwitz.

- Those millions of people weren't all selected for systematic genocide, and no one's claiming that the Gypsies, Serbs, Communists, Gays, physically disabled, and others weren't victims too. It's not a sympathy contest.

*** There was a program of selective destruction for non-Jewish Poles.

- Too bad one of them wasn't you, Evil Scumbag!


Gypsies WERE on a track no different than Jewry. Gypsies have a word for their own "Holocaust." Ask Ian Hancock (a Roma gypsy who teaches at the University of Texas) about how the Gypsy "Holocaust" has been treated by ethnocentric Jews like you

- Yes, I know, moron - my mother is Romany.


. He's written about Jewish racism in denying the Gypsy story: a form of Jewish "Holocaust denial."

- No one denys that many Romanys were killed by the Holocaust. They were next-ups on Hitler's fascist list of racial undesirables.

Cones, you'ure letting Levine carry the with subject wherever he wants, always aiming at the "You Owe Jews" undercurrent to his argmentnative (?)(foundation.

- You're a liar! I've never said anyone "owes" Jews anything, other than the same rights enumerated in the Constitution that every other citizen is entitled to, whether that makes you jealous or not.

-- The discussion was specifically about why there's a legitimate concern about Gibson's film: because the deicide charge led to thousands of years of persecution, and, not inconsequentially, to the Holocaust.

*** Nonsense. Jews like that explanation, because it singularly displaces their responsibility for their OWN history into others' laps.

- There is no "responsibility" for genocide, scumbag. That's another lie Nazi apologists like you use to "blame the victim," hoping to disguise your obvious racism.

The key to understanding the "Holocaust" is traditional Jewish ethnocentrism and racism, Jewish power and influence in the German Weimar republic, and rising German nationalism against JEWISH nationalism.

- As little as you seem to like it, it is a fact that German Jews WERE Germans and had the same right to be in power as anyone else. The fact that other people were prejudiced against them on the basis of religious bigotry, or in your case, full-blown psychosis, is irrelevant. Hitler's grounds for the Nazi's antisemitic atrocities was that Jews were "racially inferior."

You just can't get past the fact that Jews are just as entitled as anyone else to success, and that you are just going to have to acclimate to living in a world with many successful Jewish people, despite the fact that you are psychotically prejudiced against them. Furthermore, you'll also have to adjust to the truth that you'll never be successful, because you're a moron.



-- That's why the ADL wanted him to revise it. They had a completely legitimate right to ask him to consider that, and use whatever legal and ethical means they had to convince him that their concerns were just ones.

*** Jews in today's society funcition as a Thought Police to enforce an antiseptic view of Jewish history. The Christian Bible says Jews were important in the killing of Christ. JEWS CLAIMED THIS ALSO IN THEIR OWN TRADITION, AS YOU SHOULD KNOW, AND I HAVE REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU (READ "TOLEDUT YESHU

- This is bullshit. Jews don't concern themselves with Christ; they don't believe in Christianity, and have their own separate religious tradition, shared by Christ. Few Jews ever read the Gospels, or even have interest in reading the Gospels. The ADL had every right to protest Gibson's film, and use whatever legal methods they had to convince him of their concerns. That's completely within their freedom of speech.

Last I heard, there was supposed to be freedom of religion in the West. Jews don't want this. They want to dictate other peoples' religions, always kissing Jewish Butt.

- No one's dictating the Christian religion; they are vehemently denying being thrust into a role that's led to persecution over centuries, and that's their right. Your rights end where anothers' begins, and one right you don't have is to persecute Jews, despite your exterminationist hatred.

-- All of this is completely on-topic, unlike your falsehood-packed, ignorant bullshit harrangues.

*** Of course you're legends are on-topic. The same way that Jewish Tribal Review negates them.

- The way your site "negates" is by lying and distorting, as evidenced by your "fact-checking" in the matter of Education Update. It's representative of your regard for truth as a whole.

I'm merely stating that Cones has allowed a double standard to occur: Levine gets to spew anything out his ass in the name of "film." You are allowed to determine context to Hollywood. I'm pointing out that this is the norm not only at FIRM, but throughout American culture.

- Of course, the norm is people listen to those that have something to say, and reject those that are ignorant, racist mongoloids like you that sponsor bogus journalism, fabricated history, incompetent discussion, and are all around scumbags, once again, like you.

Be consistent.

- He is. He's consistently deleting your moronic, off-topic horsecrap.

*** Nothing again. Just slander.

- It's not slander. It's completely factual: every time you post your stupid, incompetent, unintentionally hilarious bullshit, which, of course, includes just about everything you say, he deletes it, as the rest of the world does.

- What's a fraud is you and your evil, intellectually incompetent lies. You even completely hijacked this thread and distorted it just to try and frame it as showcase for your usual hateful antisemitic propaganda.

*** YOU are the "liar." YOU are the real "bigot."

- NO, YOU'RE THE LIAR. YOU'RE THE REAL BIGOT!!!

*** Mr. Levine. People are waking up to guys like you.

- Well, it is true that no one wakes up next to you, isn't it, Evil Scumbag?

Not dotting an "i" does not impugn the moral and intellectual fiber of one who champions truth and justice.

- Of course not, in the case of one who champions truth and justice. Then, though, there's your case, in which it just exemplifies your truly hilarious, factually ignorant, grammatically incompetent, self-parodying idiocy, as is apparent to everyone.

Re(3): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 19, 2003 at 02:39:33 PM by George Shelps

this mis-treatment of Mel Gibson, illustrates why greater diversity at the top in Hollywood is absolutely necessary in order to protect the free marketplace of ideas (as expressed through this powerful communication medium)which, in turn, underlies our democracy.

__Mel is getting an unfair bashing for
simply filming the Gospels, the basis of
the Christian religion.

But it doesn't prove your point about
"diversity." The ADL would probably
bash Gibson anyway.

And the "free marketplace of ideas" should be FREE. You want to replace
the current system with an abitrary
system of "diversity" based upon an
imposition of your definition of the
term.

You fight "control" by an elite by
doing just what Mel is doing, going out
a making a movie and fighting to get
it shown!

Re(2): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 18, 2003 at 05:47:49 PM by Mitchell Levine

By the way, Jim, I really enjoyed the evocative title you gave the thread, implying that "the Jews" are crucifying the noble saviour figure Mel Gibson, JUST LIKE THOSE KIKES DID CHRIST!

Re(3): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 19, 2003 at 11:44:19 PM by mg

It's the perfect analogy. The absolute echo. Jews everywhere scream: "We didn't kill Christ!" And then, look around you. They're central to destroying the public celebration of Christmas.

The Jewish crucifixion of Gibson fits the paradigm.

Re(4): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 02:26:26 AM by Mitchell Levine

No, evil dickheads like you are central to the destruction of fundamental American ideals like the separation of church and state, and the rest of the civil rights the Founding Fathers believed in enough to risk sacrificing their lives for.

Re(5): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 08:34:26 AM by mg

No, my dear, vulgar hypocritical "editor."

I champion free speech and democracy: open discussion of crucial social and political problems.

Your self-appointed task is to veil these problems and attempt to toxify those who have the guts to challenge Judeocentrism.

I stand for justice and free speech. You stand for veiling the workings of an important power elite, of which you have -- by genetic alleigance -- international solidarity.

Judeocentrism
Posted on September 21, 2003 at 10:19:51 AM by Bruce Willis

This is true. Jews have definately consolidated a power base internationally, especially in the movie industry.

I'm glad you and the others at this site have the guts to stand up to this and bring it to world attention.

Keep up the good work, and don't let people like Levine get away with their lies.

Re(1): Judeocentrism
Posted on September 21, 2003 at 10:32:37 AM by Mitchell Levine

You're too much of a coward to post under your own name, and you accuse others of "lies," simply for asserting their equal rights? Typical scumbag.

Re(6): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 04:42:43 PM by Mitchell Levine

What you stand for is hate, bigotry, and discrimination, most likely of the exterminationist variety. No one who genuinely believes in the ideals you mention would ever come away from your posts or your website thinking otherwise.

Re(7): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 22, 2003 at 08:18:44 AM by mg

YOU SAY: What you stand for is hate, bigotry, and discrimination, most likely of the exterminationist variety. No one who genuinely believes in the ideals you mention would ever come away from your posts or your website thinking otherwise

RESPONSE: Mr. Levine. I'm sorry to disappoint you. YOU stand for "hate, bigotry, discrimination" and all the rest. All you can do is stand in your corner against the avalanche of moral indictment of Judeocentrism and Israel and scream epithets against those who point this out.

And you'd be very unhappy with the calibre of ethical people who are influenced by Jewish Tribal Review. They're the good guys.

You're a bigot and a fraud. Such people cannot be influenced in the slightest because they live their lives in illusion.

Jewish racism and brutality masked as morality for the oppressed is slowly becoming unraveled. And Jewish power is getting examined in more and more places, across the political spectrum.

Re(8): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 22, 2003 at 08:40:36 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, Evil Scumbag, the contributors to your site are, like you, moronic, weasel-like dickfors typically demonstrating aberrant pathologies like Holocaust denial, blood libel, psychotic conspiracy paranoia, virulent outright racism, long-disproven lies about the Talmud, and, above all, a hilarious inability to logically reason foregrounded by your own personal example as the embodiment incarnate of gutbusting human stupidity and ignorance at its furthest conceivable extreme.

As demonstrated in your remarks on Education Update, as well as your truly inane distortions concerning the Inquisition, you are a worthless, lying sack of manure who will fabricate, distort, and commit outright fraud to ventilate your numerous cognitive defects and catastrophic personality disorders.

Your idea of "journalism" is so constitutionally deranged that you actually have people spamming your guestbook insisting you remove references to their work, because you've butchered it so fraudulently they consider it libelous. You quote out of context, fabricate out of whole cloth, and distort by combining patchworks of multiple sources that misrepresent the conclusions of all. Your "fact-checking" is so non-existent that you post and publish antisemitic diatribes about people like Irving Hamer that are in fact non-Jewish.

Luckily, your total, humiliating incompetence makes you an object of hysterical derision even amongst other despicable bigots, neutralizing any potential negative impact your wasted life could ever have. And, of course, it won't be long before your raging schizotypal complexes seize control of your psychic infrastructure, leaving you in an permanent incapacitating psychogenic fugue-state. Most likely, though, no one will notice the difference anyhow.

Re(9): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 22, 2003 at 11:32:13 PM by James Jaeger

Gee Mitch,

Did Jim Jenks hit a button with you?

James

Re(10): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 23, 2003 at 10:14:08 PM by Mitchell Levine

Yeah, Jim, the same one it should've hit in you a long time ago - marked "off."

Re(10): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 23, 2003 at 08:24:14 AM by mg

Mitchell Levine's posts against those who dare to investigate Judeocentric racism and power are increasingly examples of quintessential "hate." They are rooted in insults and epithets; their foundation of argument is air.

We invite anyone to
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org
to see for themselves that not a thing Levine says is true.

We suggest Mr. Levine take start taking his pills again so he doesn't hurt himself. Or someone around him.

Emotional rage is a self-destructive quality, Mr. Levine. And it blinds one to the the real workings of the world.

Re(11): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 23, 2003 at 10:55:52 AM by Mitchell Levine

Who said it hasn't anything to do with "emotional rage," Evil Scumbag? All your arguments about "Judeocentric racism" have already been refuted, just like everything else you say.

It has to do with intellectual disgust at your complete personal and journalistic fraud - as anyone who's been reading your posts has already figured out.

And even your pathetic attempt at a comeback - the thing about the pills you just ripped off from my earlier post about you - demonstrates that you're an intellectual inferior with no capacity for independent thought. That's why you're the racist laughing stock you are.

Re(12): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 24, 2003 at 11:00:18 AM by mg

Mr. Levine.

With all due respect, it appears that you have finally went off the edge.

Your desperation to legitimately refute a sliver of my commentary has pushed you to insanity, threats of violence, hysteria, and a burning frustration from defeat that seems to have imploded in you.

The real scoop's here:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

May knowledge shine like Light in the world, and may two-faced, lying rats like Levine crawl back into their sewer systems.

Lest you, Levine, declare that this a pan-Jewish invective, it is not. There are Jews like Israel Shamir who have earned by respect and whose shit would fit snuggly like a crown on you.

Re(13): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 24, 2003 at 12:00:09 AM by Mitchell Levine

No, Evil Scumbag, due to the stress on your psychic defense mechanisms caused by the frustration of having your moronic, deceitful posts persistently deleted by an embarassed John Cones, your psychosis has pathetically deluded you into believing you could ever win an argument, despite the fact that you're an laughable idiot whose "arguments" are constantly being refuted about as quickly as you hit the Enter button to post them.

Get back to doing what you do best: uploading hilarious bullshit onto your hate site, and let your intellectual superiors continue their discussion.

Re(13): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 24, 2003 at 11:03:53 AM by mg

Oh! Mr Levine. I made a typo! Sorry. It should read "my respect" and not "by respect," as follows:

"Lest you, Levine, declare that this a pan-Jewish invective, it is not. There are Jews like Israel Shamir who have earned my respect and whose shit would fit snuggly like a crown on you."

Reads better, no?

Re(14): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 24, 2003 at 12:02:33 AM by Mitchell Levine

Evil Scumbag, you should really watch that "potty mouth!"

Re(10): ADL Crucifying Mel
Posted on September 22, 2003 at 11:48:48 PM by George Shelps


PM by James Jaeger

Gee Mitch,

Did Jim Jenks hit a button with you?

____Your support for this slimeball
Jenks is utterly disgraceful, James.

ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 18, 2003 at 06:52:13 PM by James Jaeger

I paused to consider whether the post should have been "ADL Crucifying Mel?" rather than "ADL Crucifying Mel." So I re-read the article in its entirety and felt that it's clear from the article that the ADL's chief, Foxman, NOT necessarily the Jewish community(1), IS saying that Mel is an antisemite, thus he IS crucifying him metaphorically because we all know that this label, a use of the anti-Semitic Sword, could spell death to Mel's Hollywood career, i.e., the studios will simply pass on Mel's future projects more frequently, if not always.

There is strong evidence that this is the MO of the Hollywood control group and it will continue to be this way until and unless there is greater diversity in the top echelons of the MPAA studio/distributors. This is what we have been saying at FIRM for years.

Thus we may all witness, on a macrocosmic scale, Mel Gibson being treated much the same way both John Cones and I have been treated for daring to publicly utter something that is not considered politically_correct by the Hollywood Establishment.

An atmosphere like this places a chill on the doctrine of Freedom of Speech, where the expectation is that you or I, John Cones or Mel Gibson are free to comment on Life as we honestly see it, whether such comments are in speech, writing or art. And in doing so, we should not have to feel that such freedom will be a liability to our careers.

Already the studios seem to be blackballing Mel's movie on the grounds that it has no sub-titles and thus has little or no commercial value. We all know this is a ruse to hide the fact that they are actually censoring material that does not conform to their view of reality. Is this okay in a democratic society where the free interchange of ideas is the very life blood of that society?


James Jaeger



----------------------------

(1) Let me emphasize that I believe that only the ADL, through Foxman, is making this charge of antisemitism against Mel Gibson, and this should not be taken to reflect the feelings of the Jewish community. In much the same way Foxman is calling for others in the Christian community to voice critical views, if any, on Mel's movie, I would call for other members of the Jewish community to voice their views least the ADL's view may be considered the official position of the Jewish Community (on this issue). The article says: "Foxman sent a letter Tuesday asking Cardinal Keeler to speak out now because if the public only hears the voices of Church officials supporting the movie, "people will assume the Church in fact is endorsing this film.""

Source of excerpt and entire article, much of which was not quoted at the FIRM site: http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8445

Re(1): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 18, 2003 at 07:45:13 PM by Mitchell Levine

Once again, trying to wield the Anti-Antisemitic Sword, and attempt to deny freedom of speech by bogus claims of anti-antisemitism.

And once again, you misconstrue the meaning of freedom of speech. You see, Jim, the Founding Fathers never said that NO negative consequences could ever follow on account of what you say. They quite specifically said that exactly ONE negative consequence couldn't follow from what you say: criminal prosecution.

If other people don't want to do business with you, because what you've said offends them, they are perfectly entitled not to. If people don't want to be friends with you because of what you say, they're entitled not to be. If people don't want to buy tickets to your movies, or your screenplays, because what you've said offends them, that's their right.

The one and only thing the freedom of speech protects you against is being tried for a crime, and that's it. You have no other protection. In fact, other people have the Constitutional right not to associate with you - in a social way only - if you offend them.

You certainly wouldn't have suggested that Catholics who boycotted The Last Temptation of Christ were violating Martin Scorcese's freedom of speech. John Cones doesn't appear to believe that ticketbuyers who refused to pay to see films that demonized traditional African religions were violating anyone's free expression.

The fact is, Foxman is using his freedom of speech just as much as Gibson is, and the studios refusing to distribute a film that: a) offends them, and b) is rather unlikely to be successful, are excercising their Constitutional freedoms as well.

In a healthy democracy, people aren't forced to do business with those they don't wish to, provided they aren't discriminating against them in the legally defined ways; and in a healthy democracy, people can still suffer consequences from their statements, provided they aren't criminal ones. And the majors wouldn't release any movie set in a dead biblical language without subtitles no matter what it was, with perfectly good reason.

Also, it's not clear in the slightest that you were only referring to the ADL: you blamed the "persecution" of Mel Gibson on the "Jewish Lobby," which is Jenks' favorite euphemism for "the Kikes!" At least, when he's actually using euphemisms, instead of outright slurs.

Re(2): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 19, 2003 at 11:48:27 PM by mg

"Kike" is a term invented by American Jews of Jewish descent to describe Eastern European Jewish immigrants.

I don't use the word myself. But if saying "kike" is emblematic of an "antisemite," then stop your endlessly two-faced hypocrisy and look to the origin of the word to condemn those who created it: Jews named their own.

Re(3): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 02:31:52 AM by Mitchell Levine

That's an urban legend. No one's ever been able to establish an etymology of the phrase.

It's based on the myth that Jews refused to sign with a cross, and instead used a circle, or, in German, Kikle.

Once again, you show the true sign of a Nazi: blaming the victim. You think you're so sophisticated, and you're so obvious.

Of course, there's nothing you can do about it - you're an idiot.

Re(4): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 09:09:58 AM by mg

This "urban legend" has been repeated as reliable by scholars: Jewish ones. Check out our web site.

As I 've posted here before, some of the most "antisemitic" invectives can be found in the Jewish folk tradition about themselves including the standard "antisemitic" fare: Jewish are cheats, charlatans, obsessed with money, conniving, etc. etc. etc.

I can't apologize for Jewish history, Levine. Maybe you can.

The "blaming the victim" motif is yours: blaming the Palestinian struggle for human dignity from Jewish chains as inhuman "terrorists," virtually categorically.

Re(5): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 04:50:01 PM by Mitchell Levine

Once again, your hypocritical support for the brutal, racist, genocidal Palestinians evidences, much to your shame.

If they ever make peace with the Israelis, you'll have to spend a lot of late nights revising your site, because you'll no longer have any reason to maintain your phony pretenses. Then your psychotic hatred of anyone racially different from you will assert itself, and you'll be forced against your conscious will by your cognitive defects to begin slandering them too.

It'll be fun to watch! How fast can one despicable bigot backpedal before he experiences a complete psychogenic ego catastrophe? Finally, you'll add something to the world's knowledge by your hysterical example.

Re(2): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 19, 2003 at 11:24:26 PM by James Jaeger

>If other people don't want to do business with you, because what you've said offends them, they are perfectly entitled not to.

Suppose I state that I absolutely HATE all chipmunks and that offends you because you love chipmunks. Does that entitle you to not do business with me?

Suppose I say that I believe in Adam and Eve but you are offended because you believe in evolution. Does that give you the right to not green-light my film project?

Suppose I say that I hate Jews and that offends you? Do you then have the right to not do business with me or distribute my film?

What if I'm Black and that offends you because you hate African Americans. Do you have the right to not do business with me?

Since it is basically Mel Gibson's religious belief that is "offending" all or part of the Jewish community, do you feel Jewish executives in power thus have the right to avoid granting him employment on future projects? If so, this sounds like religious discrimination to me. Doesn’t it to you? Where do you draw the lines, Mitch?

>Also, it's not clear in the slightest that you were only referring to the ADL: you blamed the "persecution" of Mel Gibson on the "Jewish Lobby,"

You're saying that there IS no Jewish Lobby? Or are you saying that the ADL is NOT an agent for the Jewish community? What's the mission of the AIPAC in your view?

James Jaeger

Re(3): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 01:42:15 AM by Mitchell Levine

"If other people don't want to do business with you, because what you've said offends them, they are perfectly entitled not to.

Suppose I state that I absolutely HATE all chipmunks and that offends you because you love chipmunks. Does that entitle you to not do business with me?"

- Yes, Jim: In the United States of America, everyone is perfectly entitled to choose not to do business with anyone for any reason. That's why it's referred to as "free-market capitalism."

"Suppose I say that I believe in Adam and Eve but you are offended because you believe in evolution. Does that give you the right to not green-light my film project?"

- Once again, no one has a constitutional right to have their film greenlighted. The studios can turn down your project for any reason they wish. Why would they ever be obligated to purchase someone's screenplay, bump it into production, then release it? All 250 million people in the nation would be entitled to have their films made under that theory.

"Suppose I say that I hate Jews and that offends you?"

- Done.

"Do you then have the right to not do business with me or distribute my film?"

- Absolutely. I don't have to distribute your film if I don't wish to for any reason. Where did you ever get the ridiculous idea that anyone ever would?

"What if I'm Black and that offends you because you hate African Americans. Do you have the right to not do business with me?"

- You certainly can't deny someone a bank loan on the basis of race, or refuse to rent them property, but no private industry ever has to buy someone's screenplay, produce and release it for any reason. Once more, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE YOUR FILMS PRODUCED. If there was such a right, than every individual in the country would have the right to have their films produced, distributed, and released, which is, of course, impossible.

"Since it is basically Mel Gibson's religious belief that is "offending" all or part of the Jewish community"

- Yes, it is offensive to be accused of murdering God, and cursed for all eternity. especially if it isn't true.

"do you feel Jewish executives in power thus have the right to avoid granting him employment on future projects?"

- What "right" does Mel Gibson have to be cast in screen roles? Why would he have the right to be cast in parts, and not anyone else? Why would he have the right to be cast and not Denzel Washington, John Travolta, or Christian Slater? The whole idea is preposterous.

"If so, this sounds like religious discrimination to me. Doesn’t it to you? Where do you draw the lines, Mitch?"

- Certainly not at someone's "right" to be an A list movie star that gets whatever film he wishes produced and released by any studio in Hollywood.

"Also, it's not clear in the slightest that you were only referring to the ADL: you blamed the "persecution" of Mel Gibson on the "Jewish Lobby,"

You're saying that there IS no Jewish Lobby? Or are you saying that the ADL is NOT an agent for the Jewish community? What's the mission of the AIPAC in your view?"

- The function of AIPAC is the same as any other advocacy group: to advocate for their constituents, in much the same was as AARP advocates for the retired; the NAACP advocates for Blacks; and the NRA advocates for gun owners.

The point is that you claimed your reference in the title of this thread was "only to the ADL," but "the Jewish Lobby" is a euphemism for "all Jews," typically applied by bigots like Jenks. That's why it carries the implication I mentioned which you were responding to.

Re(4): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 12:50:43 AM by James Jaeger

>>Suppose I state that I absolutely HATE all chipmunks and that offends you because you love chipmunks. Does that entitle you to not do business with me?"

>- Yes, Jim: In the United States of America, everyone is perfectly entitled to choose not to do business with anyone for any reason. That's why it's referred to as "free-market capitalism."

That was NOT my question. You side-stepped my question by referring to a generality. I asked: specifically about chipmunks.

>>"Suppose I say that I believe in Adam and Eve but you are offended because you believe in evolution. Does that give you the right to not green-light my film project?"

>- Once again, no one has a constitutional right to have their film greenlighted. The studios can turn down your project for any reason they wish. Why would they ever be obligated to purchase someone's screenplay, bump it into production, then release it? All 250 million people in the nation would be entitled to have their films made under that theory.

Once again you side-stepped my question by diluting it with a generality. Not for "any" reason, for the reason that my belief in Adam and Eve offends you. I guess, the word "any" includes my belief about Adam and Eve, therefore I interpret you answer to mean that you feel that it’s perfectly okay to not hire me (discriminate against me), for my religious belief.

>>"Suppose I say that I hate Jews and that offends you?"

>- Done.

Done, what?

>>"Do you then have the right to not do business with me or distribute my film?"

>- Absolutely. I don't have to distribute your film if I don't wish to for any reason.

No, again, not for "any" reason, for the reason that one hates Jews. Again you are side-stepping the question.

>Where did you ever get the ridiculous idea that anyone ever would?

A prospective employee comes into a studio personnel office and passes the personnel interview with flying colors. The personnel manager says: "You're hired." Then as the new employee is leaving, he turns to the personnel manager and says: "You're not Jewish are you, because I generally dislike working for Jews." As it turns out the personnel manager IS Jewish and is offended. Does this personnel manager now have the right to fire this just-hired employee?

And please don't answer this by saying that anyone has the right to fire anyone for ANY reason at any time.

>>"What if I'm Black and that offends you because you hate African Americans. Do you have the right to not do business with me?"

>- You certainly can't deny someone a bank loan on the basis of race, or refuse to rent them property, but no private industry ever has to buy someone's screenplay, produce and release it for any reason.

Oh boy, are you all over the place on this one Mitch. I said he's Black and that offends you because you hate African Americans. Do you have the right to NOT do business with me because of THAT point? Do you have the right to not hire me? Not give me a bank loan or rent me a property. Do you have the right to pass on my screenplay because I am Black and you hate Blacks? Just answer the question.

What if I LOVE Adam and Eve? Or I believe MY interpretation of the Bible is more correct than yours? Do you have the right to pass on my screenplay because of either of these?

>Once more, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE YOUR FILMS PRODUCED.

Once more, THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. I REALIZE THAT I DON'T HAVE A CONSTIUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE MY FILMS PRODUCED. DUH! I want to know if I have a constitutional right to SAY what I believe or BE who I am without being FIRED or DISCRIMINATED against in a business dominated by those who do NOT believe what I believe or look like how I look.
Just answer the question Mitch.

>If there was such a right, than every individual in the country would have the right to have their films produced, distributed, and released, which is, of course, impossible.

Duh, duh, duh, MitchyBaby. Duh. Maybe this could be the lyrics for my new song.

>>"Since it is basically Mel Gibson's religious belief that is "offending" all or part of the Jewish community"

>- Yes, it is offensive to be accused of murdering God, and cursed for all eternity. especially if it isn't true.

What isn’t true? That there is such thing as a God or one is accused of murdering God if he/she/it DOES exist. And this entire consideration is ridiculous anyway, because if there IS a God, or a supreme being, such entity cannot be "murdered" because such entity is eternal by definition. So this is either a non-existent charge or a bogus charge you are using to justify the denial of Mel’s belief that there IS a God. Whether there IS or IS NOT a God, Mel has the right to believe either and if his belief offends you, tough. Do Jewish studio executives NOW have the right to deny him a green-light on his next movie project.

>>"do you feel Jewish executives in power thus have the right to avoid granting him employment on future projects?"

>- What "right" does Mel Gibson have to be cast in screen roles?

Again, for the Nth time: I am not saying that he has any RIGHT to be cast or green lit or, or. I’m asking the reasonable question if he has the right to feel, utter, write, or BE who he is without being discriminated against just because he doesn’t hold the company viewpoint on these personal particulars.

You are indicating that discrimination is okay under certain arbitrary circumstances. And this is basically what the Hollywood control group also does. The narrowly-defined Hollywood control group -- comprised predominantly of liberal, not-very-religious Jewish males -- is incapable of being OBJECTIVE because it gets offended by things that it takes personally but which have NOTHING to do with business. This control group is using the powerful medium of film to screen out anything that is not aligned to their personal worldview. Thus, it is using the cinema as a political weapon. This objectionable to many in a democratic society and such an arrangement actually does NOT promote "free-market capitalism," but inhibits it.

>Why would he have the right to be cast in parts, and not anyone else? Why would he have the right to be cast and not Denzel Washington, John Travolta, or Christian Slater? The whole idea is preposterous.

Yap, yap, yap. Continuous side-step of my question, Mitch.

>>"If so, this sounds like religious discrimination to me. Doesn’t it to you? Where do you draw the lines, Mitch?"

>- Certainly not at someone's "right" to be an A list movie star that gets whatever film he wishes produced and released by any studio in Hollywood.

Yap. . .

>>"Also, it's not clear in the slightest that you were only referring to the ADL: you blamed the "persecution" of Mel Gibson on the "Jewish Lobby,"

And the ADL is not part of the Jewish Lobby? Please!

>>You're saying that there IS no Jewish Lobby? Or are you saying that the ADL is NOT an agent for the Jewish community? What's the mission of the AIPAC in your view?"

>- The function of AIPAC is the same as any other advocacy group: to advocate for their constituents,

Who are all Jewish, right?

>in much the same was as AARP advocates for the retired; the NAACP advocates for Blacks; and the NRA advocates for gun owners.

Fine, but I’ll ask again:

1. You're saying that there IS no Jewish Lobby? __ Yes __No

2. Or are you saying that the ADL is NOT an agent for the Jewish community? __Yes __No

>The point is that you claimed your reference in the title of this thread was "only to the ADL," but "the Jewish Lobby" is a euphemism for "all Jews,"

Obviously, if the cinema is being screened for personal reasons dear to the Hollywood control group, then it is indeed being used a political weapon and any agent that abets the manipulation of this political weapon, as is the ADL, is acting on political grounds, hence is part of the Jewish Lobby because a lobby acts predominantly on political grounds.

>typically applied by bigots like Jenks. That's why it carries the implication I mentioned which you were responding to.

I don’t think there’s anything bigoted about acknowledging that a group, any group, gets together and lobbies for their interests, as does the Jewish Lobby, which could be collectively defined as the AIPAC and all its supporting people and organizations, such as the ADL and even the MPAA.

James Jaeger

Re(4): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 10:47:24 AM by George Shelps

What if I'm Black and that offends you because you hate African Americans. Do you have the right to not do business with me?"
- You certainly can't deny someone a bank loan on the basis of race, or refuse to rent them property, but no private industry ever has to buy someone's screenplay, produce and release it for any reason. Once more, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE YOUR FILMS PRODUCED. If there was such a right, than every individual in the country would have the right to have their films produced, distributed, and released, which is, of course, impossible.

___Yes, Mr Jaeger does believe that
he has a constitutional right to have
his scripts purchased and his films
financed and released. That's the whole
argument underlying FIRM's definition
of movies as a medium of information
in a democratic society. They regard
movies as a "public accommodation" instead of a private venture.

Now, there is a shred of truth in this.
Movies (and media in general) are an
important part of the culture of democracy and freedom of speech and
press are mentioned in the Constitution.

There is a danger when a small group
controls an important medium of communication. The recent overturning
of the FCC rule changes shows that
Congress is concerned about media
concentration.

However, individual business decisions
cannot be governed by constitutional
considerations about free speech.

Unless a law (such as a bank loan being denied on the grounds of race) is being violated, then I think we must err on the side of freedom.

Re(5): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 01:25:45 PM by James Jaeger

>___Yes, Mr Jaeger does believe that
he has a constitutional right to have
his scripts purchased and his films
financed and released. That's the whole
argument underlying FIRM's definition
of movies as a medium of information
in a democratic society. They regard
movies as a "public accommodation" instead of a private venture.

Geeze, you and LevinE, are clones on this. Monkey see monkey do.

As I repeatedly said to Mr. LevinE: I am NOT implying that anyone has a "constitutional right to have
his scripts purchased and his films
financed and released." DUH! This is a generalization of my specific questions.

You are both trying to avoid answering my questions because you realize that the truthful answer to my questions presents you both as condoning discrimination for religious belief or race or because someone is exercising their right to free speech.

>Now, there is a shred of truth in this. Movies (and media in general) are an important part of the culture of democracy and freedom of speech and
press are mentioned in the Constitution.

>There is a danger when a small group
controls an important medium of communication. The recent overturning
of the FCC rule changes shows that
Congress is concerned about media
concentration.

That's good.

>However, individual business decisions
cannot be governed by constitutional
considerations about free speech.

But individual business decisions, such as who to hire and fire, and who to green-light and who to red-light, ARE subject to discrimination law. And it is unlawful to discriminate against someone for race, sexual orientation or age if such person is capable of adequate performance. Also, implied in the doctrine of free speech, is the idea that one should not have to fear discrimination for what one believes, feels, says . . . or produces. If you hire me to tighten bolts on an assembly line, and each bolt comes off the line tight, you should not be able to fire me because I believe that the Jews killed Jesus or Daffy Duck killed Jesus. And if I don’t like you, well where in the Uniform Commercial Code does it say that an employee must like their employer? If this were actionable, 50% of Americas would be fired by next Tuesday.

>Unless a law (such as a bank loan being denied on the grounds of race) is being violated, then I think we must err on the side of freedom.

True. Thus we must believe that Mel Gibson is a good guy who simply wants to tell HIS side of the story (as the producers of AMEN got to tell THEIRS) and that he wants to "inspire, not offend" and that there will be no more of an up-tick of anti-Semitism than there is when Arabs are made the bad guys in 99% of Hollywood’s movies.

James Jaeger

Re(6): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 05:05:31 PM by Mitchell Levine

Jim, you are making a serious error. Mel Gibson is NOT a salaried employee of the studio: he's a contracted player represented by an agent!

Studios do not have to cast you in a part for ANY reason; they do not have to buy scripts for ANY reason; they do not have to greenlight pictures for ANY reason - let alone from someone who's offended them by slandering their religion! They can legitimately say no if they don't like the color of your socks.

If they didn't hire you as a VP because of your religious background, then you could sue them for discrimination, if you could somehow prove it. You can't if they turn you down for a deal to pick up the picture you're four-walling at the Beacon Theatre. Why? Because you do have a legal right to equal hiring opportunities irrespective of your religious status, but you don't have a right to have your films distributed. That's the long and the short of it.

If the fundamentalist Baptists that funded Ed Wood's movies had turned him down, could he have sued them because he believed they did it because Bela Lougosi was a Hungarian Jew? No!

Long-term Pattern of Bias
Posted on October 3, 2003 at 03:10:06 PM by James Jaeger

>Jim, you are making a serious error. Mel Gibson is NOT a salaried employee of the studio: he's a contracted player represented by an agent!

Mitch, I fully realize that Mel Gibson is not a salaried employee of the studio. Duh. Mr. Gibson is probably either a limited partner or stockholder of Icon Productions, such entity having a contract with a studio, in this case FOX.

You are still missing my point, however readers of these posts will see what I'm saying so there is no necessity to keep arguing with you on this.

The long-term patterns of bias are strong evidence, if not proof, that the studios have been engaged in hiring discrimination for many decades. Any competent court, without conflicts of interest in LA, will see this. Paramount Pictures even saw that the court would see through their bogus cross collateralization schemes were they not to settle with Art Buchwald. Read FATAL SUBTRACTION and weep.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Long-term Pattern of Bias
Posted on October 4, 2003 at 02:55:17 PM by Mitchell Levine

No court anywhere would ever agree that you've presented evidence of long-term hiring discrimination, as you've never produced even a single name of anyone who's ever been discriminated against. A lawsuit would have to have a plaintiff to proceed. Simply noting that there's an ethnic similarity between many in the business proves nothing. If there were not equally qualified non-ethnic candidates - which there haven't been - no "discrimination" has occurred. Hiring someone more qualified - and at the executive level you're discussing, seniority and experience are the primary qualifications - is not tantamount to hiring them solely because of their ethnic identity.

Where are the mid-level Gentile film executives with 20 years of experience in administrating studios or more, and exceptional track records of maximizing revenues that are constantly being passed over despite their substantial qualifications simply for not being Jewish? I won't hold my breath while you come up with an answer. You never have and you never will, simply because you can't.

Also, Cones' research establishes nothing: He used no control group to ensure that his own personal bias didn't enter into it, and didn't even bother to watch many of the films he claimed to be analyzing for such "patterns," relying on printed reviews instead. Also, he doesn't take into account that standards of political correctness changed during the time period in question, and that most of the films he's taking as representative of the eternal "Hollywood" perspective probably couldn't even get made today.

Re(5): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 11:02:48 AM by mg

SHLEPS SAYS: You certainly can't deny someone a bank loan on the basis of race, or refuse to rent them property, but no private industry ever has to buy someone's screenplay, produce and release it for any reason.

RESPONSE: You're losing it, Shleps. In a truly free market place (which you consistently argue for) a bank DOESN'T have to give ANYBODY a loan. It's only aim, in your world view, is making a profit.

Government has leaned on private business -- creating laws -- to diffuse discrimination. If it's acceptable to you in THAT context, then weeding out parallel discrimination should be acceptable to you in Hollywood. Hypocrite.

When a bank refused a loan to a Black based on race, how could you prove it? Same thing in Hollywood. Guys like you keep saying, "No, it's not my bigotry. It's my aim towards profit."

Re(6): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 05:32:29 PM by Mitchell Levine

Banks and movie studios are not the same. Banks are civic institutions that literally create money, the lifeblood of the economy and state, through their operations. Because of that, they must be highly regulated, or society will economically spin out of control. The only thing they sell is economic opportunity, which must be made available to all qualified loanees for society to function. That's why they're taxed as such, despite being profit-making entities.

Movie studios are not public institutions under federal regulation; they are communications media, and therefore fall squarely under freedom of the press. They cannot provide opportunity for all, even just all who wish to have it, because there aren't venues or audiences sufficient to make it economically viable. Therefore, they can call their own shots as to what projects to pursue. If they didn't, it would break not only the Constitutional guarantees, but also the basic tenets of free-market capitalism, which apply to private businesses and not government institutions. While denying anyone opportunity on the basis of race or religion is reprehensible, private investors can't be forced to finance business deals that they don't wish to either.

Re(6): ADL Crucifying Mel?
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 12:35:04 AM by George Shelps


Government has leaned on private business -- creating laws -- to diffuse discrimination. If it's acceptable to you in THAT context, then weeding out parallel discrimination should be acceptable to you in Hollywood. Hypocrite.

No, moron. Your feeble brain its
retention powers are at fault here.

I have repeatedly stated that if any
anti-discrimination laws have been
violated in Hollywood, then action should be taken.

But no effort should be made to enforce
any sort of "diversity" via a quota
system.

News on THE PASSION
Posted on September 20, 2003 at 00:43:07 AM by James Jaeger

http://www.newsmax.com/hottopics/Mel_Gibson_Passion.shtml

Shelps & LevinE Productions
Posted on September 21, 2003 at 11:36:34 PM by James Jaeger

So, Mitchell LevinE, are you a screenwriter? Do you have a propensity for producing?

You know, I would like to believe that everything FIRM says that's negative about the film industry is not true (any longer).

Is there any way to find out?

If you're a writer Mitchell or a would-be producer, maybe there IS a way to find out. Maybe you can get a screenplay or project green-lit? Since George is always complaining that I haven't done any movies lately, why don't you and he write, or acquire, a screenplay that Hollywood WILL greenlight. I'll turn you on to my connections and you can go in there and cut a deal in nothing flat, I'm sure. You could package me in there as a reformed anti-Semitic Nazi director. Wow, what an angle. You and George, in the pitchmeetings, could tell them
that you have argued endlessly at the FIRM site that there has not been one single person kept out of Hollywood because of discrimination and thus you are so happy that this is the standard treatment you will get as well. Surely the executives will throw their arms around you and welcome you into a development/production deal within 15 minutes. At least in a lot less time that than that pure idiot, Jaeger, has been able to get one. Sorry to bring this up, but this is what George keeps implying, that I am: an idiot because I haven't gotten a deal in so long. Well maybe I am, and you and George are just the ones to prove it. So why SHOULDN'T you guys go out there and get a deal?! You can tell them that you have this great script, one much better than anything that Mr. Jaeger could come up with because (he's a idiot) and more importantly because you wrote it. Or you can tell them that you took Mr. Jaeger's STALIN screenplay, which was poorly written, and turned it into pure gold and now you expect to be green-lit by next Tuesday.

Yes, with this script under your belt, you and Shelps have already moved out to Hollywood, the land of equal opportunity, fair unions, a merit system operated by experienced studio management, traditional management teams that welcome new talent no matter what their background -- even reformed Nazis. And there you are at Shelps & LevinE Productions in Century City, taking calls and doing power lunches. Wow! What a team. Watch out studio executives, here they are: Shelps & LevinE, the hot new producer team on the block ready to out-do that mOron, Jaeger, before you can say DONE DEAL. No more worry about when Jaeger will get his next feature financed because Shelps & LevinE are on the job, co-producers, co-operating with the MPAA studio/distributor system. Hey sounds so good, I'll work for you guys. You can yell at me and whip me and beat me if I don't get enough set-ups done each day. And if I come in over-budget, you can take it out of my director's fee or kill my dog, whichever gives you greater satisfaction.

Think of the fame you two would garner. I can see the Hollywood Reporter now: PRODUCERS SHELPS & LEVINe INK REFORMED NAZI-DIRECTOR FOR STALIN'S BACK ROOM.

Then when we're all up there accepting our Oscars, you two for Best Picture and me for Best Director, and John Cones for Best Writer, we can tell everyone at the Academy how misguided we all were back in our FIRM days and how we eroneously thought Hollywood was CONTROLLED by a bunch of liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European Heritage who were trying to keep us out when in fact it was only INFLUENCED all this time. What paranoia. Up on that Oscar stage, we could tell everyone how it took thousands of therapeutic hours for Shelps & LevinE to de-program Cones & Jaeger from the Cult of FIRM and show us the way.

It would be your proudest moment, Hollywood's proudest moment, the MPAA's proudest moment, the ADL's proudest moment . . . and the kiss of death for the FIRM movement, that misguided movement back at the turn of the last millennium.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Shelps & LevinE Productions
Posted on September 22, 2003 at 00:33:06 AM by Mitchell Levine

"Think of the fame you two would garner. I can see the Hollywood Reporter now: PRODUCERS SHELPS & LEVINe INK REFORMED NAZI-DIRECTOR FOR STALIN'S BACK ROOM."

- I'm sorry, Jim: before I can comply with this request, you'll have to reform.

Jewish Nepotism in Hollywood
Posted on September 24, 2003 at 05:23:05 AM by Chaz

From `Mailroom' to the Top Rung
by Amy Klein, Courtesy of The Jewish Journal

http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/leisure/books/?disp_feature=j0vBH8.var

Oh, to be a young American Jew, the son of new immigrants, coming of
age in the '30s, '40s and `50s…With any luck — OK, to be honest,
connections — you landed yourself a low-level job at a movie studio
mailroom, and after putting in years of sucking up, schmoozing,
hustling, schvitzing and scrambling, you ran the agency.

Sifting through the names, "The Mailroom" also reads like a
Jewish "Who's Who in Hollywood," giving evidence to all those who
claim that "Jews run Hollywood."

And they did — in the beginning. But what's the surprise?
Historically, Jews have served as brokers of another sort since the
Middle Ages, when they acted as moneylenders to Christians and
Muslims prohibited from doing so themselves. The 20th century was no
different, as they became talent brokers.

In the beginning, Rensin writes, not being Jewish was a detriment.
Culture and connections played a big part of the game in Hollywood.

"William Morris was very Jewish," Mardigan said in the book. "I'm
not, so I had to learn all the Yiddish stuff and become sort of
baptized in that world. I'm joking about that of course ... but it
was not unimportant to get the culture."

But it wasn't only about connections.

"I hadn't gotten it because he'd been at my bar mitzvah and knew my
family," said Bob Shapiro, who got started in the William Morris
mailroom and later became president of worldwide production at Warner
Bros. (he's currently a producer). "I never forgot the day I started
in the mailroom. [Phil Weltman] had said, `Forget your father, this
is you. You want this? You have to perform.'"

But the Jewish culture was always infulential in the business, even
through the '80s.

"I'd learned that [Michael] Ovitz was about style over content,
appearances were everything," said David "Doc" O'Conner, who began in
CAA mailroom and eventually made managing director and partner at
CAA. "The concept was totally alien to me personally, and Ovitz knew
it. He would give me sh-- that it was the difference between Jews and
gentiles. He would say, `You're the f——— goyim and you don't get it.'
He would make a lot of our cultural differences on a daily basis."

Speaking of Ovitz (who sealed his own coffin last summer by accusing
Hollywood of being run by a "Gay Mafia"), Rensin doesn't believe
there was a Jewish cabal running Hollywood.

"I think that a lot of people in early show business were Jewish and
I think they just sort of drew from their own pool — the neighborhood
kids in the mailroom," Rensin told The Journal at an interview at —
where else? — Cantor's Deli. "I just think they related better."

Although Rensin calls the Jewish saturation of the
business "happenstance," he says that what connected everyone in the
business — both Jews and non-Jews — was "an addiction to ambition."

Rensin believes his dishy insider book is not one about Jews, or even
about Hollywood, but about human ambition applicable to everyone.

"Everybody has to start somewhere ... so it's just a look behind the
scenes at the rich and famous doing very famous things."

Re(1): Jewish Nepotism in Hollywood
Posted on September 24, 2003 at 10:53:31 AM by mg

Amazing article. Judeocentrism in Hollywood laid bare (with the obligatory Jewish apologetics). Still incredibly indicting.

Great post. All readers, make sure you go to the original link and read the entire article.

And Renin's book looks like a must read to see how all the self-described Jewish "hustlers" clawed up the Jewish ladder to the pinnacles of Hollywood.

Re(2): Jewish Nepotism in Hollywood
Posted on September 24, 2003 at 12:44:56 AM by James Jaeger

Thanks for this post. I will check out the book.

James Jaeger

FIRM Reform Movement
Posted on September 25, 2003 at 09:24:28 AM by George Shelps

Let me conclude my participation on this board by saying that I support the
general goal of reforming movie
industry business and hidebound ways
of making and distributing movies.

But I believe that FIRM must delete
the issues of religion, religion,
and politics from its paradigm and dispense with the idea of spotlighting
and attacking a "control group."

The fact that FIRM attracts a rabid
Jew-hater like "Jim Jenks" points to
the danger of using this paradigm.

Simply concentrate on spotlighting

Bill Maher Brands Mel Gibson Anti-Semitic
Posted on September 25, 2003 at 10:20:21 AM by More Mel Gibson/ADL

http://www.catholicleague.org/03press_releases/quarter3/030924_maher.htm

BILL MAHER BRANDS MEL GIBSON ANTI-SEMITIC, Catholic League for Religous and Civil Liberties, September 23, 2003

"I do think Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic." According to NewsMax,
this is what comedian Bill Maher told radio talk-show host Don Imus today. Responding is Catholic League president William Donohue:

"The character assassins will not stop trying to malign Mel Gibson. Not that Bill Maher is any stranger to the subject of bigotry—in recent years he has consistently been listed in the Catholic League’s Annual Report on Anti-Catholicism. Indeed, we have criticized him so many times for his Catholic bashing that just two months ago Maher—in a rare display of Catholic guilt (he is half Catholic, half Jewish)—confessed to Larry King, ‘The Catholic League has condemned me as an anti-Catholic bigot. I am not an anti-Catholic bigot.’ Who’s he trying to convince?

"The crusade against Gibson is immoral and Christians are increasingly
losing patience with it. For the last quarter century, virtually every movie out of Hollywood that has depicted Christians has sought to malign
them; the movies that Catholics have had to endure are particularly
obnoxious. Finally, along comes a film that all Christians can be justly
proud of, ‘The Passion,’ and wham—we’re told we’re the bigots.

"Take Abe Foxman of the ADL, for example. When he was recently interviewed for a story in The New Yorker, he was asked if Mel Gibson is
anti-Semitic and he said no. Then last Thursday it was reported in the Jewish Week that Foxman branded recent remarks by Gibson as painting ‘the portrait of an anti-Semite.’ We immediately accused Foxman of seeking to poison Catholic-Jewish relations by labeling
Gibson (and by extension all those who love his movie) anti-Semitic.
Then Rachel Zoll of AP asked Foxman to comment on his charge against Gibson: he said, ‘I’m not ready to say he’s an anti-Semite.’ So what changed?

"Foxman can dance all he wants but the damage he has done is real. As for Bill Maher, his own deep-seated bigotry
against Catholics gives him no moral authority to call anyone a bigot."

Following the Truth
Posted on September 30, 2003 at 04:22:50 PM by John Cones

Following the Truth

There have been a few of FIRM’s critics who have chosen to post here at the FIRM Discussion Forum from time to time and to take the rather unreasonable position that in some circumstances it is best not to state the truth. The particular circumstance in this instance is that in the minds’ of some, at least one group within our multi-cultural society is privileged and its members’ activities should not be subject to ordinary criticism. More specifically, the research on which FIRM is based confirmed among other things that Hollywood is controlled (or dominated, if you prefer) by a small, narrowly-defined group whose members tend to share a common religious, ethnic and/or cultural background, and whose members for more than 100 years (i.e., four generations) have tended to occupy most of the positions in the Hollywood-based film industry that have green-light authority with respect to which movies will be produced and released by the Hollywood major-studio distributors, and therefore seen by most movie-goers worldwide. Even though most reasonably intelligent people who have worked in the film industry for any length of time recognize this to be the truth, these well-meaning people posting at FIRM think that it is a mistake to openly talk about this well-known fact. They don’t necessarily question the facts, as set out here at the FIRM site, but try to deflect attention from those facts by questioning our motives. On the other hand, our motives are quite clear: we feel that an important communications industry like feature film, existing in a multi-cultural, democratic society based on the assumption that a free-marketplace of ideas will generally help us make the best choices for that society, should not be dominated and/or controlled by any particular narrowly defined group, and that power in such an industry should be widely dispersed amongst a diverse population. Further, we feel that since movies tend, to a large extent, mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers (or those with the power to choose which movies will get made) this powerful communications medium should reflect more diverse points of view. We think this would be healthy for our free marketplace of ideas and our democracy. And, we feel that openly discussing the dominance of this medium by any particular group is not only honest, but a healthy exercise (i.e., the first step toward reform). Those who would rather we hide behind a mask of secrecy and dishonesty, simply have it all wrong.

John Cones

Re(1): Following the Truth
Posted on September 30, 2003 at 07:46:32 PM by Mitchell Levine

No one's saying you should "hide behind secrecy or dishonesty," or that there's anything necessarily wrong with your assertion that it's preferable for Hollywood or any other institution to be administrated by diverse groups, or noting that many Hollywood executives share a common background (and sexuality) - or, at least, I'M not.

It's the conclusions you draw from those facts which are disputed. For example, your description of the business as being "dominated" by Jews - a phrase used in the Nuremburg Laws, by the way - implies that Jews are unfairly "controlling" and excluding others - which you've never been able to demonstrate in one single case. From the available evidence, it's perfectly plausible to conclude that historical causes underlie the prominence of Jews in the industry. It's only pretty recently that a significant number of non-Jews wanted to enter the business at all. You really can't snub a business as "illegitimate" for decades, and then complain that you don't control it.

When there's sufficient numbers of Gentile executives with qualifying seniority and experience to be presidents, chairmen, and CEOs, there'll be more Gentile presidents, chairmen, and CEOs. No board of directors would ever hire someone without those qualifications to run their company, and you certainly can't expect them to hire someone less qualified JUST because they're Gentile. Affirmative Action applies to entry-level positions, not top leadership. They don't hire Jews without qualifications for top positions either.

Also, your theory that films primarily reflect the interests of their makers is bogus; all the available evidence indicates that films primarily reflect what the audience is (or is believed to be) interested in seeing. Most of the time, what their makers' interests are is secondary, except for their interest in selling tickets.

Re(2): Following the Truth
Posted on October 2, 2003 at 11:06:01 PM by James Jaeger

>. . . all the available evidence indicates that films primarily reflect what the audience is (or is believed to be) interested in seeing.


Mitchell,

Not all at all. Are you familiar with the work of Ted Baehr? He has compiled quite a lot of evidence that indicates your statement -- "all the available evidence indicates that films primarily reflect what the audience is (or is believed to be) interested in seeing" --is simply false.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Following the Truth
Posted on October 3, 2003 at 11:38:08 AM by Mitchell Levine

Then let Ted Baehr explain the extensive proliferation of data mining, approval indicing, audience testing, and other forms of sampling and marketing research used at every level of the business to determine what gets purchased, produced, released and promoted.

For example, even as a script reader in development, the forms I would have to submit had fields in them for the executives in development to add statistical data and various types of indices.

Although decisions are sometimes made in spite of them, it's rare. They also determine what types of programming appears on television, what kinds of people host talk shows, the endings and character types in films (and sit-coms and even commercials) and much more.

If Mr. Baehr hasn't taken that into account, then his conclusions are simply mistaken.

Re(4): Following the Truth
Posted on October 3, 2003 at 02:11:16 PM by James Jaeger

Ted Baehr's research indicates that, dispite the fact that family-oriented films make more money, the studios insist on putting out R-rated material that often expresses political points of view that are held dear to the studio top-brass.

I will have the opportunity to see Ted this coming Tuesday. If I can, I will show him your posts and ask him to provide me with some exact references to his research.

James Jaeger

King of Unsupported Statements
Posted on October 5, 2003 at 12:05:01 AM by John Cones

The King of Unsupported Statements

It appears that the individual who often accuses others of making unsupported statements is actually the "king" of such activity. First, he fails to recognize that the FIRM positions posted at this site are supported by several years of research, based on 100s of published sources (books, lawsuits and articles) and that these sources are commonly cited and the sources are listed in an extensive bibliography. On the other hand, no such research is cited by this Hollywood apologist and no bibliography is provided. Thus, to the extent that there is any evidence to support the statements of either side of the question, the only party to this discussion who has the weight of evidence on its side is the FIRM position.

For example, let’s look at some of the Hollywood apologist statements that are unsupported by evidence:

1. " . . . it’s perfectly plausible to conclude that historical causes underlie the prominence of Jews in the industry." There is no such thing as an "historical cause" in a competitive struggle that occurred some 100 years ago and which involved illegal activity on both sides, that originally resulted in the dominance of the U.S. film industry by persons who share a similar background. And to continue that myth into the current period defies logic. It is virtually impossible for four generations of control and/or dominance of a single industry by a narrowly-defined religious, ethnic and/or cultural group without some discrimination having occurred. That’s the FIRM position. It is supported by 2,500 pages of documentation, excerpts of which are posted at the FIRM site. If anyone wants to challenge that statement and the evidence that supports it, show us your studies, show us your sources, show us your evidence.

2. " . . . all the available evidence indicates that films primarily reflect what the audience is (or is believed to be) interested in seeing." This is such nonsense, that it is unbelievable on its face. This is also the typical Hollywood line. We’ve been seeing this same statement repeated time and again from various Hollywood apologists who contribute to this discussion from time to time. They all seem to be reading from the same Hollywood establishment "talking points". Of course, when anyone starts off their statement with "all the available evidence" we know immediately that they are not interested in the truth, but such a statement cannot be defended as true. In addition, this particular Hollywood apologist, simply makes this ludicrous statement claiming to have seen or be aware of "all the available evidence" without disclosing any of that evidence, without telling us how he came upon such evidence, whether anyone has actually conducted a study of this purported evidence. In other words, "all this evidence" exists in his active imagination. Furthermore, the two entire books of evidence of the patterns of bias in Hollywood motion pictures "Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content" and "Motion Picture Biographies–The Hollywood Spin on Historical Figures" represent the most exhaustive study of such evidence to date. Other independent studies relating to the consistent negative or stereotypical portrayals of Arab/Muslims in Hollywood movies and the consistent negative or stereotypical portrayals of Christians in Hollywood movies have also been cited previously at this discussion forum. Where are the studies and the evidence to show that those studies are incorrect? They don’t’ exist. Thus, to claim that "all the evidence indicates" anything is not credible, as well as absurd.


3. Note again, the Hollywood apologist attempt to somehow cast doubts on our motives by equating FIRM statements about who controls Hollywood with "a phrase used in the "Nuremburg Laws." In other words, now that such Hollywood apologists have backed off the false accusation of anti-Semitism, they still think it is appropriate to try to make some sort of connection between language used in these pre-World War II German activities and the phraseology used at FIRM, even though these Hollywood apologists continue to dishonestly represent FIRM statements. In other words, no one at FIRM has ever said Hollywood is "dominated by Jews" and the reason is clear. We have always wanted to be certain that anyone who read the FIRM statements understood that we were not talking about Jews generally. That has been consistent and clear in our writing from day one. But, in order for the Hollywood apologists to make an issue of our motives, they must revise our statements to make them seem to apply to Jews generally, or at least, leave open the possibility. That is nothing more than blatant dishonesty on the part of such Hollywood apologists and it is another of the consistent argumentative tactics employed by one Hollywood apologist after another over the years – another sign that they are reading from the same Hollywood establishment "talking points".

P.S. The word is spelled "Nuremberg" not "Nuremburg".

John Cones

Re(1): King of Unsupported Statements
Posted on October 5, 2003 at 02:37:43 PM by Mitchell Levine

The King of Unsupported Statements

- That's a compliment coming from the King of Unsupportable Statements.

It appears that the individual who often accuses others of making unsupported statements is actually the "king" of such activity. First, he fails to recognize that the FIRM positions posted at this site are supported by several years of research, based on 100s of published sources (books, lawsuits and articles) and that these sources are commonly cited and the sources are listed in an extensive bibliography. On the other hand, no such research is cited by this Hollywood apologist

- I'm not a "Hollywood apologist." For example, a Hollwood apologist wouldn't want to motivate you to concentrate on the financial abuses and illegal practices you describe as being the foundation of Hollywood's purported stranglehold on our communications media. If anything, they would much prefer you focus on the Jewish thing, as it's much less likely to ever be the basis of a successful challenge to their authority.

It's quite possible if you did make that your emphasis, you could actually achieve reforms in this area which would lead to greater de facto diversity in the industry as well - a positive thing for everyone concerned, possibly even the studios.

and no bibliography is provided. Thus, to the extent that there is any evidence to support the statements of either side of the question, the only party to this discussion who has the weight of evidence on its side is the FIRM position.

- That's silly: You don't have any area on your site for me to post a bibliography, and I'm not a competing researcher: I'm simply a critic of your "theories." It's rather ridiculous of you to suppose that only people with thousands of pages of references to documented sources have any business commenting on them; If that were true, you certainly wouldn't bother to host a forum - unless you were only doing so to confront those that agree with you.

For example, let’s look at some of the Hollywood apologist statements that are unsupported by evidence:

1. " . . . it’s perfectly plausible to conclude that historical causes underlie the prominence of Jews in the industry." There is no such thing as an "historical cause" in a competitive struggle that occurred some 100 years ago and which involved illegal activity on both sides, that originally resulted in the dominance of the U.S. film industry by persons who share a similar background.

- That's inane, John: that "competitive struggle" IS a historical cause, the immediate one! The underlying cause was the denial of opportunity to Jews in most other economic areas because of discrimination, making emergent communications technologies a rare area of potential.

And to continue that myth into the current period defies logic. It is virtually impossible for four generations of control and/or dominance of a single industry by a narrowly-defined religious, ethnic and/or cultural group without some discrimination having occurred.

- Untrue: discrimination occurs when someone is denied entry into the business based only on ethnicity or other nonessential qualities. Gentiles historically snubbed Hollywood because Old Money considered it an "illegitimate" industry. There wasn't anyone to discriminate against, because virtually no one else was interested in entering the business. Those that wished to and had ability did, like Chaplin, Orson Welles, Von Stroheim, Cecil B. DeMille and so on.

It certainly is possible for an ethnic group to gain prominence in a particular field for reasons other than systematic "discrimination" against other groups, unless you're suggesting that the Greeks "dominate" the diner industry or that African-Americans "dominate" the NBA.

By your own admission, you're only discussing THE highest levels of management at the studios, and the primary qualification for those positions is experience and seniority. The people with the most seniority and experience have been Jewish because non-Jews snubbed the business. You really can't refuse to acknowledge a business for decades and then bitch incessantly because you don't control it.

Your claims of "discrimination" will be coherent if and only if you provide the world with the name of one single individual that's ever been "discriminated" against by Hollywood for being non-Jewish and prevented thereby from having a career. Of course, you never have, despite repeated requests, and you never will, simply because you can't. When buttonholed about this simple fact, you typically reply that it's not your job as a "researcher," that you don't have sufficient time or money to do so, that you don't have subpeona power, etc.

That’s the FIRM position. It is supported by 2,500 pages of documentation, excerpts of which are posted at the FIRM site.

If anyone wants to challenge that statement and the evidence that supports it, show us your studies, show us your sources, show us your evidence.

- My evidence is that your positions are illogical and that no quantity of references to documentation can overcome flagrant errors in reasoning, disingenuous or not. For example, you say that, even if Hollywood isn't breaking any current laws, the laws will need to be changed. Then you claim to be against quotas, and you refuse to explain the contradiction.

2. " . . . all the available evidence indicates that films primarily reflect what the audience is (or is believed to be) interested in seeing." This is such nonsense, that it is unbelievable on its face.

- You're right, John! it's absolutely unbelievable that Hollywood executives make what their audience desires to buy tickets to see their primary criterion to decide what to produce! That's why they employ Arbitron, Trendex, Faith Popcorn, etc., and use focus groups and audience testing to generate a million indices, ratings, distributions, and skews to determine just about every facet of development, production, release and promotion in film, radio, television, record promotion, and advertising. Good thinking!


This is also the typical Hollywood line. We’ve been seeing this same statement repeated time and again from various Hollywood apologists who contribute to this discussion from time to time. They all seem to be reading from the same Hollywood establishment "talking points". Of course, when anyone starts off their statement with "all the available evidence" we know immediately that they are not interested in the truth,

- I'm very interested in the truth; I just don't believe that you've presented an accurate representation of it. For example, I'm very interested in your exposition of the various predatory anticompetitive financial practices you claim Hollywood regularly engages in. I'd back you one hundred percent if you wanted to make lobbying against them your primary aim. You could actually accomplish something, although it obviously wouldn't be good for your career. That's probably the real reason you won't focus on them: it's easier to find antisemitic clients than it is ones willing to take on the studios' distribution schemata.

but such a statement cannot be defended as true. In addition, this particular Hollywood apologist, simply makes this ludicrous statement claiming to have seen or be aware of "all the available evidence"

- It's easy to find evidence that decisions are made in Hollywood on the basis of marketing research and statistics: Just open any copy of Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. If you want evidence that studio executives care primarily about money, all you really have to do is meet one, which, of course, you have, most likely.

without disclosing any of that evidence, without telling us how he came upon such evidence, whether anyone has actually conducted a study of this purported evidence. In other words, "all this evidence" exists in his active imagination.

- No, all of this evidence exists in any copy of the trades, or book on contemporary Hollywood. They all indicate that, as is the case with most modern corporate entities, what they care about is maximizing profits, not advancing any politico-ethnic agenda. The only people who even attempt to deny reality by dissenting are usually obsessed with advancing their own "agenda."

Furthermore, the two entire books of evidence of the patterns of bias in Hollywood motion pictures "Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content" and "Motion Picture Biographies–The Hollywood Spin on Historical Figures" represent the most exhaustive study of such evidence to date. Other independent studies relating to the consistent negative or stereotypical portrayals of Arab/Muslims in Hollywood movies and the consistent negative or stereotypical portrayals of Christians in Hollywood movies have also been cited previously at this discussion forum. Where are the studies and the evidence to show that those studies are incorrect?

- Any introductory text on experimental design, which you clearly didn't consult while planning your "study." If you had, you would have understood the importance of things like representative samples, statistical controls, and, of course, actually evaluating your evidence, instead of reading someone else's review of it and drawing conclusions from that second-hand, particularly when those reviews were not created with that purpose in mind.


They don’t’ exist. Thus, to claim that "all the evidence indicates" anything is not credible, as well as absurd.


3. Note again, the Hollywood apologist attempt to somehow cast doubts on our motives by equating FIRM statements about who controls Hollywood with "a phrase used in the "Nuremburg Laws." In other words, now that such Hollywood apologists have backed off the false accusation of anti-Semitism, they still think it is appropriate to try to make some sort of connection between language used in these pre-World War II German activities and the phraseology used at FIRM

- You're suggesting it's just a COINCIDENCE you decided to employ that terminology??? You placed it in QUOTES!!! Whom exactly were you quoting?


even though these Hollywood apologists continue to dishonestly represent FIRM statements. In other words, no one at FIRM has ever said Hollywood is "dominated by Jews" and the reason is clear.

- You specifically stated that the industry was "dominated" by a control group of individuals with a similar ethnicity - and that ethnicity was "Jewish." Perhaps you'd care to explain the difference?

Of course, I understand there's a difference between saying that the people who "dominate" an industry are Jewish, and saying that "the Jews" dominate the industry - but you blur this distinction all the time when it suits your rhetorical purposes.


We have always wanted to be certain that anyone who read the FIRM statements understood that we were not talking about Jews generally.

- I'm not implying that you are: I understand that you're not Jenks. However, some of your supporting claims do seem to rely on appeals to stereotypes; for example, your belief that people of the same ethnicity will make loyalty to that "tribe" a stronger consideration than anything else, including laws and ethics.

That has been consistent and clear in our writing from day one. But, in order for the Hollywood apologists to make an issue of our motives

- I'm not making an issue of your motives or character, I'm making one of your arguments. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to understand the distinction.

, they must revise our statements to make them seem to apply to Jews generally, or at least, leave open the possibility.

- You don't make them apply to Jews generally - for that I give you credit - but you certainly do leave open the possiblity.

That is nothing more than blatant dishonesty on the part of such Hollywood apologists and it is another of the consistent argumentative tactics employed by one Hollywood apologist after another over the years – another sign that they are reading from the same Hollywood establishment "talking points".

- And you say that you reject conspiracy theories???

P.S. The word is spelled "Nuremberg" not "Nuremburg".

- I'm sorry, John: I keep forgetting you chaired the defense counsel.

Re(2): King of Unsupported Statements
Posted on October 6, 2003 at 05:03:10 PM by James Jaeger

You know Mitchell,

I can't believe you can say that there is no bias in Hollywood films. How can you deny that so many films make Arabs the bad guys? How can you deny that so much more often Christians are portrayed in a negative light than Jews?

Do you even watch movies?

James Jaeger

Re(3): King of Unsupported Statements
Posted on October 6, 2003 at 06:04:28 PM by Mitchell Levine

I never said there was no "bias." My only claim is that the "biases" of the media tend to reflect, for better or (usually) worse, the biases of the ticketbuying public. If you read any of the books on the late night wars, or the birth of Saturday Night Live, you'd know that NBC felt very strongly that Johnny Carson had to be replaced by a Gentile comedian. The assumption was that television, being a mass medium, would reflect America's mass prejudices.

How do you explain the many films which have portrayed Jews in a bad light, such as Batman Returns, Die Hard, Family Business, They Live, Deep Cover (which features a Jewish narcotics dealer), A Stranger Among Us, etc.? Fox network television shows in the early to mid 90's displayed many anti-Jewish stereotypes, a story which has never been told, and I suspect won't be.

For every film you claim portrays Christians in a negative light, I could point to a hundred that portray them in a positive light. When, for example, did you ever see a Jewish cowboy in a Western? All those quintessential heroes were portrayed as Gentile - unless you really believe the Lone Ranger celebrated Pesach. The very first Jewish heroes were film comedians, a phenomenon that didn't happen until well into the game.

Films making Arabs the "bad guys" right now might have something to do with 9/11 and the fact that we're currently at war with an Arab nation.

Bad Guys tend to be drawn from populations the majority of Americans perceive as "enemies." During the Cold War, they were typically Russians; at an earlier time, they were often sinister "Chinamen." This was around the period of time that sportswriters claimed that Jews dominated professional basketball because of their innate "craftiness."

How Massive Influence Works
Posted on October 7, 2003 at 07:03:29 PM by James Jaeger

>I never said there was no "bias." My only claim is that the "biases" of the media tend to reflect, for better or (usually) worse, the biases of the ticketbuying public.

I recognize that movies are targeted to certain demographics and that often this is the case. This is one of the "current-frequency" curves, if you will, but superimposed over this curve is a more basic "long-term" curve that reflects the interests of movies makers.

For example, every director in the movie business knows that he or she will have to do the "commercial" pictures until s/he is granted the okay to finally make a picture that is from the heart. This is the movie that reflects its maker, the one John Cones speaks about. Directors have to work hard to get this privilege, i.e., the money to make their pet project. Steven Spielberg worked hard and got to make SHINDLER'S LIST, Mel Gibson worked hard and is doing it with THE PASSION (although the former received studio backing, while Gibson has had to use his own money).

Now imagine you already HAVE the money to make any project you want. Not only that, you have the money to make a whole slate of 15 movies. Yes, you're a green-lighting studio executive who's politically liberal, not-very-religious, white and Jewish and you're hot to make money for your company (perhaps 10 movies), but you're also hot to change the world for what you perceive as better (5 movies). So you allocate your $500 million annual corporate production budget to 10 films that will make money (the ones you are talking about that are targeted towards the markets) and 5 films that will reflect your (and your inner circle's) interests (perhaps one on gun control, one on getting rid of the death penalty, one to again remind everyone about Jews who died in the Holocaust, one on how much we need to keep sending money to Israel and the last one about the merits of abortion). Now, you as a studio executive, have a) done your duty to your stockholders so you can keep your job and b) you have moved your, and your cronies/tribe's political agenda forward a little.

Multiply this activity in one of the MPAA studios by the same sort of activity in the other 7 MPAA studios and you have the total picture of what's going on: massive influence over the most powerful communications channel, hence the minds of men and women everywhere, by a narrowly defined group over the long-term.

It's that simple, Mitch.

James Jaeger

Re(1): How Massive Influence Works
Posted on October 8, 2003 at 00:50:41 AM by Mitchell Levine

So you allocate your $500 million annual corporate production budget to 10 films that will make money (the ones you are talking about that are targeted towards the markets) and 5 films that will reflect your (and your inner circle's) interests (perhaps one on gun control, one on getting rid of the death penalty, one to again remind everyone about Jews who died in the Holocaust, one on how much we need to keep sending money to Israel and the last one about the merits of abortion).


- By the way, since you don't seem to be aware of it, Conservative (and unfortunately even many Reformed) Jews quite typically support the death penalty, and often very enthusiastically advocate it.

For example, it's a very common punishment proscribed in the Torah for a variety of (what were then considered) offenses.

Re(1): How Massive Influence Works
Posted on October 7, 2003 at 09:30:56 PM by Mitchell Levine

Jim, what gets typically gets films greenlighted is high ratings on the indices used by development execs in their focus groups and audience testing.

The reason why movies about the Holocaust keep getting made is that people keep wanting to buy tickets to see them, as is reflected in the box office results of movies like Schindler's List and The Piano.

As much as it seems to irk you, typical movie-goers continue to be fascinated by this historical event, and demonstrate this by continuing to buy tickets to see films concerning it. Please don't say that's because the "control group" brainwashes them to think that, as: a) lots of Holocaust movies are unsuccessful, and b) the same marketing muscle is applied to lots of other films that are unsuccessful. The fact is people just find the story of the Holocaust compelling, either positively, because it represents a quintessential evocation of archetypal evil to them, or negatively, because they're trying to make their minds up as to whether it happened at all, thanks to a bunch of maniacal bigots. If this isn't so, then please explain the existence of Hogan's Heroes, the only show in history to offend both American Jews and American Nazis.

That film executives don't really care about whether or not their products make the world a better place should be evident from the products they turn out.

Exactly why making a movie highlighting the issue of the immorality of the death penalty would be seen as a negative thing by you, I don't know - particularly since many pro-death penalty films appear to get released all the time. And the last movie produced that even remotely hinted at some putative need to give money to Israel - if there's ever been one - was Black Sunday, and that was almost thirty years ago.

By the way, I thought we were only discussing the two dozen top executives in the business, which is the only tier you've ever provided any evidence for as being disporportionately Jewish. That group doesn't usually get its hands dirty greenlighting films personally; they usually leave that to VPs.

Also, the five films you discuss that supposedly aren't being made "to make money," wouldn't usually be electives expressing those execs' personal interests: they'd primarily be vanity projects for their biggest A-list stars, like Sarafina!, Ghosts of Mississippi, and so on, that haven't necessarily demonstrated any exceptional tendency towards "Jewishness" historically at all. Other than that, no film ever gets released unless the studio in question believes it has the potential for being a hit.

And if the "control group" really had the kind of "massive influence over the minds of men and women everywhere" that you purport, there'd be a lot more blockbuster films, and a lot less high-profile, expensive bombs, like, for example, most of the ones last summer, such as The Hulk and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. Even the damn T3 movie didn't do anywhere near what they'd hoped (and projected) it would.

How you could ever spout such complete nonsense AND say with a straight face that you don't promote paranoid conspiracy theories is mind-boggling.

It's that simple, Jim.

Re(2): How Massive Influence Works
Posted on October 8, 2003 at 09:07:27 PM by James Jaeger

Mitch,

The examples I used have no relevance to my personal views. I happen to agree with almost all of Hollywood's propaganda films. I am against the death penalty, feel women should have the right to choose and I love Holocaust films (for the first reason you give).

The fact of the matter is this: it doesn't matter what I like or you like, or what the top executives like -- all groups should be able to tell their stories -- even people that prefer the death penalty, think Hitler was the greatest and love killing babies before they are born.

The top rung of executives make the final decisions, not the VPs. The VPs propose and the top executives dispose, thus they can cut any film that does not support Israel, for instance.

James Jaeger

Re(3): How Massive Influence Works
Posted on October 8, 2003 at 10:11:11 PM by Mitchell Levine

Every group does have the right to tell their own stories - just not necessarily as movies. No one, group or individual, has the right to either make movies or have movies made that express their views. Why? Because it's impossible.

It's absolutely impossible for every group - supposing that we even know how to define that term to begin with - to be entitled to make motion pictures that could be exhibited through major distribution channels. There isn't capital nor audiences to support it. In fact, even communist and socialist countries don't and can't do this. It would imply that all 285 million people in the country, and every permutation of those that consider themselves a credible "group," have the right to have their movies made. For example, does NAMBLA have the "right" to tell the story of their courageous efforts to "empower and liberate young people?" If you can amass capital and resources, you can make a film. Otherwise, no one has to hand you $100 million so you can bio-pic Stalin.

The whole concept is ridiculous and based on your continued misperception of the meaning of the 1st Amendment; i.e., that it's a right to be heard, and not just to speak.

In any capitalist country, films will get made that people with capital believe will provide a return on their investment. To suggest that the entertainment industry is the one venue that must be communized, as opposed to classic American principles as per the Constitution, simply because many in the business are Jewish, is anti-American. The freedom of the press is also part of the 1st Amendment.

By the way, the last "pro-Israel" movie I can think of was either Black Sunday or Raid on Entebbe, both about 25 years old. And even those two weren't that pro-Israeli: Black Sunday made the Lebanese terrorists somewhat sympathetic and allowed them the opportunity to argue their position on-screen, and depicted the Mossad agent that eventually saved the day as despicable to some degree, an arrogant torturer. Raid on Entebbe also took some care to humanize its antagonists.

Whom gets selected to represent the role of "bad guy" evolves as the public does. For example, the most prominent film terrorists of recent years haven't been Arabs, but South Americans, as in Collateral Damage, Proof of Life, and The Jackal.

There've been a few exceptions like Executive Decision, but, post-9/11, it's been our neighbors below that have gotten stuck with the bill.

By the way, development execs propose; most films get made by VPs, although they certainly can be overruled by higher-ups (as well as canceled); and most top executives worry about their investor relations.

Re(4): How Massive Influence Works
Posted on October 9, 2003 at 02:13:22 PM by James Jaeger

>Every group does have the right to tell their own stories - just not necessarily as movies. No one, group or individual, has the right to either make movies or have movies made that express their views. Why? Because it's impossible.

No this is incorrect. Rights are not based upon possibilities or impossibilities -- they're based on what's perceived by a majority of people as being universally, or axiomatically, right or wrong. Period. I may have just fallen into a pit of boiling lava -- so it's impossible for me to live -- but I still retain my RIGHT to live.

>It's absolutely impossible for every group - supposing that we even know how to define that term to begin with - to be entitled to make motion pictures that could be exhibited through major distribution channels. There isn't capital nor audiences to support it. In fact, even communist and socialist countries don't and can't do this. It would imply that all 285 million people in the country, and every permutation of those that consider themselves a credible "group," have the right to have their movies made.

You know Mitch you're a master at generalization ad absurdum argument. You take a perfectly reasonable statement, generalize the shit out of it and then maintain that the original point is invalid because the generalization is invalid. Please.

Of course it's impossible for EVERY SINGLE person and molecule on the Earth, and in the Universe and all other universes, to make 100 movies and all get them distributed. Thanks for pointing this out Mitch. All we're saying at FIRM is the people that allocate the money for movies are almost ALL THE SAME -- thus they are going to have a propensity to EXCLUDE movies that reflect the interests of a diverse demographic at least a significant amount of the time. Case in point at (1)

>In any capitalist country, films will get made that people with capital believe will provide a return on their investment. To suggest that the entertainment industry is the one venue that must be communized, as opposed to classic American principles as per the Constitution, simply because many in the business are Jewish, is anti-American.

It's obviously not because they are JUST Jewish. It's because they have five (5) other demographic characteristics in addition to being Jewish that are all identical for as many as 70% of the top three (3) positions of the seven (7) MPAA studio/distributors. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist.htm

James Jaeger


----------------
(1) ASK a British television executive about Haim Saban and his face will typically assume an expression of disdain, mixed with fear. Mr Saban, an American-Israeli Jew born in Egypt, bought ProSiebenSat.1, Germany's largest privately-owned television network, this summer. No foreigner has ever before owned such an important media outlet in Germany. Now Mr Saban is eyeing up ITV, Britain's biggest commercial-TV network. Next week the government is due to say whether it will allow ITV's two main firms, Carlton and Granada, to merge. If, as expected, the merger is given the green light, Mr Saban may join a list of foreign bidders eager to gobble up both firms.

He has already created headaches for himself, however. At a broadcasting-industry conference last month in Cambridge, he not only expressed interest in acquiring ITV, but then went on to accuse the BBC and Sky News, a British satellite-channel owned by Rupert Murdoch, of putting out biased, overly pro-Arab coverage of the Middle East. Alarm bells rang. British media law requires that TV news be impartial and not influenced by the political beliefs of a proprietor. When pressed, Mr Saban said that, if he were the owner of ITV, he would not interfere with how journalists cover the news. But it was too late. His audience was left with the impression that this was "a man motivated by editorial concerns, not a businessman," as one broadcasting executive put it. Officials at Ofcom, Britain's new media regulator, were amazed by what one called his "pig-ignorant" behaviour. They would have the power to stop him buying ITV.

Source:
http://economist.com/people/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2101163

Re(5): How Massive Influence Works
Posted on October 9, 2003 at 03:04:16 PM by Mitchell Levine



No this is incorrect. Rights are not based upon possibilities or impossibilities -- they're based on what's perceived by a majority of people as being universally, or axiomatically, right or wrong. Period.

- No, they're based on what the Constitution says they are. Period. What the majority of people think is irrelevant: Like Mr Wendell Holmes said, "it's a nation of laws, not a nation of men (and women)," and that law is the Bill of Rights.

If the majority of people wanted to revoke freedom of religion, they still would have no right to do so, because the Constitution says otherwise. One of those rights is not the right to have films produced.

I may have just fallen into a pit of boiling lava -- so it's impossible for me to live -- but I still retain my RIGHT to live.

- That's a silly, irrelevant example. "The right to live" is not established as a civil right, nor does it depend, as you claim, on what the majority of people think.

>It's absolutely impossible for every group - supposing that we even know how to define that term to begin with - to be entitled to make motion pictures that could be exhibited through major distribution channels. There isn't capital nor audiences to support it. In fact, even communist and socialist countries don't and can't do this. It would imply that all 285 million people in the country, and every permutation of those that consider themselves a credible "group," have the right to have their movies made.

You know Mitch you're a master at generalization ad absurdum argument. You take a perfectly reasonable statement, generalize the shit out of it and then maintain that the original point is invalid because the generalization is invalid. Please.

- I'm sorry: that is the implication of your argument. Ethnic groups do not have a Constitutionally established right to have films made that express their ethnic viewpoint. Filmmakers, however, do have a right not to be prosecuted for presenting movies that do express their ethnic viewpoint, which is why Mel Gibson cannot be charged with any crime in the United States.

Of course it's impossible for EVERY SINGLE person and molecule on the Earth, and in the Universe and all other universes, to make 100 movies and all get them distributed. Thanks for pointing this out Mitch.

- You're welcome. I hope it's the last time I have to - but I doubt it.

All we're saying at FIRM is the people that allocate the money for movies are almost ALL THE SAME -- thus they are going to have a propensity to EXCLUDE movies that reflect the interests of a diverse demographic at least a significant amount of the time. Case in point at (1)

- Not necessarily: Their decisions are based primarily on what the presumably diverse interests of the diverse group of ticketbuyers are, as is indicated by their total reliance on statistical methods of determining those interests.

It'sr hard to believe, for instance, that the rather elderly and middle-aged execs that hold the proxy are really that interested in seeing movies made by and about all the extreme sports people that keep popping up in movies like XXX and Jackass:the Movie these days. I guarantee you that no one who ever rubber-stamped a CAA invoice to remit ever wanted to buy tickets to see Paulie Shore or Steve-O even at a bargain matinee.

>In any capitalist country, films will get made that people with capital believe will provide a return on their investment. To suggest that the entertainment industry is the one venue that must be communized, as opposed to classic American principles as per the Constitution, simply because many in the business are Jewish, is anti-American.

It's obviously not because they are JUST Jewish. It's because they have five (5) other demographic characteristics in addition to being Jewish that are all identical for as many as 70% of the top three (3) positions of the seven (7) MPAA studio/distributors. See

- I don't see lists of individuals on the site in the business with other characteristics like you have of execs "suspected" of being Jewish. I see people like Jenks posting, and not, say, Andrea Dworkin. Pretty much what you seem to like to talk about is "Jewishness." That's an reliable litmus test. I've never seen you complain about the fact that many of them are gay and Ivy League graduates, for example. You definitely seem to think that their Jewishness is a much more important component of their motivations.

Re(6): How Massive Influence Works
Posted on October 10, 2003 at 06:53:53 PM by James Jaeger

>- No, they're based on what the Constitution says they are. Period. What the majority of people think is irrelevant: Like Mr Wendell Holmes said, "it's a nation of laws, not a nation of men (and women)," and that law is the Bill of Rights.

With that statement Mitch, you prove that you're ignorant of what the Constitution is all about. Since I have three distant relatives who sat on the First Continental Congress that formed this nation, let me straighten you, and all your newly-arrived buddies, out:

Rights are based upon what the WILL OF THE PEOPLE is. The Constitution is based upon what the WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS. The WILL OF THE PEOPLE is senior to the CONSITUTION because the CONSITUTION derives any and all authority FROM the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Your understanding is ass-backwards -- but typical of people who are clueless as to what this nation is all about AND/OR who are not Christian. Since this nation was founded predominantly by Christians, our Constitution and laws reflect, or are based upon Christian doctrine to a significant degree. Of course they are also based upon Roman law as well, but not the "spirit of the law," that's Christian.

When you say stuff like: "it's a nation of laws, not a nation of men (and women)," -- that to me is so pathetic there are almost no words to describe it. It's as if you place LAWS above PEOPLE. This is typical think of the people that like the UN or who don't comprehend this experiment in democracy. I bet you're a supporter of the UN or totalitarian government, or at least you're a collectivist no doubt. Bet you love the UN's so-called Constitution too.

>If the majority of people wanted to revoke freedom of religion, they still would have no right to do so, because the Constitution says otherwise.

FALSE. The Constitution is SUBORDINATE to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. If the People desire to revoke the entire CONSITUTION -- thus the Government established by that document -- tomorrow, that is within their right and ability. The People do not have to get "permission" from the Congress to revoke either the Constitution or the entire government. The government was created by the Constitution and the Constitution was created by the Will of the People. In other words the line of power is as follows:

PEOPLE ----> CONSTITUTION ---> GOVERNMENT

Not: CONSTITUTION ---> PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT

Or:

GOVERNMENT ------> CONSTITUTION -----> PEOPLE.

You seem to miss the entire philosophy of this country's structure. When did you arrive here? One generation ago? 3 generations ago? 5?

>One of those rights is not the right to have films produced.

Your stupid generalization statement again.

>- That's a silly, irrelevant example.

Not at all it right on point.

> "The right to live" is not established as a civil right,

Civil right. You have LAW on the brain. LAW is only a by-product. The right to live is an inalienable right, idiot! Inalienable rights take rank over civil rights and laws because inalienable rights are granted by Supreme Being and civil rights are granted by governments! Human governments are subordinate to the actuality, or philosophic concept, of universality or universal intelligence. Since reality is the AGREED UPON perception of existence, and more people on the planet perceive the existence of a Supreme Being -- THIS is reality -- thus law must descend from this source, not government (a mere, and temporary, sub-set of human endeavor).

>nor does it depend, as you claim, on what the majority of people think.

You show such little respect for people and their desires. Jenks is right, you are ethnocentric to the max.

>- I'm sorry: that is the implication of your argument. Ethnic groups do not have a Constitutionally established right to have films made that express their ethnic viewpoint. Filmmakers, however, do have a right not to be prosecuted for presenting movies that do express their ethnic viewpoint, which is why Mel Gibson cannot be charged with any crime in the United States.

They have a right to NOT have any particular group actively suppress them.

>- You're welcome. I hope it's the last time I have to - but I doubt it.

Sheesh.


>- Not necessarily:...

Yes necessarily.

>...Their decisions are based primarily on what the presumably diverse interests of the diverse group of ticketbuyers are,

False.

>as is indicated by their total reliance on statistical methods of determining those interests.

False.

>It'sr hard to believe, for instance, that the rather elderly and middle-aged execs that hold the proxy are really that interested in seeing movies made by and about all the extreme sports people that keep popping up in movies like XXX and Jackass:the Movie these days. I guarantee you that no one who ever rubber-stamped a CAA invoice to remit ever wanted to buy tickets to see Paulie Shore or Steve-O even at a bargain matinee.

As I said: 10 out of 15 are for money and 5 out of 15 are to maintain the political viewpoint of the controllers. Get it? Of course you do.


>- I don't see lists of individuals on the site in the business with other characteristics like you have of execs "suspected" of being Jewish. I see people like Jenks posting, and not, say, Andrea Dworkin. Pretty much what you seem to like to talk about is "Jewishness."

Pretty much what you like to avoid talking about is how saturated the studio ranks are with liberal Jews and the fact that they basically only hire their buddies.

>That's an reliable litmus test. I've never seen you complain about the fact that many of them are gay and Ivy League graduates, for example.

Or that they all have 2 hands and 1 asshole I suppose. (Of course many of them probably have 2 assholes.)

>You definitely seem to think that their Jewishness is a much more important component of their motivations.

It might be. It probably IS the most powerful component, but then again MALES are a powerful component and the fact that they mostly share the same political slant is also powerful. I would say the nucleus is probably the tribal connections of being Jewish as Ariana Huffington, in her new book, PIGS AT THE TROUGH, says the tribal instinct is the most powerful force for discrimination, not only in the movie biz, but all businesses and with all ethnic groups. Or are Jews immune from tribal instincts?

That you deny all this make you look stupid Mitch. Wise up Dude.

James Jaeger

Re(7): How Massive Influence Works
Posted on October 10, 2003 at 08:56:08 PM by Mitchell Levine

>- No, they're based on what the Constitution says they are. Period. What the majority of people think is irrelevant: Like Mr Wendell Holmes said, "it's a nation of laws, not a nation of men (and women)," and that law is the Bill of Rights.

With that statement Mitch, you prove that you're ignorant of what the Constitution is all about.

- No, what you're about to prove is that you're ignorant of middle-school social studies.

Since I have three distant relatives who sat on the First Continental Congress that formed this nation

- Darwin weeps from beyond the grave.

Rights are based upon what the WILL OF THE PEOPLE is. The Constitution is based upon what the WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS. The WILL OF THE PEOPLE is senior to the CONSITUTION because the CONSITUTION derives any and all authority FROM the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

- No, the law of the land IS the Constitution: If you stayed awake in middle school social studies, you'd know that. People are subject to the Law, not the other way around. If you don't believe me, ask the Supreme Court.

Your understanding is ass-backwards -- but typical of people who are clueless as to what this nation is all about AND/OR who are not Christian.

- George Washington said: "This nation is in no way founded upon the Christian doctrine."

Since this nation was founded predominantly by Christians

- False. Most of the Founding Fathers believed in Freemasonry, and not Christianity.

, our Constitution and laws reflect, or are based upon Christian doctrine to a significant degree.

- See above. The Father of our Country disagrees with you, as does the Constitution.

Of course they are also based upon Roman law as well, but not the "spirit of the law," that's Christian.

- The 1st Amendment begins: "Congress shall establish no religion..."

When you say stuff like: "it's a nation of laws, not a nation of men (and women)," -- that to me is so pathetic there are almost no words to describe it.

- Sorry, but Oliver Wendell Holmes is greater Constitutional authority then you are. That you don't realize that demonstrates the pathetic depths of your ignorance. Why don't you ask Cones to explain it to you sometime?

It's as if you place LAWS above PEOPLE.

- That's exactly what the Constitution does: No one is above the law, and no one is below it.

This is typical think of the people that like the UN or who don't comprehend this experiment in democracy.

- As you've already demonstrated, you have no idea what democracy is.

I bet you're a supporter of the UN or totalitarian government, or at least you're a collectivist no doubt. Bet you love the UN's so-called Constitution too.

- Why it would be bad for diplomats to meet to try to resolve the world's problems through peaceful negotiation, I have no idea, or, for that matter, how a body with no executive authority could possibly be "totalitarian?"

>If the majority of people wanted to revoke freedom of religion, they still would have no right to do so, because the Constitution says otherwise.

FALSE. The Constitution is SUBORDINATE to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

- No, it's not. It's the Law.

If the People desire to revoke the entire CONSITUTION -- thus the Government established by that document -- tomorrow, that is within their right and ability.

- No, they would be committing sedition. Rights are NOT granted by the people. The government runs the country.

The People do not have to get "permission" from the Congress to revoke either the Constitution or the entire government.

- This is simply delusional.

The government was created by the Constitution and the Constitution was created by the Will of the People.

- No, the Constitution was created, and signed, by the Founding Fathers. As was the country. Really, take a G.E.D. civics class; you REALLY need it.

In other words the line of power is as follows:

PEOPLE ----> CONSTITUTION ---> GOVERNMENT

Not: CONSTITUTION ---> PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT

Or:

GOVERNMENT ------> CONSTITUTION -----> PEOPLE.

You seem to miss the entire philosophy of this country's structure.

- You seem to be having a psychotic episode.

When did you arrive here? One generation ago? 3 generations ago? 5?

- Like I said, take a G.E.D. civics course, your incomprehension of matters familiar to 6th graders is truly astonishing.

>One of those rights is not the right to have films produced.

Your stupid generalization statement again.

- It's not stupid: You, very basically, do not seem to be capable of understanding it.

>- That's a silly, irrelevant example.

Not at all it right on point.

> "The right to live" is not established as a civil right,

Civil right. You have LAW on the brain. LAW is only a by-product.

- No, it's not. Break one, and you'll go to prison, where you'll get an entirely new perspective on the concept of "will of the people."

The right to live is an inalienable right, idiot!

- No, idiot - as you mentioned, if you fall into a lava pit, it'll be revoked.

Inalienable rights take rank over civil rights and laws because inalienable rights are granted by Supreme Being and civil rights are granted by governments!

- God doesn't enforce rights; governments do, at least in this world.

Human governments are subordinate to the actuality, or philosophic concept, of universality or universal intelligence. Since reality is the AGREED UPON perception of existence, and more people on the planet perceive the existence of a Supreme Being -- THIS is reality -- thus law must descend from this source, not government (a mere, and temporary, sub-set of human endeavor).

- Wait a few minutes before posting after you clean a stem.


>nor does it depend, as you claim, on what the majority of people think.

You show such little respect for people and their desires. Jenks is right, you are ethnocentric to the max.

- No, if you think this has anything to do with being Jewish, you're a bigot to the max.

>- I'm sorry: that is the implication of your argument. Ethnic groups do not have a Constitutionally established right to have films made that express their ethnic viewpoint. Filmmakers, however, do have a right not to be prosecuted for presenting movies that do express their ethnic viewpoint, which is why Mel Gibson cannot be charged with any crime in the United States.

They have a right to NOT have any particular group actively suppress them.

- Not being able to distribute your movie is NOT a violation of your human rights.

>- You're welcome. I hope it's the last time I have to - but I doubt it.

Sheesh.

- This is the most coherent thing you've said yet.


>...Their decisions are based primarily on what the presumably diverse interests of the diverse group of ticketbuyers are,

False.

- You've never been able to provide the slightest evidence it's false.

>as is indicated by their total reliance on statistical methods of determining those interests.

False.

- The quickest read of any of the trades proves it's true.

>It'sr hard to believe, for instance, that the rather elderly and middle-aged execs that hold the proxy are really that interested in seeing movies made by and about all the extreme sports people that keep popping up in movies like XXX and Jackass:the Movie these days. I guarantee you that no one who ever rubber-stamped a CAA invoice to remit ever wanted to buy tickets to see Paulie Shore or Steve-O even at a bargain matinee.

As I said: 10 out of 15 are for money and 5 out of 15 are to maintain the political viewpoint of the controllers.

- Bullshit. No movie gets made unless someone thinks it'll make money; it's the only ideology they have. That, for example, is why your last picture went direct-to-video

>- I don't see lists of individuals on the site in the business with other characteristics like you have of execs "suspected" of being Jewish. I see people like Jenks posting, and not, say, Andrea Dworkin. Pretty much what you seem to like to talk about is "Jewishness."

Pretty much what you like to avoid talking about is how saturated the studio ranks are with liberal Jews and the fact that they basically only hire their buddies.

- The fact they wouldn't hire you hardly means they only hire their buddies. There's plenty of non-Jewish execs: Just pick up any copy of Variety.

>That's an reliable litmus test. I've never seen you complain about the fact that many of them are gay and Ivy League graduates, for example.

Or that they all have 2 hands and 1 asshole I suppose. (Of course many of them probably have 2 assholes.)

- Like I said: After you clean a stem, wait til you come down!

>You definitely seem to think that their Jewishness is a much more important component of their motivations.

It might be. It probably IS the most powerful component, but then again MALES are a powerful component and the fact that they mostly share the same political slant is also powerful. I would say the nucleus is probably the tribal connections of being Jewish as Ariana Huffington, in her new book, PIGS AT THE TROUGH, says the tribal instinct is the most powerful force for discrimination, not only in the movie biz, but all businesses and with all ethnic groups.

- SHE'S a qualified sociologist???

Or are Jews immune from tribal instincts?

- Review the definition of "projection" from earlier posts.

That you deny all this make you look stupid Mitch.

- The fact you affirm all this makes you look stupid, but, apparently, you're incapable of comprehending it.