Why Capital Will Flood into Indie Productions
Posted on January 8, 2005 at 11:08:55 PM by James Jaeger

Question:
How do you get somebody to choose your movie to stream/download, when tens of millions of advertising dollars are going to major studio releases? I have no doubt that somebody will occasionally stumble across an individual independent film, but does it still require a theatrical release to build recognition?

Answer:
The kids don't want to recognize anything put out by "the man" or "the suits" if they have alternatives. And their alternatives are always presented most forcefully by word of mouth. Thus, word of mouth is the most powerful form of advertising for the youth audience. It's a trust factor. A reality factor. Add to this the fact that the kids HATE commercialization. They hate everything about the commercial establishment that "studies them" like bugs and then "targets" advertisements and "high concepts" at them so that it can "exploit" them for money and control. Just as we did when we were kids. Remember?

The kids also hate the studios even more because they are now suing them for downloading movies. Why do you think they do these downloads? Again, it's not because they are thieves, it's mostly because they hate the studios who represent the Establishment. The Man. The Suits. At least this is what kids regularly tell me when I discuss these things with them at every opportunity when I'm out in public (at such places as BlockBuster, and private parties, concerts and hangouts, etc). The kids hate the movie industry just as they hate the music industry for charging so much for CDs when the money doesn't even go to the artists, as is the case in the movie industry where the money only goes to a handful of over-paid stars and their fiduciaries, while everyone else starves.

Thus, the old "brick and mortar," shelf-space dependant industry is dead. The body is in free-fall. When a feature comes alone that is a must-see, word of it will go through hundreds of millions of kids via email, cell phones, instant messaging, the NGs, chat forums, and other kid-comm channels instantly. Just as it did with BLAIR WITCH. Add to this the factor that ALL the hackneyed, formulaic crap Hollywood puts out will be completely SCREENED-OUT within the next 2 years because places like BlockBuster are emptying their inventories for some $19 per month, all you can watch a la Netflix: which is forcing the issue. As soon as the MPAA studio inventories are SCREENED-OUT, the only place kids will be able to get new stuff will be over the BitTorrent-driven Broadband Net. And the stuff, although less polished and slick, will be ORIGINAL and sell for less than 50 cents a download (which can be retained). Thus, no one will risk stealing this product (some thanks to Dan MPAA Glickman who is suing the kids, an act that is sure to engender mass migration of his customers away from the over commercialized, banal studio product. Thanks Dan.). The long tail (and if you don't know what this is you need to read all about it in WIRED mag), will generate revenues equal to, AND EVENTUALLY GREATER THAN, hits -- even without that revenue stream having to be hit-driven (as admittedly it is now) and theatrical-release advertised (as it is admittedly now).

But remember, as new, must-see Indie product hits the net in increasing amounts for cheap, new portals will automatically be created each time and these new portals will overwhelm and eventually demolish the rest of the existing established industry distribution system emanating from Hollywood.

Plus the 9 factories that are currently being built in China will, by the end of 2006, flood so many cheap LCD, HDTVs into living rooms across America and the world, people will not go to the theaters and pay 6 to 8 dollars as easily to see a feature that looks and sounds better in their living room. Thus Hollywood's theatrical advertising machine will dry up as its revenues already have because of the homevideo market. In short, Hollywood is history because it no longer controls the distribution paradigm. This has NEVER BEFORE HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD.

As the private capital markets get hip to the fact that an ORIGINAL feature can be produced by an Indie company, such as ours at http://www.mecfilms.com, for less than $1,000,000 and REGULARLY sell to AT LEAST 1 percent of a 500-million person Broadband audience for 50 cents per download (with no other costs of distribution) and generate a $2.5 million gross with a payback of $1 million production costs netting out a cool $1.5 million, EASY, profit -- or a 66% return on investment over the 12 - 18 months -- money will FLOOD into the Indie production scene and the quality of pictures will rise to that of the studios. It will also rise because of the relentless availability of better and cheaper computerization for post and special fxs, the use of TAPE rather than outrageously expensive 35mm film stock (which will be indiscernible and cost-effective by December 2007), and the ultimate digitization of name talents whereby everybody will be able to afford a Tom Cruise in their picture if they want him (which they will increasingly will not). Investors, as slow-minded as they are when it comes to technology-driven paradigm shifts, will eventually realize they can't get anywhere NEAR a 66% return on investment in the stock market or the real estate market with a commensurate risk and capitalization entry requirement.

This is the best time possible to be an independent producer and a private investor of independent product. Just as the major networks have seen their market share dwindle, the MPAA studios that now dominate 85% of the market will also see their market share dwindle. Thus, over the next decades, hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue will be freed up for the independents and their investors. New acting, writing and directing talent will be employed as independent production companies increasingly have the money to hire.

The future also looks bright for the independent distributors that seize upon these opportunities and muster private capital to invest in productions. Since the costs of distribution will be almost nothing in the new paradigm, there will be more risk capital and more profit available for Internet-savvy distributors and their investors.

So bye bye market dominating studios with their productions that cost $150 million to produce and distribute and hello new era where capital will flood into Indie productions and the talent that makes them possible.


----------------------------
For additional information see Why Invest in a Movie? at http://www.mecfilms.com/whyinves.htm as well as books by James Jaeger at MOVIE PUBS at http://www.moviepubs.net

Commentary on "Do Jews Run Hollywood?"
Posted on January 19, 2005 at 07:14:54 PM by James Jaeger

Do Jews Run Hollywood?
You bet they do--and what of it?
by Ben Stein

E-ONLINE of 19 January 2005
http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Jews/


BEN STEIN QUOTES BRANDO:
"Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews--and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering. Because...we have seen...the greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the [line]."
--Brando on Larry King Live

JAEGER WROTE:
Yes, this is the famous truth Marlon Brando had the "gall" to speak for which he was blacklisted by Hollywood until he came crawling back on his hands and knees.

STEIN WROTE:
>A few days after Marlon Brando scandalized the airwaves by referring to the Jews who worked in Hollywood as "kikes,"

Brando isn't "referring to the Jews who worked in Hollywood as "kikes" -- he's simply trying to make the point that Hollywood feels free to demonize all others BUT Jews. Perhaps he made a bad choice of words, but his use of the word "kike" is in the same context as the other derogatories mentioned, i.e., greaseball, Chink, Jap and wily Filipino. Thus, right off the bat, Stein is misrepresenting the tenor of Brando's comment and trying to make it into a victim thing, a misrepresentation which typifies his entire commentary on Jewish domination of Hollywood.

>I got a call from an editor at 60 Minutes. The woman wanted to know how I felt about Brando's use of words and his allegation that Hollywood is "run by Jews." She suggested the desired answer by noting that her researchers had conclusively proven that Jews do not run Hollywood.

Jews do not run Hollywood, Hollywood is run by Jews.

>Crafty 60 Minutes had studied the top slots in town. Their research showed that "only" about 60 percent of the most important positions in Hollywood were run by Jews. What did I think?

The actual truth is closer to 70% or 80% of the top positions in the MPAA studio/distributors are dominated by Jews. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm

>I managed to disqualify myself by saying that while Hollywood was not really "run" by anyone (it's far too chaotic for that),

"Run" and "control" are red herrings. The technical term is DOMINATED.

>if Jews were about 2.5 percent of the population and were about 60 percent of Hollywood, they might well be said to be extremely predominant in that sector.

Note the use of the word PREdominant. This is a mini-whitewash here because the term, again, is DOMINATED.

>That was far too logical and un-PC an answer, and I never heard from her again.

She was probably Jewish.

>But Jews are a big part of my thoughts (as they are of every Jew's thoughts).

I have posted often that Jews network better than everyone else. Thus they are always thinking of each other.

>Plus, I live and struggle in Hollywood, so the combination intrigues me. What exactly is the role of the Jew in Hollywood? More to the point, what does it signify, if anything, if Jews have a big role? And, most interesting of all, why do we care?

I can't tell you how many times I have heard this one: Why do we care? Here is the reason we care: Read THE GREAT AMERICAN MOVIE DEBATE by John Cones at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/amdebate.htm.

>First, it is extremely clear to anyone in Hollywood that Jews are, so to speak, "in charge" in Hollywood in a way that is not duplicated in any other large business, except maybe garments or scrap metal or folding boxes.

See, even Jews admit this . . . finally, in public. Neal Gabler admitted this many years ago in a book, AN EMPIRE OF THEIR OWN, but I guess the masses are simply unaware and thus still scared to mention this fact for fear of being branded anti-Semitic.

>At mighty Paramount, the controlling stockholder is Sumner Redstone. Head of the studio is Jon Dolgen. Head of production is Sherry Lansing--all members of the tribe.

All members of the tribe. Read a book that will NEVER get published (because Jews dominate the publishing industry as well) called WHEN VICTIMS RULE found on-line at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org Then you will get a picture of the "members of the tribe" -- largely from Jewish scholars too.

>At titanic Disney, the CEO is Michael Eisner, the world's most assimilated Jew, who might as well be a Presbyterian. Deputy head is Michael Ovitz, karate champ but also a Jew. Head of the studio is Joe Roth.

Ovitz is long gone to my knowledge.

>At newly energized ICM, the top dogs are Jeff Berg and Jim Wiatt. At still overwhelming CAA, Jack Rapke and other members of my faith predominate. At William Morris, Jon Burnham and other Jews are, by and large, in the power positions.

But he forgot to mention the Jewish domination and control of the top positions of the MPAA studio/distributors over the past 90-some years. Here they all are again, by name, at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>This has always been true in Hollywood. The ex-furriers who created Hollywood were Eastern European Jewish immigrants, and all of the great edifice of fantasy-making in Hollywood is their handiwork. Names like Zukor and Lasky and Goldwyn and Cohn are the foundation of mass culture in America and the world.
There is a much quoted note that it took all these Eastern European Yiddish-speaking Jews to create the lasting, worldwide image of America and what America is--the mass culture mirror that America likes to hold up to its face.

Blah, blah, blah. Gabler covers all this in his book.

>This thought is made concrete by the simple line at the beginning of Gone with the Wind that it is "A David O. Selznick Production." It took a Selznick, married to the daughter of a Louis B. Mayer, working with a Thalberg, to create the ultimate vision of romantic America--the antebellum South.

This is a bigoted statement when you consider it because it implies that a non-Jew couldn't come up with a GONE WITH THE WIND.

>It took a Jew--Leslie Howard--to play Ashley Wilkes, the bedrock image of what a perfect American gentleman is supposed to be.

Another bigoted statement. Why does it take a Jew? Are Gentiles inferior to Jews? Elitist, at the very least!

>Thus, the fact of Hollywood's being very largely Jewish is not exactly news. The news is that Hollywood is rapidly becoming ethnically far more diverse than it was only a couple of decades ago, when I first arrived here.

Not true. All this diversity is window dressing. The executives that manage the MPAA studio/distributors are still dominated by liberal, secular, Jewish makes of European heritage, as I, and John Cones, have been saying for years. Hollywood apologists like Stein like to point to all the actors and technical people that are paraded in the Oscar ceremonies to "substantiate" their claim that Hollywood is really a very diverse place. But the truth is, the ones that cut the pay checks and allocate the production budgets to the producers are still predominantly Jewish executives.

>You can take it from the studio level, where probably the most powerful man in town is of the Australian faith--one Rupert Murdoch by name. Murdoch, no one's idea of a Jew, controls a major studio, a major broadcast network and the largest aggregation of TV stations in America.

Note how delicately Stein puts this. He said "one Rupert Murdoch by name. Murdoch, no one's idea of a Jew, controls a major studio" Fact is Murdoch IS Jewish, because his mother is Jewish. Murdoch's "no one's idea of a Jew" because Stein obfuscates the fact that he's Jewish by saying that he's of "Australian faith." Another ridiculous spin on the truth because there is no such thing as "Australian faith." But by using the word "faith" in juxtaposition with the word "Australian," Stein has drawn your attention away from the idea that Murdoch could be of Jewish faith. Thus, if he's of "Australian faith," he's certainly NOT of Jewish faith. This twist further substantiates the idea that he's "no ones IDEA of a Jew, when again, the fact is: MURDOCH IS A JEW.

If you follow me here, you can see how the Hollywood machinery manipulates the data. Are we surprised that E-ONLINE is part of the Hollywood-MPAA propaganda machine that dominates the media and the movie industry, hence American culture for the benefit of the Jewish lobby?

>The head of programming at ABC is a full-on gentile, Ted Harbert. The owner and head of production of what has become the Tiffany studio, MGM, are Kirk Kerkorian and Frank Mancuso, also not members of Temple Israel. And on and on.

Whoopee. A few exceptions to the general rule don't change the general rule: Hollywood is and continues to be dominated by liberal, secular Jewish males of European heritage, as we have been saying at FIRM since 1998. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm

>It is certainly true that there have always been goyim in Hollywood.

Since this term "goyim" means "cattle," yet it's used to refer to all Gentiles, or non-Jews, isn't Stein being as disrespectful to non-Jews as he imagined Brando was being disrespectful to Jews when Stein made the straw calm that Brando was calling them kikes? Talk about a double standard here. But typical for Hollywood apologists. It's okay for Jews to be bigots, but it's not okay when anyone else is a bigot.

>But there are more gentiles in the Industry now, and there has formed a whole new route to Hollywood.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. What a crock! Show me what new appointments there have been in the 3 top positions of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors, Stein, and how the ratio of Jewish executives to Non-Jewish executives has changed. If you could, you would have.

>No longer do young men and women work their way up solely by being mailroom clerks or nephews of producers or offspring of men in the linen-supply business.

What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Is this statement supposed to make us think Hollywood has changed? Pah-leeze!

>The standard route to Hollywood now is through Harvard and Yale.

Oh come on, what an obfuscation.

>Sitcom writers and producers, movie scriptwriters and producers now come from the Ivy League far more than from the streets of Brooklyn. Most of the writing staff of the powerhouse Seinfeld is from the Harvard Lampoon.

Yeah, you mentioned writers twice and producers twice, but mentioned STUDIO EXECUTIVES zero times. The writers and the producers get HIRED and PAID by the studio executives and the studio executives continue to be predominantly JEWISH. So Stein, you're just obfuscating the facts and lying some more.

>So are many of the writers on Married...with Children, Friends and other stalwarts of the box. The route from Harvard Square to Hollywood is now hallowed by success and money. In fact, the agencies now beg and plead for Harvard Lampoon grads the way they once cried for the writers of The Jack Benny Radio Program.

All this rhetoric is about WRITERS. Writers have no power in Hollywood. Writers don't make the decisions which $150 million pictures will be developed and greenlit for millions to see all over the world. More obfuscation on part of Stein.

>This change from borscht-belt origins to the halls of Harvard as a prime source of writing talent in Hollywood is a quantum shift. Many of the Harvard and Yale alums are, to be sure, Jews, but many are not.

All horse.

>Now, this is interesting to those of us who work here. But it is of no significance at all to the 99.9 percent of Americans who do not.

No, this is of great significance to the 99.9 percent who do NOT work in Hollywood because movies tend to influence cultural values and right now we have a nation with values in the toilet. See GREAT AMERICAN MOVIE DEBATE above cited.

>The only possible significance of whether Hollywood is run by Jews or not must have to do with whether or not the product comes out "Jewish," or in some way different from the way it would if it were made solely by gentiles.

And yes, it does. Who do you think is spearheading the assault on Christian values right now? It's secular Jews that dominate Hollywood and the media hiding behind Judaism. Duh. Who do you is behind the ACLU? Duh. Nativity scenes out of the public square. Duh! The culture war against Mel Gibson. Duh!!! Endless billions for Israel? Duh. The war in Iraq? The neo-cons, predominantly Jewish. Duh! The Jews that dominate Hollywood are definitely pushing an agenda that favors and supports the Jewish lobby's agenda and the agenda of the AIPAC and the agenda of the Neo-Cons. Duh!! And much of this is all about uncritical support of Israel. Any surprise Murdoch is one of the biggest Zionists around. It doesn't matter if Murdoch doesn't SEEM like a Jew so long as he supports Israel and the hundreds of billions American citizens have pissed over there. You will NEVER see O'Reilly, who is a Murdoch mouth-piece into the Gentile Establishment, bad mouth Israel. Murdoch would fire him instantly. Thus this is evidence that Murdoch is not only Jewish, but pushes the Jewish agenda.

>Really, the point is even a little uglier than that. The only real reason why the question of whether Jews "run" Hollywood is at all interesting is because there is some residual thought--apparently as was in the mind of Marlon Brando--that Jews are sinister and alien.

This straw argument is ALWAYS used by apologists. It's a variation of the VICTIM ploy used so much by Jews. It goes like this: Critics of Hollywood don't like Jews running the place because Jews are evil and thus they are unfit to run Hollywood. This argument is totally off point. For the 100th time, people such as myself, are calling for more diversity in Hollywood's control group because we feel that NO NARROWLY DEFINED GROUP should dominate one of the most powerful communication channels ever devised. This has NOTHING to do with Jews. And it certainly has NOTHING to do with anyone being evil. Jews are no better or worse than anyone else. They are just people. But to have them dominating Hollywood is as bad as it would be if Christians dominated Hollywood. The idea is NO ONE should dominate Hollywood. But Jews, such as Stein, bring this straw argument up to try to make you think that people like myself have something against Jews. We don't. We just want diversity. It has nothing to do with Jews or whoever would be running Hollywood. So again, this argument is ALWAYS brought up to obfuscate the real issues. It's almost as if all the Hollywood apologists are plugged into the same Borg cube.

>Kike is a low Polish word meaning the nastiest, most alien connotation of Jew. That would mean that the Jewish product of Jewish Hollywood would be somehow subversive in some way. This would be akin to Wagner's notion that Jews had polluted and ruined German music with their innately subversive sensibility.

Again, all this is obfuscation and a misrepresentation of what Brando said.

>This is a thought so bizarre and even comical to anyone familiar with Hollywood that it merits laughter more than fear. Yes, of course, the Hollywood product is made mostly by Jews. But these Jews are in love with America.

Yack, yack, yack. More of the same obfuscation and straw argument. See what I said above.

>These are Jews who want to play polo, not davvinn in shul. These are Jews whose children play soccer and learn horseback riding in Malibu.

Give me a break Stein, Gabler already said all this a hundred times. Did you just get finished reading his book or something?!

>These Jews, as soon as they have two million to rub together, buy farms in South Carolina (Joel Silver) or vast spreads in Colorado (Peter Guber).

Wow, they must NOT be very Jewish if they buy farms!

>It was the Jews of the '30s and '40s who gave us the vision of America the Good, where money did not count--only goodness. Think of the works of William Wyler (maker of the ultimate pro-American heartstrings movie, The Best Years of Our Lives), or of MGM and its celebration of the swinging good life of Ginger and Fred.

Ah, I think there were FAR fewer Jews in Hollywood around the 1930's and 1940's. Remember Walt Disney? How come you didn't mention that when Eisner took over Disney, he brought hundreds of Jewish executives and staff members in to the organization?

>Where does the idea come from of the perfect American family, occasionally quarreling mildly but ultimately working it all out in love and affection? From Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to Beaver and I Love Lucy, with their largely Jewish writers and producers.

Again he mentions only writers and producers. Standard ploy: ignore the Jewish studio executives that really call the shots. And don't bother to mention that Lucille Ball was NOT Jewish and she, through DESILU, was one of the most powerful production companies in the business. More obfuscation on behalf of Stein.

>Where does the idea come from that parents and children, as polarized as they might be, will ultimately love each other? From Norman Lear and his factory for grinding out funny and touching affirmations of domestic life in America.

Norman Lear, producer of Archie Bunker, made endless fun of bigots in no small part to benefit the Jewish agenda of crushing bigotry in a post-Holocaust world.

>Where does the idea that blacks can be funny and endearing as millionaires and not just as servants and wide-eyed fools fleeing ghosts? Again, from Norman Lear and The Jeffersons.

No one is saying that Jews don't come up with some heartwarming and valid programming. But let's give others the same chance.

>Hollywood's current product occasionally repels and even sickens me. I am truly disgusted with its language, its violence, its endless attacks on businessmen and military officers. (On the other hand, it never can attack the CIA enough for me.) But these are eddies and ripples in the vast tide of Hollywood messages that encourage and hearten us in our daily struggle.

Oh brother. What a crock! I suppose Stein also feels there is no global warming.

>Many Americans get this message far more from Hollywood than from worship, and these are by no means subversive messages.

No not at all, just another assault on people of faith -- Hollywood's stock n' trade, and apparently yours as well, Stein.

>So now, as the shrinks say, we may perhaps to begin.

My father is a shrink and I never heard him, or any of the hundreds of his colleagues over the last 30 years, say THAT.

>If any overall view of the Hollywood product shows it has been a wholesome influence on American life, why is Hollywood itself still so not trusted?

Hollywood was a wholesome influence on American life because it was more influenced by Christian values. Over the past 2 or 3 decades, Hollywood's secular values have managed to erode Christian values and thus we have the endless carnage and mindless vanilla product all over, product that seeks only to sell other products in an orgy of commercialism that is now destroying America and its money supply.

>Why can a Marlon Brando attack it so explicitly for its Jewishness and a Dan Quayle and even a Bob Dole and even a Bill Clinton attack it on an ongoing basis for its alleged sinister quality?

If only 2.5% of the executives in Hollywood studios were Jews, the movie industry would probably be very similar to the way it is today. There would be fewer Holocaust films and you would hear the word kike about as much as you hear the word greaseball, chink, jap and nigger. This is not nice language, but it's less nice to see any particular group or groups getting endlessly singled out as the bad guys when one group gets to remain forever off bounds. The point is: everyone deserves to tell their unique stories and that can't happen when ANY one group dominates the financial strings at the top of the studios.

>I marvel that when people criticize the auto industry for making trucks that catch fire when they are struck and cars that turn over on a turn, no one ever says "the gentile auto industry."

That's because the very word "gentile" is a bigoted word made up by Jews. ANYONE that is NOT a Jew is a gentile. It's an us-and-them thing. A manifestation of mass paranoia. What word do Christians have for all other people other then themselves. And don't tell me "Non-Christians" because that's a cop out.

Re(1): Commentary on
Posted on January 22, 2005 at 05:00:51 PM by Stan Pierce

BUT THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME:
"... if one of our important communications media, like feature film, is dominated by a single, narrowly-defined interest group, to the arbitrary and substantial exclusion of all others in our society who may have differing views, then the important motion picture segment of our market place of ideas is not free. It is dominated by a more narrow range of voices, that crowds out diversity. And, without diversity of ideas, we are less likely to arrive at the truth".

The avoidance of TRUTH is precisely the reason it is so controlled. It has
been especially so since the end of the second world war. Only one view of
the causes of that war is ever shown on celluloid. One demon and one demon
only...Adolph. Never a contrary point of view shown. No sympathy for a
country that was shit on and broken to the point of despair and so caused a
man of humble origins with some go in him to pull it out of the mess while
clever America was in Depression. Hollywood has never forgiven that funny
looking man with a mustache. It's a shocking history of demonisation.

Re(1): Commentary on
Posted on January 20, 2005 at 01:17:58 PM by Mitchell Levine

Jaeger - and you wonder why people think you're an antisemite?

Note that even when your ridiculous misinformation is corrected, you still persist with myths like "goyim means cattle."

Even when you're proven wrong - the word is Hebrew for "nation" - you still continue to spit out such tripe because it's a useful tool in your quest to rid Hollywood of the Jewish influence.

And you're still promoting Jenk's antisemitic manifesto?

By the way, even Jenks admits that no one's provided evidence to back the allegation that Murdoch's mother was Jewish.

Murdoch's Mother
Posted on January 22, 2005 at 04:41:34 PM by James Jaeger

>Jaeger - and you wonder why people think you're an antisemite?

You know Mitchell, I could care less who considers me a so-called anti-Semite. As far as I'm concerned, this is just puerile name calling.

>Note that even when your ridiculous misinformation is corrected, you still persist with myths like "goyim means cattle."

Goyim means cattle. I will get my references and if I am wrong retract my statement.

>Even when you're proven wrong - the word is Hebrew for "nation" - you still continue to spit out such tripe because it's a useful tool in your quest to rid Hollywood of the Jewish influence.

For the record, I admire the many works Jewish filmmakers have made and the many terrific projects Jewish studio executives have greenlit over the years. My only call is for more diversity, not to "rid Hollywood of the Jewish influence." That's preposterous.

>And you're still promoting Jenk's antisemitic manifesto?

You can call it promotion, I call it giving everyone the right to speak his or her piece. Since Jim Jenks has not been able to get published in a publishing world that's dominated by Jews, I would call THAT censorship.

>By the way, even Jenks admits that no one's provided evidence to back the allegation that Murdoch's mother was Jewish.

Jeffrey Blankfort, who is Jewish, lists Murdoch in his list entitled, "Stunning Jewish Success Dominates American Media." Further, he specifically states that Murdoch's mother is Jewish. The list is at http://rense.com/general60/stun.htm

James Jaeger

Re(1): Murdoch's Mother
Posted on January 24, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM by Mitchell Levine

You know Mitchell, I could care less who considers me a so-called anti-Semite.

- That's strange - you seem to complain about that perception an awful lot for someone who doesn't care.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just puerile name calling.

- It's only name-calling if it's untrue. Otherwise, it's simply an accurate observation.

Goyim means cattle.

- No, it doesn't. One more time, from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

"goi'-yim (goyim): This word, rendered in the King James Version "nations," "heathen," "Gentiles," is commonly translated simply "nations" in the Revised Version (British and American). In Ge 14:1 where the King James Version has "Tidal, king of nations," the Revised Version (British and American) retains in the text the Hebrew "Goiim" as a proper name. Some identify with Gutium. The Hebrew word is similarly retained in Jos 12:23."

I will get my references and if I am wrong retract my statement.

- You only need one reference: the Old Testament, where the word is used to describe nations many times.

My only call is for more diversity, not to "rid Hollywood of the Jewish influence." That's preposterous.

- Jim, you accuse Hollywood Jews of leading a conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

You can call it promotion, I call it giving everyone the right to speak his or her piece.

- Giving him his "right to speak his piece" doesn't mean you have to promote him. You don't see Noam Chomsky recommending Faurrison's books.

Since Jim Jenks has not been able to get published in a publishing world that's dominated by Jews, I would call THAT censorship.

- The reason it hasn't gotten published is that it's a deceitful, bigoted piece of crap. That's hardly "censorship." It's responsible management.

Censorship refers to a denial of rights, and he has no "right" to have his book published.

Jeffrey Blankfort, who is Jewish, lists Murdoch in his list entitled, "Stunning Jewish Success Dominates American Media." Further, he specifically states that Murdoch's mother is Jewish. The list is at http://rense.com/general60/stun.htm

- I'd hardly call either Jeffrey Blankfort or Rense.com unbiased, but after a quick Google search, it looks like there's a lot of controversy over this point.

On Goyim
Posted on January 27, 2005 at 05:36:43 PM by James Jaeger

>>Goyim means cattle.

>- No, it doesn't. One more time, from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: "goi'-yim (goyim): This word, rendered in the King James Version "nations," "heathen," "Gentiles," is commonly translated simply "nations" in the Revised Version (British and American). In Ge 14:1 where the King James Version has "Tidal, king of nations," the Revised Version (British and American) retains in the text the Hebrew "Goiim" as a proper name. Some identify with Gutium. The Hebrew word is similarly retained in Jos 12:23."

I cannot remember who it was that told me the the word "goyim" means cattle and you are correct that it does mean "nation/s" but the important thing to understand is that "goyim" traditionally means "nations" the same way "nigger" means Black. It is an extremely pejorative term. It is the Jewish name for the terrible "other."

Here's what Jenks says and an example of how the ideology behind "goyim" worked:

"Even in the Yiddish language ... popular usage distinguished between Jews
and non-Jews by employing different verbs to describe their behavior.
Reserved for gentiles are words otherwise used in reference to animals:
e.g.l, Jews eat (essen), but goyim eat like pigs (fressen); Jews dies
(starben), but goyim die like dogs (pagern); Jews take a drink (trinken),
but goyim drink like sots (soifen)." [KRAMER, p. 107]

So, although "goyim" doesn't literally mean "cattle," it does contain the
same kind of dehumanized slur inferred by your use of "cattle."

Re(1): On Goyim
Posted on January 28, 2005 at 05:21:16 PM by Mitchell Levine

Well, it's nice to see you can admit you're wrong (sort of), but you're still mistaken.

While those perjorative instances of usage might exist (I've never heard anyone say anything like that in Yiddish, but I didn't learn it from recent immigrants), the word itself has no inherent derogatory implications.

Even in the Bible, although "nations" carries the connotation of referring to the nations other than Israel, it's still not intrinsically derisive. In fact, the Israelites themselves are even sometimes referred to as "goyim."

The word in and of itself is just as neutral as the word "Gentile." It's simply the word that describes a non-Jew in Yiddish the same way we use "African American" to refer to black people in English.

While it's sometimes used in a negative sense, so is the word "Jew." The word Jew isn't therefore an epithet.

Re(2): On Goyim
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 08:09:38 PM by James Jaeger

Okay. I will stand more fully advised on this word. Thanks.

James

Re(2): On Goyim
Posted on February 1, 2005 at 00:17:42 AM by Soyim Goyim

As usual, Levine's comment is a complete and total lie. "Goyim" is pejorative. As is "shaygetz" and a range of terms referring to non-Jews. Shvartzeh is also the Yiddish degrading slur for blacks. As Levine knows. And hides.

Re(3): On Goyim
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 02:17:19 AM by Mitchell Levine


Sorry, but your knowledge of Yiddish etymology and semantics is inadequate.

"Goyim" is not only not "derogatory" in Israel; it's the only word that exists to describe non-Jews. The word just means "Gentile." "Shaygetz" IS derogatory.

Like "Negro," the word isn't inherently derogatory, it's just perjorative by occasional contemptuous usage.

The word "Jew" is sometimes used derogatorily, but that doesn't mean the word "Jew" is a slur.

And "Svartzeh" isn't an inherent "slur" at all - it's the Yiddish term for "black person," with no derogation implied at all. The slur is "shvug."

The word may be used contemptuously by bigots, but it isn't inherently derisive any more than "black person" is.

Re(4): On Goyim
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 00:20:58 AM by Moshe the Goyim

Sorry, but your knowledge of Yiddish etymology and semantics is inadequate.

"Goyim" is not only not "derogatory" in Israel; it's the only word that exists to describe non-Jews. The word just means "Gentile." "Shaygetz" IS derogatory.

Like "Negro," the word isn't inherently derogatory, it's just perjorative by occasional contemptuous usage.

The word "Jew" is sometimes used derogatorily, but that doesn't mean the word "Jew" is a slur.

And "Svartzeh" isn't an inherent "slur" at all - it's the Yiddish term for "black person," with no derogation implied at all. The slur is "shvug."

The word may be used contemptuously by bigots, but it isn't inherently derisive any more than "black person" is.

Reply to Levine: This is a complete and total lie. Anyone may peruse the Internet and examine the evidence for themselves. On one hand you'll find lying, "hasbarah" apologists/propagandists like Levine, and on the other you'll find the truth. It is instructive that the PEJORATIVE term "goyim" is declared by Mr. Hasbarah to be the ONLY term for non-Jews. It is a slur. Smear. Insult. It is a line of delineation between the sacred "Chosen People" and everyone else on the planet that innately - by birth - doesn't make the "Chosen People" grade.

Re(3): On Goyim
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 08:20:50 PM by James Jaeger

Okay, now I'm back to being confused.

James

Re(2): Murdoch's Mother
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 02:50:19 PM by James Jaeger

>- That's strange - you seem to complain about that perception an awful lot for someone who doesn't care.

Maybe I cared once upon a time because of the word's association with people I abhor, such as Nazis, but given the frivolity with which people such as yourself toss this word around these days, I am forced to re-classify its use.

>- It's only name-calling if it's untrue. Otherwise, it's simply an accurate observation.

So calling a man from China a "chink" isn't name-calling because "chinks" come from China?

>- You only need one reference: the Old Testament, where the word is used to describe nations many times.

That doesn't mean it doesn't also have derogatory connotations.

>- Jim, you accuse Hollywood Jews of leading a conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

Are you prepared to state that their is no Jewish influence in any of the major studios that is anti-Christian?

>- Giving him his "right to speak his piece" doesn't mean you have to promote him. You don't see Noam Chomsky recommending Faurrison's books.

I don't promote or refer to him any more or less than anyone else, with the possible exception of the work of G. Edward Griffin and Robert Zubrin, who I DO tend to promote.

>- The reason it hasn't gotten published is that it's a deceitful, bigoted piece of crap.

I don't see how you can say that when you haven't even read his book, WHEN VICTIMS RULE. I have looked it over and noted that he has quite a number of quotes from Jewish scholars. Are they also full of "crap?" Actually, the mere fact that you use the word "crap" indicates you are clouded by emotion when referring to Jenk's work. If this is true of other Jews in the publishing business to whom Jenks has offered the book, it would seem to me that there is far too much emotion tied up in this whole thing for any sound evaluation of the book to be made. Thus, instead of doing the rational thing -- publish the book and allow others to opine upon it in future books and/or media -- the book is just swept under the carpet.

>That's hardly "censorship." It's responsible management.

Not at all. Responsible management's job isn't to pass on a work just because it's highly controversial, or some feel it's a bunch of "crap," its job is to make public especially those works that ARE controversial so that a maximum number of minds can thus adjudicate its value or lack thereof. When something is controversial it is popular, ipso facto. But when a narrowly defined group dominates a communication channel -- whether it be the motion picture industry or the publishing industry -- the public is certain to suffer omissions of data and viewpoint as a result of the prejudice and bias of those in power.

>Censorship refers to a denial of rights, and he has no "right" to have his book published.

He does to have a "right" to have his book published. You like to tie this word censorship down to the limited definition connected with state power, so you can invoke the idea of rights -- but the fact is, there is a broader usage of the word which has its applications, especially when domination, oligopoly or monopoly enter the picture. As I argued in my article on Mel Gibson, HOLLYWOOD's TRUE AGENDA, at http://www.homevideo.net/agenda.htm, the act of passing on a viable and relevant work of art just because such does not conform to the agenda of a control group, has the effect of censorship, especially when there are little or no alternatives.

>>Jeffrey Blankfort, who is Jewish, lists Murdoch in his list entitled, "Stunning Jewish Success Dominates American Media." Further, he specifically states that Murdoch's mother is Jewish. The list is at http://rense.com/general60/stun.htm

>- I'd hardly call either Jeffrey Blankfort or Rense.com unbiased, but after a quick Google search, it looks like there's a lot of controversy over this point.

True.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Murdoch's Mother
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 02:22:05 AM by Mitchell Levine

Sorry, but after a more through research of the point, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch is NOT Jewish - she's of purely Anglo-Scotch descent.

Blankfort based his entire theory on the fact that her maiden name was Green - which is not an exclusively Jewish surname, as the case of Tom Green points out.

In her family's case, it wasn't Jewish, and she is not.

Re(2): Commentary on
Posted on January 21, 2005 at 01:06:29 AM by Moshe the Goyim

YOU SAY: By the way, even Jenks admits that no one's provided evidence to back the allegation that Murdoch's mother was Jewish.

RESPONSE: Not exactly so. The only legitimate assertation I've seen that Murdoch's mother is Jewish comes from Richard Curtiss, editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. It's an excellent magazine and he (a former U.S. foreign service officer) is an excellent source. But it's true that I've read two biographies of Murdoch and no Jewishness is mentioned. Curtiss insinuates that this omission is intentional.

Murdoch, whatever he is, is an active Zionist and was aided in his rise to power by Leonard Goldenson of ABC, and other Jewish media moguls. One of his biographies underscores this.

Jewish Double Standard in Hollywood
Posted on January 19, 2005 at 07:45:29 PM by psyclops

Let us not deal with what Marlon Brando said, but the reaction to it. In a completely non offensive way, he used the ugly slur "kike", and the next day he is apologizing to some organization. Why? When Howard Stern uses the word kike or nigger, he does not have to apologize to anybody. Is it because he is half-Jewish? Do we have a double standard? Yes. Why are people afraid to comment on issues involving people who happen to be Jewish? Because they fear they will be labeled Anti-Semetic. In this country Anti-Semetic means anti-Jew. Noone bothers to mentions that Arabs are Semetic people when negative stereotypes are consistently portrayed. I don't think Hollywood should may be taking too much blame, though. It did produce the film Homicide which was written by David Mamet and showed and ugly side to political fervor while not being racist. But you won't see any films be made in Hollywood about the 20 million Chinese that were killed in WWII by the Japanese. Apparently, that percentage of the population is not great enough to be qualified as a holocaust. Not to mention the 10,000 raped women or unknown dead in Bosnia. Many of whom were tortured the same way the Jews were tortured in WWII. I guess when people say "Never Again!" in reference to the Holocaust, that only applies to people of the Jewish persuasion. I know that every Jewish person reading this is appalled by this last statement. But most of the people who will read this are not in a position to show the type of public sympathy to other ethnic groups that would quell the tone of that statement. Many non Jewish people probably resent that those who publicly defend Israel's actions in Palestine are not publicly standing up for other ethnic groups who have suffered equally. Maybe it is not the job of Hollywood to do this, for it's Hollywood's job is to entertain. But couldn't a film about Bosnia or China send the same message as Schindler's List or Shoah? Of course, Schindler's List would not have been made if it were not a compelling story. Yet I have heard compelling first-hand accounts of torture in Bosnia that has never made it to the evening news, not to mention Hollywood. And these stories aren't 50 years old. Well maybe it is cultural nepotism. A large percentage of great Hollywood producers are Jewish. They produce films that they feel close to and can't cover all of the topics. But shouldn't they be obligated to try cover these stories? If not, isn't it fair that they face scrutiny from an ethnically diverse audience or even Marlon Brando? Why do people assume that just because someone criticizes Jews as a group, that the person is a racist who endorses extermination. I think it is unbrotherly, and insulting to millions of Non-Jewish Americans who love Howard Stern, Jerry Seinfeld, Steven Spielberg or their next door neighbor.

Let's go back to Brando's point
Posted on January 19, 2005 at 08:02:17 PM by mfleisch

Many of these responses are spiralling out of control, which is no wonder, since Ben's article failed to address Brando's key point, too. Let me summarize the key points quickly: 1.) Marlon Brando originally tries to make the point that Jews, who we can all agree occupy most of the power positions in Hollywood, have not been sensitive enough to the plight of other minorities, depicting them stereotypically much of the time. Jews of all people, he reasons, should be more empathetic and fair. 2.) Unfortunately, to make these points he uses racially charged terms that upsets people and obscures his reasoning. He apologizes later. 3.) Ben basically delves into the question the media raises, namely, "Do Jews run Hollywood or not?" He thus describes the history of Jews in Hollywood, the current power structure, and makes the case that gentiles and Harvardites (who invited them?) have been gaining power recently. 4.) Ben wonders in the end whether people are jealous of Hollywood success (money, power, sex, etc.) or are just plain old anti-semitic. 5.) His conclusion: "So what if Jews do control Hollywood?" Sorry, Ben, but that's a cop-out. In the end, you really haven't said anything of substance.

The issue of anti-semitism is more serious than the ignorance shown in your waitress example; like the worst racism it boils down to parentally- or culturally-taught hatred for a whole group of people (under that definition, your little Korean joke doesn't count either). I'm not sure why people seem to like having scapegoats, but that's a topic greater minds than ours have examined at length. No, lets really talk about Brando's point: why have Jews (and like many of the other respondents, I'm one also) in Hollywood helped perpetuate so many awful stereotypes of other races and nationalities? I have not heard anyone else give a straight answer to this, but I can offer my hypothesis: because it's what the public perceived as the truth, and they wanted it in their entertainment. Hollywood collaborated and pandered to it over the years because it sells, pure and simple. I originally thought to blame the studio heads myself, but in the end, they're just businessmen, no better or worse than executives in the drug or tobacco companies like you say. They can point to the product and say "Hey, it's just entertainment" or "We just mirror society" in much the same way that otherwise rational people can defend smoking as not a proven carcinogen.

But we all know the truth - money is the great motivator. And that ain't changing anytime soon. And were you in their position, do you think you would have the guts or ability to change the whole industry, or would you rationalize it away and go for power and glory? As we are too-well aware, the only place starry-eyed do-gooders ever prevail with certainty is in the movies.

Re(1): Let's go back to Brando's point
Posted on January 21, 2005 at 01:02:00 AM by Moshe the Goyim

YOU SAY THIS: why have Jews (and like many of the other respondents, I'm one also) in Hollywood helped perpetuate so many awful stereotypes of other races and nationalities? I have not heard anyone else give a straight answer to this, but I can offer my hypothesis: because it's what the public perceived as the truth, and they wanted it in their entertainment. Hollywood collaborated and pandered to it over the years because it sells, pure and simple. I originally thought to blame the studio heads myself, but in the end, they're just businessmen, no better or worse than executives.

MY RESPONSE:

This nonsense about Jews accommodating mass demand is bullshit. When Jews got together as a Jew Klux Klan in Hollywood 80 years ago to agree they wouldn't portray Jews onscreen in a negative light, this pact has lasted to the present day. On the other hand, all other peoples' are subject to Jewish Hollywood defamation. Following your logic, defamatory "Jew movies" would have continued because it was the norm of the day and there was money in it.

From http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

In the earliest years of the movie and entertainment industry, Jewish filmmakers often popularized negative images of the Jewish community. "Some of the worst offenders," says Nathan Belth, "were themselves Jews." [BELTH, p. 46] The "so-called 'Jew movies' were produced at the rate of one every two week." [BELTH, p. 50] These centered on highly unflattering Jewish characters -- smugglers, robbers, lustful "Yiddish sports," and miserly swindlers. In 1916, the Anti-Defamation League convinced Carl Laemmle (the Jewish head of Universal film studios) to avoid making any movie that "held Jews up to ridicule or contempt ... By 1920 the policy enunciated by Laemmle became the general practice among movie makers." [BELTH, p. 50]

Re(1): Commentary on .... Cont
Posted on January 20, 2005 at 01:22:52 PM by Mitchell Levine

"And yes, it does. Who do you think is spearheading the assault on Christian values right now? It's secular Jews that dominate Hollywood and the media hiding behind Judaism. Duh. Who do you is behind the ACLU? Duh. Nativity scenes out of the public square. Duh! The culture war against Mel Gibson. Duh!!! Endless billions for Israel? Duh. The war in Iraq? The neo-cons, predominantly Jewish. Duh! The Jews that dominate Hollywood are definitely pushing an agenda that favors and supports the Jewish lobby's agenda and the agenda of the AIPAC and the agenda of the Neo-Cons. Duh!! And much of this is all about uncritical support of Israel. Any surprise Murdoch is one of the biggest Zionists around. It doesn't matter if Murdoch doesn't SEEM like a Jew so long as he supports Israel and the hundreds of billions American citizens have pissed over there. You will NEVER see O'Reilly, who is a Murdoch mouth-piece into the Gentile Establishment, bad mouth Israel. Murdoch would fire him instantly. Thus this is evidence that Murdoch is not only Jewish, but pushes the Jewish agenda. "

- Jim, this paragraph is the most antisemitic thing I've seen since Mein Kampf, and you might have well just have pulled it directly from Jenks' site.

You should really get some help before you end up shaving your head and moving to Coeur D'Alaine, Idaho.

Anti-German Levine?
Posted on January 22, 2005 at 04:52:55 PM by James Jaeger

>- Jim, this paragraph is the most antisemitic thing I've seen since Mein Kampf, and you might have well just have pulled it directly from Jenks' site.

I have no idea what you mean by "anti-Semitic." So if one critisizes the Republicans, are they anti-Republican? If one critisizes the French are they anti-French? Again, sounds like puerile name-calling to me.

Also, sounds like you are anti-German, given how much you attack me for my opinions.

>You should really get some help before you end up shaving your head and moving to Coeur D'Alaine, Idaho.

Maybe you need to be a little more tolerant of other's opinions, otherwise you may turn into a bigot and we wouldn't want that.

James Jaeger

Re(1): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on January 24, 2005 at 11:05:31 AM by Mitchell Levine

"I have no idea what you mean by "anti-Semitic." So if one critisizes the Republicans, are they anti-Republican? If one critisizes the French are they anti-French? Again, sounds like puerile name-calling to me. "

- Sorry, Jim, but no one uses expressions like "the Jewsh agenda" except bigots.

Your choice of words reflects the fact that you crossed over the border of "legitimate criticism" and into antisemitism a while ago.

If you were hysterically raving about a big French conspiracy to destroy Christianity and force people to say "happy holidays," then you could be described as "anti-French."

Re(2): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 02:02:04 PM by James Jaeger

>- Sorry, Jim, but no one uses expressions like "the Jewsh agenda" except bigots.

So you deny that there is a group of people that calls itself Jews? You deny that the AIPAC exists? You deny that more than 50% of Jews are liberal, democrats. You assert that no rules can be made to identify the majority of Jewish positions on issues? If so, why bother perpetuating the group identity?

>Your choice of words reflects the fact that you crossed over the border of "legitimate criticism" and into antisemitism a while ago.

Oh, so it's not legitimate to criticize Jews as a group unless I use prescribed language suitable to people such as yourself?

>If you were hysterically raving about a big French conspiracy to destroy Christianity and force people to say "happy holidays," then you could be described as "anti-French."

The term, "hysterically raving," is your characterization of my agreement with John Cones' research and the various questions connected with Jewish hegemony that I have raised. All legitimate as far as I, and a growing number in the media, are concerned.

James Jaeger

Re(3): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on January 28, 2005 at 05:47:41 PM by Mitchell Levine

So you deny that there is a group of people that calls itself Jews? You deny that the AIPAC exists? You deny that more than 50% of Jews are liberal, democrats. You assert that no rules can be made to identify the majority of Jewish positions on issues? If so, why bother perpetuating the group identity?

- None of that means that there's a sinister "Jewish agenda" collectively pursued by the "Jewish lobby," which, like the perennial "homosexual agenda" to force children into a life of pederasty, is a concept exclusive to paranoid bigots.

It's just a ridiculous as claiming that the presence of the Chistian Coalition in American politics demonstrates the existence of the evil "Christian agenda" aiming to take over Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and force them to convert to Protestantism, like Anne Coulter says, would be.

"Group identity" isn't synonymous with "conspiratorial plot," and certainly doesn't prove that a group has harmful objectives for non-members.

Oh, so it's not legitimate to criticize Jews as a group unless I use prescribed language suitable to people such as yourself?
- You say whatever you wish, but you shouldn't be suprised if people consider you an antisemite.

If Jews criticized Christians as a group, you'd be up in arms about their anti-Christian bigotry, so you should really do unto others...

Like Christians, Jews can't do anything as a group; only individual people can, and they aren't collectively responsible for what other people of their ethnicity do, any more than you are.

So your "group criticism" can't possibly be based on anything but stereotypes.

If a Jewish pundit said that Christians everywhere were genetically predisposed to be antisemites, you'd be frothing about it.

The term, "hysterically raving," is your characterization of my agreement with John Cones' research and the various questions connected with Jewish hegemony that I have raised.
- Yet another phrase taken directly from Jenks, "Jewish hegemony"; i.e., the belief that overrepresentation of Jews - and as far as I can tell, because you've never claimed that statistical overrepresentation of any other group is harmful - is "bad" for everyone else, because Jews obviously discriminate against non-Jews as part of their "Jewish agenda," despite your inability to prove it with a single example of some discriminated against.

So you're in favor of re-enatcting the provisions of the Nuremburg Laws that labelled any industry which has more than 10% Jewish tenure "dominated by the Jews," and close any further Jewish presence in it?

It's noticeable that Asians are overrepresented in many fields. How do you feel about that, and what steps do you think we should take to end it?

There's also an awful lot of Irish police officers. Should we also set up quotas for them? Wouldn't Irish criminal justice hegemony be harmful for everyone else?

At what point are ethnic quotas bigotry?

All legitimate as far as I, and a growing number in the media, are concerned.
- I don't think they're are too many forms of discrimination against Jews that you don't consider "legitimate," Jim.

Re(4): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 07:53:18 PM by James Jaeger

>- None of that means that there's a sinister "Jewish agenda" collectively pursued by the "Jewish lobby," which, like the perennial "homosexual agenda" to force children into a life of pederasty, is a concept exclusive to paranoid bigots.

Mitchell, every identifiable group has a spectrum of behaviors ranging from one extreme to the other, and usually these behaviors form a bell-shaped curve whereby the majority-behavior is manifest. By the same token, history has shown that usually only a modest or small percentage of those in any identifiable group are activists. There's a book out there, I think the title is ON MASS MOVEMENTS, that gives endless examples. Thus my point is this: nefarious behavior, in the name of a group, can emanate from ANY group even if only 5% of the members of that group are activist. It's the same way with corporate control. Most people are under the misunderstanding that it takes a 51% ownership of a corporation to control it. Well maybe this is true for small corporations, but not true for big public corporations. Big corporations can be controlled, for good or for bad, by as little as 5% of the stockholders. I have other examples below.

Thus, out of the 6 million or so Jews in the U.S., it only takes a small number who are intense on an agenda to accomplish goals, whether nefarious or patriotic. If the vast majority of Jews in general take no action against the minority of Jews that influence the studios to discriminate in their hiring practices, for instance, or Jews in general benefit from an agenda that sacrifices the interests of the majority of non-Jewish U.S. citizens (such as endless and uncritical support of Israel as a result of the lobbying power of the AIPAC), then they are, in essence, giving consent to those who operate under the banner of Judaism. I feel that if anyone, in any group, is to allow another to claim that they are also in the group, it's the responsibility of group members to speak up when they disagree with another group member's actions, or if those actions are not fair to the greater whole. The fact that so much of the Jewish community hasn't spoken up about the lack of diversity in the studios, indicates that they condone it. The fact that Jews in general assault me and John Cones for bringing this to everyone's attention, is proof that such Jews in general condone the lack of diversity in Hollywood and attempt to "justify" it with all the tired arguments, ones I have heard endlessly out of your mouth and others.

>It's just a ridiculous as claiming that the presence of the Christian Coalition in American politics demonstrates the existence of the evil "Christian agenda" aiming to take over Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and force them to convert to Protestantism, like Anne Coulter says, would be.

There are always factions of any group that do things that others will label "sinister." Remember, what you call "sinister" is your consideration. Besides, the Christian Church has formed many splinter groups over the millennia (from Protestants to Quakers to Mormons then Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and Born-Agains. . . etc., etc.). This shows that every time a faction of the Christian Church went off and did their own thing, perhaps considered "sinister" by the remainder, they were forced to splinter off from some part of the body of the Christian Church and become a different group, with a different name. But I don't think you can say the same thing about Judaism as, to my knowledge, there are only three basic flavors of it and no splinter groups. Maybe I'm wrong on this as I'm no expert on Judaism.



>"Group identity" isn't synonymous with "conspiratorial plot," and certainly doesn't prove that a group has harmful objectives for non-members.

No, it's not "synonymous" with "conspiratorial plot," but as I have pointed out above: a) it doesn't take the entire group, but only a small percentage to direct the group and have the benefits of it's identity and assets; b) most members of a group are inert, especially in major causes; and c) the inaction of group members to neither protest certain anti-social behavior or bow out of the group and form a splinter group, if no reform, is indication, or even substantiation, of a condoning of the anti-social behavior. In this case, when Jews in general don't protest (or bow out or splinter in reaction to) the anti-social, predatory, unethical and illegal activities of fellow Jews in positions of power in the top echelons of the 7 MPAA studio/distributors, they are in effect condoning it.

>>Oh, so it's not legitimate to criticize Jews as a group unless I use prescribed language suitable to people such as yourself?

>- You say whatever you wish, but you shouldn't be suprised if people consider you an antisemite.

What people? Jews or Gentiles? If Jews consider me an anti-Semite just because I criticize the anti-social behavior of the Jews in the control group, then those Jews are hypocritical bigots. They are bigots because they can't tolerate an alternate, or dissenting, point of view and they are hypocrites because they expect me to do just that for them which they have criticized others for not doing for themselves. If Gentiles consider me an anti-Semite, they are simply indicating, or proving, that they are apologists or sycophants to Jewish hegemony, because the criticism isn't even ABOUT them. So yes, I am quite surprised, because I had always held my fellows in higher esteem prior to my involvement with FIRM.

>If Jews criticized Christians as a group, you'd be up in arms about their anti-Christian bigotry, so you should really do unto others...

Green-lighting Jewish studio heads and apologists for same criticize and invalidate Christians as a group all the time by releasing endless assaults to their beliefs and doctrine in the movies as well as on cable TV. People like Bill Donahue have a full time job policing this.

>Like Christians, Jews can't do anything as a group; only individual people can, and they aren't collectively responsible for what other people of their ethnicity do, any more than you are.

Well I disagree. When I was in Scientology you were TOTALLY responsible for how you acted as a member of that group. In fact, Scientologists in the OT levels take (group and individual) responsibility so seriously, they consider that when ANYTHING contra survival happens, even anywhere in the world, they are to some degree responsible, responsible for acts of omission more so than acts of commission. Maybe this is the extreme level of responsibility, and few can live up to this ideal without going through certain training, but when you are committed to almost ANY group -- whether it be a company, a family or a religious group -- you are, to some degree, held responsible for how you behave, otherwise the group fires you, divorces you or excommunicates. Come on, where have you been your entire life Mitchell?! From what I get from you, this isn't the way it is in Judaism? Anything goes it seems. Is this correct? Does ANYTHING go in Judaism? If so, I would say it's a group that operates in total discord, chaos or anarchy and I hope that's not the case. Hey, maybe there is no DELIBERATING BODY in Judaism per se, just like in the Counsel on Foreign Relations, but is simply a TACTIC? If a group has no formal board meetings or congresses and it keeps no minutes so there is no paper trail, it can make like a chameleon and alter policy or its agenda in an ad hoc manner and thus avoid being held accountable for almost everything. Not even the Nazis did this as they kept lists and paper trails obsessively. And no, I'm not saying that Jews are as bad as the Nazis, but I AM saying they, like ANY group, have the POTENTIAL to be AS BAD as the Nazis because they are human; but also because a) they have a motivation due to the holocaust; b) they dominate the U.S. propaganda machine (movies and media); c) they are the wealthiest group, PER CAPITA, of any ethnic group in the U.S.; and d) the AIPAC is, by far, the best funded political committee in the U.S. political scene.(1)

>So your "group criticism" can't possibly be based on anything but stereotypes.

Stereotypes? What do you mean by this canard? My views are based upon data and situation analysis.

>If a Jewish pundit said that Christians everywhere were genetically predisposed to be antisemites, you'd be frothing about it.

Some things you can generalize about and some things you cannot. As I have said, it takes very few members of a group to wield the assets of that group because many people are apathetic or ignorant. Less than 60% vote; only 30% wanted to declare independence from Britain; a 5% block of voting stock can alter the direction of a major corporation; 80% of your problems come from 20% of your customers; mass movements usually involve only a sliver of the involvement of any given population. Thus it is totally within reason that the entire Jewish community could be controlled and manipulated by a very small handful of Jewish opinion leaders, wealthy Jewish individuals or Jewish celebrities (and major studios execs ARE celebrities) -– even people that only pretend to be Jewish, and hold no Jewish values (most of which were adopted by Christianity and are mutually shared by the two religions to this very day) could accomplish this – AND, in such case, yes, they WOULD be "nefarious" Mitch old boy.

>>The term, "hysterically raving," is your characterization of my agreement with John Cones' research and the various questions connected with Jewish hegemony that I have raised.

>- Yet another phrase taken directly from Jenks, "Jewish hegemony";

If you put the term "Jewish hegemony" into your Google search engine, you will find this term comes up from many other people other than Jenks.

>i.e., the belief that overrepresentation of Jews - and as far as I can tell, because you've never claimed that statistical overrepresentation of any other group is harmful - is "bad" for everyone else,

Not true. John Cones and I have consistently maintained that a "statistical overrepresentation" of ANY other group in the top-positions of the studio/distributors would be JUST as undesirable as the current group. This is thus NOT all about Jews as you would like to promote (to the uninformed).

>because Jews obviously discriminate against non-Jews as part of their "Jewish agenda," despite your inability to prove it with a single example of some discriminated against.

In my personal life I have witnessed Jews hiring other Jews over my services when my services were every bit as qualified. Also my wife has recited to me her adventures getting hired at a Jewish-owned jewelry story whereby she was entirely MORE qualified than 99% of the other employees, 95% of which were "strangely" Jewish, BECAUSE she not only had extensive sales and design experience, but she was the ONLY GIA-certified Gemologist in the company: except for one (1) of the Jewish owners who only worked in one (1) of the three stores located over two (2) states. Thus my observations of Jewish discrimination when it comes to the workplace are NOT based on stereotypes but based on numerous personal experiences, eye-witness reports from family members, friends and business associates (in other words DATA) and my analysis of the situation.

>So you're in favor of re-enatcting the provisions of the Nuremburg Laws that labelled any industry which has more than 10% Jewish tenure "dominated by the Jews," and close any further Jewish presence in it?

No, I'm in favor of enforcing the laws that are already on the books that forbid any employer, including Jewish studio executives, from discriminating for race, religion, age and sex. When that is done, we won't see demographics like the one at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>It's noticeable that Asians are overrepresented in many fields. How do you feel about that, and what steps do you think we should take to end it?

Same steps that I ask be taken for the film industry.

>There's also an awful lot of Irish police officers. Should we also set up quotas for them? Wouldn't Irish criminal justice hegemony be harmful for everyone else?

Yes it would be and Bill O'Reilly is a perfect example of an over-sized Irish policeman.

>At what point are ethnic quotas bigotry?

I am NOT for quotas. I am for the cycle of employment -- WITHOUT discrimination in ANY of its forms (i.e., nepotism, cronyism, religious/racial/sexual/age bias) –- to be allowed to dictate the NATURAL quotas that happen solely as a result of MERIT.

>>All legitimate as far as I, and a growing number in the media, are concerned.

>- I don't think they're are too many forms of discrimination against Jews that you don't consider "legitimate," Jim.

I don't condone ANY form of discrimination, whether it be against a Jew or a Non-Jew.

James Jaeger


----------------------------
(1) See The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel by Richard H. Curtiss at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/truelies.htm

Re(5): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 02:07:46 AM by Mitchell Levine


-Mitchell, every identifiable group has a spectrum of behaviors ranging from one extreme to the other, and usually these behaviors form a bell-shaped curve whereby the majority-behavior is manifest. By the same token, history has shown that usually only a modest or small percentage of those in any identifiable group are activists. There's a book out there, I think the title is ON MASS MOVEMENTS, that gives endless examples. Thus my point is this: nefarious behavior, in the name of a group, can emanate from ANY group even if only 5% of the members of that group are activist. It's the same way with corporate control. Most people are under the misunderstanding that it takes a 51% ownership of a corporation to control it. Well maybe this is true for small corporations, but not true for big public corporations. Big corporations can be controlled, for good or for bad, by as little as 5% of the stockholders. I have other examples below.

Thus, out of the 6 million or so Jews in the U.S., it only takes a small number who are intense on an agenda to accomplish goals, whether nefarious or patriotic.
- Sorry, Jim, but that's total bullshit - that isn't a "Jewish agenda" That would be an agenda pursued by a small number of people. "The Jewish agenda" is an agenda pursued by Jews as an entire group.

That's why only bigots use the phrase.

If the vast majority of Jews in general take no action against the minority of Jews that influence the studios to discriminate in their hiring practices
- You've never provided even the slightest evidence that studios DO discriminate in their hiring practices, like, for example, the name of anyone that's ever been discriminated against for not being Jewish.


, for instance, or Jews in general benefit from an agenda that sacrifices the interests of the majority of non-Jewish U.S. citizens (such as endless and uncritical support of Israel as a result of the lobbying power of the AIPAC),
- That's not for the "benefit of Jews" - it's for the benefit of the politicians that want the votes of the 80% of the nation that identifies as Christian, the majority of which believe that Israel has to be controlled by Jews for Christ to return for the Final Judgement.

That's the Christian Agenda, Jim. Because of your religious group's ideology, the bloc of voters that determines the outcomes of elections demand that Israel be Jewish.

then they are, in essence, giving consent to those who operate under the banner of Judaism. I feel that if anyone, in any group, is to allow another to claim that they are also in the group, it's the responsibility of group members to speak up when they disagree with another group member's actions, or if those actions are not fair to the greater whole.
- It's just your opinion that they aren't "fair" to the greater whole, and they don't have any control over it either.

Your idea of "fair" is repealing the Civil Rights Act of '64, or putting a "Jewish exception." You think "fair" is ethnic quotas, and no one in the Jewish community agrees.

Hollywood is Jewish because it was created by Jews looking for an industry that wasn't blocked due to Gentile discrimination, AND gentiles didn't want in, based on snobbery.

It's only been about twenty five years or so that Gentiles have wished to get into the movie business, when today's group of execs were already in mid-career. They paid their dues, and mow the industry Gentiles will have to pay theirs.

The business is filled with successful non-Jewish producers and execs, as a quick reading of Variety proves. In time, they'll have their day. Eisner and Geffen get to have theirs now.

The only "discrimination" happened when Hollywood was formed, and the WASP establishment snubbed it. If they hadn't, there'd be more non-Jewish studio heads like Faye Vincent.


then they are, in essence, giving consent to those who operate under the banner of Judaism.
- No, they aren't - they have nothing to do with it, and don't believe Jews did anything wrong by creating Hollywood.

Since you've produced no evidence of "discrimination" other than the fact that an industry started by Jews has a lot of Jews in it, they unsurprisingly don't find your claims compelling.

Well I disagree. When I was in Scientology you were TOTALLY responsible for how you acted as a member of that group.
- Yes, Jim - that's why it's considered a creepy pseudoscientific cult started by a science fiction writer, and is currently under criminal investigation.

Ethnic groups don't work that way - just because a WASP was indicted for fraud at Arthur Andersen doesn't mean WASPs everywhere are responsible. Collective responsbility is bullshit. You're responsible for what you do.

From what I get from you, this isn't the way it is in Judaism? Anything goes it seems. Is this correct? Does ANYTHING go in Judaism?
- Jim, the overwhelming majority of Jews are secular, and just consider themselves an ethnic group like Italians. If the studios try to imply that all Italians are Mafioso, you'd say that's a stereotype.

In short, you aren't responsible for what other members of your ethnicity do.

Hey, maybe there is no DELIBERATING BODY in Judaism per se, just like in the Counsel on Foreign Relations, but is simply a TACTIC? If a group has no formal board meetings or congresses and it keeps no minutes so there is no paper trail, it can make like a chameleon and alter policy or its agenda in an ad hoc manner and thus avoid being held accountable for almost everything.
- Yes, Jim - Jews everywhere log into JewNet where we have a massive mindmeld to plot the Jewish agenda. Do you realize HOW ridiculous you sound?

And no, I'm not saying that Jews are as bad as the Nazis
- PHEW, that' s a real relief, Jim!!! For a second, I thought you meant that a fascist political party that plotted the extermination of millions for the cause of racial purity was a valid comparison to an ethnic group comprised primarily of doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, etc. that have the audacity to exist!

Thus it is totally within reason that the entire Jewish community could be controlled and manipulated by a very small handful of Jewish opinion leaders, wealthy Jewish individuals or Jewish celebrities (and major studios execs ARE celebrities) -– even people that only pretend to be Jewish, and hold no Jewish values (most of which were adopted by Christianity and are mutually shared by the two religions to this very day) could accomplish this – AND, in such case, yes, they WOULD be "nefarious" Mitch old boy.
- Sorry, but the most "nefarious" thing you've identified they might be responsible for is not hiring enough studio execs, and supporting Israel, which isn't a crime either.

Except for the premises you've adopted from white racist Kevin MacDonald about Jews "supporting immigration from nations that aren't antisemitic," etc, you've established no "Jewish agenda."

If you put the term "Jewish hegemony" into your Google search engine, you will find this term comes up from many other people other than Jenks.
- Yes, from neo-Nazi websites, like JewWatch and Stormfront.

Not true. John Cones and I have consistently maintained that a "statistical overrepresentation" of ANY other group in the top-positions of the studio/distributors would be JUST as undesirable as the current group. This is thus NOT all about Jews as you would like to promote (to the uninformed).
- Nope, for you, it's all about the Jews. If it were dominated by Italians, you wouldn't bat an eye - unless they also thumbs-downed your Stalin script.

No, I'm in favor of enforcing the laws that are already on the books that forbid any employer, including Jewish studio executives, from discriminating for race, religion, age and sex. When that is done, we won't see demographics like the one at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist
- Not necessarily - there's no evidence they're discriminating now, and whoever else ran the studies might decide that the Jewish individuals there now do the job the best. They did start the industry.

Overrepresentation doesn't equal discrimination no matter how hard you try to make the equation. The question is: are the individuals in question the best at what they do regardless of their ethnicity?

In my personal life I have witnessed Jews hiring other Jews over my services when my services were every bit as qualified.
- George Shelps certainly doesn't believe that, and he knows you pretty well.

He says you haven't made a film in twenty years, and you continue to hawk a poor script with low audience appeal.

Also my wife has recited to me her adventures getting hired at a Jewish-owned jewelry story whereby she was entirely MORE qualified than 99% of the other employees, 95% of which were "strangely" Jewish, BECAUSE she not only had extensive sales and design experience, but she was the ONLY GIA-certified Gemologist in the company: except for one (1) of the Jewish owners who only worked in one (1) of the three stores located over two (2) states.
- Jim, they HIRED her, and if I'm not mistaken, she works there now.

As you're aware, the reason 95% of her coworkers are Jewish is because 57 street was begun by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe that were diamond merchants abroad. Their families continue to go into the business, and it's not like scads of non-Jews want in to their operations there. They're working in an ethnic district of New York.

And when qualified non-Jews like your wife apply, they get hired like she did. Where is the "discrimination?"

Thus my observations of Jewish discrimination when it comes to the workplace are NOT based on stereotypes but based on numerous personal experiences, eye-witness reports from family members, friends and business associates (in other words DATA) and my analysis of the situation.
- That's not "data," those are ANECDOTES, and your interpretation is highly questionable, as in the fact that your wife works there now, if I recall correctly.

That's not to mention that the simple fact that ultra-orthodox Hasids on W. 57th street made your wife's life difficult, and that you can't get your script produced doesn't "prove" that "Jews discriminate, and the supposed lack of Gentile studio heads is therefore discrimination."

Same steps that I ask be taken for the film industry.
- Like what? Set up ethnic quotas for them at colleges despite the fact that they have provably higher test scores and grades, and the highest average IQs of any nations in the world?

Yes it would be and Bill O'Reilly is a perfect example of an over-sized Irish policeman.
- Bill O'Reilly isn't a policeman, Jim, nor is that analogy appropriate for the Jew-dominated media, is it?

I am NOT for quotas. I am for the cycle of employment -- WITHOUT discrimination in ANY of its forms (i.e., nepotism, cronyism, religious/racial/sexual/age bias) –- to be allowed to dictate the NATURAL quotas that happen solely as a result of MERIT.
- Bunk - you've already discussed your ideas for quota schemes, not only in Hollywood, but Congress too.

I don't condone ANY form of discrimination, whether it be against a Jew or a Non-Jew.
- Except your stated belief that only white Christians should interpret the Constitution.


If the vast majority of Jews in general take no action against the minority of Jews that influence the studios to discriminate in their hiring practices, for instance, or Jews in general benefit from an agenda that
sacrifices the interests of the majority of non-Jewish U.S. citizens

Re(6): Anti-German Levine? Cont
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 01:59:17 AM by James Jaeger

>If it were dominated by Italians, you wouldn't bat an eye - unless they also thumbs-downed your Stalin script.

No that's simply not true. If any group was discriminating, it would eventually concern me. Prior to my involvement with FIRM I never even thought about who or who did not dominate Hollywood. It was the FARTHEST thing from my mind. I have written 5 books, all prior to my involvement with FIRM, and these books are all over the movie industry. You cannot find one IOTA of mention of Jews or Jewish domination of the movie business in any of them. It was simply NOT on my radar.


>- Not necessarily - there's no evidence they're discriminating now,

Yes there is evidence. The evidence is at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>and whoever else ran the studies might decide that the Jewish individuals there now do the job the best. They did start the industry.

No they did not start the industry. They only started a branch of the industry on the West Coast so they could skip to Mexico if the law was coming after them for patent infringement. New York is still where all the West Coast studios and the industry is controlled from.

>Overrepresentation doesn't equal discrimination no matter how hard you try to make the equation. The question is: are the individuals in question the best at what they do regardless of their ethnicity?

We have had this argument over and over. We simply disagree. I maintain that the overrepresentation of over 60, some say 75% IS evidence of discrimination because Jews are not necessarily the best at running studios. To claim they are is elitist, if not bigoted. Studios are corporate entities, and corporate entities in most fields, by your own words, were dominated by Gentiles. Thus it would stand to reason that Gentiles were better qualified to run the corporate entities that are the studios, especially today. And they would, if such rampant and unbridled discrimination were not taking place, to this very day, amongst Jewish studio executives who push power to each other with abandon.

>-George Shelps certainly doesn't believe that, and he knows you pretty well.

I met George Shelps around 1994 and have gotten together with him a total of 4 times in 11 years. I have never met any of his family or friends and he has only met one of my family members in an hour meeting. Other than arguing on the Net and exchanging emails, it's a mischaracterization to say that he knows me "pretty well."

>He says you haven't made a film in twenty years, and you continue to hawk a poor script with low audience appeal.

That's simple not true. You can read what I have done over the past
year(s) at the MEC update page at http://www.mecfilms.com/update.htm


>- Jim, they HIRED her, and if I'm not mistaken, she works there now.

They only hired her after she repeatedly sought employment.

>As you're aware, the reason 95% of her coworkers are Jewish is because 57 street was begun by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe that were diamond merchants abroad. Their families continue to go into the business, and it's not like scads of non-Jews want in to their operations there. They're working in an ethnic district of New York.

While this may be true, my wife got a good view into the hiring and business practices of an establishment owned and run by Jews. As I stated, she was more qualified to work at the store because she was the only GIA gemologist other than one owner; she had sales experience in three stores on both coasts; and had an impeccable track record for designing AND building expensive pieces, which have never failed to sell. Given all this, she had to repeatedly call and apply to get accepted into the store. After she had worked at the store and everyone got to know her talents, they BEGGED her not to leave and offered her more money to stay. This proves that she was a good egg and they discriminated against her prior to knowing her capabilities. While employed at the store she saw things that were troubling, to use a Jewish expression. For instance, the charms that the store sold were stored in one of two boxes in the back. These boxes were labeled "Jewish Charms" and "Gentile Charms" indicating that they considered there to be a division between Jews and all other people.

>And when qualified non-Jews like your wife apply, they get hired like she did. Where is the "discrimination?"

As I stated above -- and I just checked this with her before writing this to make sure I am being fair and accurate -- she had to practically badger them to death to get employment. She knew she was qualified for the job, but their apparent bigotry was blinding them to this fact.

>- That's not "data," those are ANECDOTES,

Anecdotes ARE data. Anything of which one can become aware is a DATUM. Since one can become aware of anecdotes, anecdotes are data. Nice try Mitch.

>and your interpretation is highly questionable, as in the fact that your wife works there now, if I recall correctly.

No, she resigned after they broke an agreement and used about 75 of her designs without payment. She called them on this, invoiced them and, to their credit, they DID pay up. Bear in mind all this happened YEARS before I had met John Cones or had written a WORD about film reform.

>That's not to mention that the simple fact that ultra-orthodox Hasids on W. 57th street made your wife's life difficult,

No, these Jews were secular Jews. In fact, my wife says that one of the Jewish employees at the store said of the Jewish owners: "It's Jews like these that give us all a bad name." Ironically, this comment was spoken by the sister of one of the producer of DYNASTY and KNOTS LANDING indicating that often there is no problem with Jews in general and underscoring the fact that Jews in general don't run Hollywood. In fact this Jew was religious as my wife tells me she regularly went to temple. So Mitch, it was SECULAR Jews that my wife had trouble, the same kind of Jews that dominate Hollywood. I might add, all of the Jewish employees at the jewelry story like my wife and she liked them. When she left, all of the employees and one of the two managers -- who were ALL Jewish, except for one part-time cashier -- took her out to diner and bought her a goodbye present.

>and that you can't get your script produced doesn't "prove" that "Jews discriminate, and the supposed lack of Gentile studio heads is therefore discrimination."

My Stalin project and the studios composition are two separate issues. I have never said that failing to get my script produced proves that "Jews discriminate." I am still hopeful that this project will be made, just as my wife was hopeful that this jewelry store would hire her. If I am persistent, as she was, I can see the day my project will get financed. But I still feel it's unfair that Gentiles have to push so hard on Jewish-dominated establishments in order to be accepted. We are reaching out to you, will you not reach out to us.

>- Like what? Set up ethnic quotas for them at colleges despite the fact that they have provably higher test scores and grades, and the highest average IQs of any nations in the world?

I don't believe the most qualified people to be MPAA studio executives are Jewish. Maybe you do, but then that shows how elitist, if not bigoted you actually are.

>- Bill O'Reilly isn't a policeman, Jim, nor is that analogy appropriate for the Jew-dominated media, is it?

I know he isn't a policemen. That was a joke. He acts like a policemen, "looking out for the folks," and all that stuff.

>- Bunk - you've already discussed your ideas for quota schemes, not only in Hollywood, but Congress too.

Well if that's true, please present such statements to me, because I can't think of any time I have felt that such would be fair. As far as Congress, yes I have felt a quota would be fair. I feel that congress should be 50% male and 50% female because the population, uniformly, is about 50% male and 50% female. Actually the population is 51% female and 49% male, but I won't require there be 51 female senators and only 49 male senators, unless one insists.

>>I don't condone ANY form of discrimination, whether it be against a Jew or a Non-Jew.

>- Except your stated belief that only white Christians should interpret the Constitution.

What?! Where did that come from?

James Jaeger

Re(6): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 01:58:37 AM by James Jaeger

>- Sorry, Jim, but that's total bullshit - that isn't a "Jewish agenda" That would be an agenda pursued by a small number of people. "The Jewish agenda" is an agenda pursued by Jews as an entire group.

A group's agenda is an EMERGENT PROPERTY of the people that NETWORK with each other to FORM the group identity. Every person in a group can seem like, or be an individual, but, to the degree the individuals communicate with each other, they create a group identity, a group agenda. And this agenda is AN emergent property. Jews are not the only group that manifest emergent properties or an unconscious agenda. All groups and all networks do. But the more people have in common, the greater the probability of communication and empathy. Thus, since over 50% of the executives that control the studios are a) liberal, b) secular, c) male, d) Jewish there is a greater tendency for these people to communicate amongst themselves, thus forming a stronger network amongst themselves than with others. To the degree this network communicates with itself, it will have emergent properties, and one of these emergent properties will be a political agenda. Other emergent properties will be a social agenda as well as an economic agenda.

>That's why only bigots use the phrase.

Bigots are people that have an irrational intolerance for someone. To simply describe and opine upon a network and its sociological agenda is not bigotry, nor is it anti-Semitism if one of the elements of the demographic just happen to be Jewish. Mitchell, you are making a fool out of yourself by trying to defend Jews when no defense is necessary.

- You've never provided even the slightest evidence that studios DO discriminate in their hiring practices,

I certainly have. The evidence is in the RESULTS of control that have accrued over the last 100 years. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist

>like, for example, the name of anyone that's ever been discriminated against for not being Jewish.

No need to specifically name anyone because the mere fact that the list is so devoid of diversity proves all by itself that in order for this condition to have arisen there was circumstantial if not rampant discrimination over the long term. If your thesis that "Jews started the industry were valid," DISNEY would not be so dominated by Jews as it is today for DISNEY was founded by Gentiles.

>-That's not for the "benefit of Jews" -it's for the benefit of the politicians that want the votes of the 80% of the nation that identifies as Christian, the majority of which believe that Israel has to be controlled by Jews for Christ to return for the Final Judgment.

There is some truth in what you say here, but it is disingenuous to say that this doesn't benefit Jews because, after all, Jews are getting billions of dollars poured into Israel on a regular basis, and many feel we have even sacrificed the lives of young men and women to fight a war in Iraq just so greater security could be delivered to Israel.

>That's the Christian Agenda, Jim. Because of your religious group's ideology, the bloc of voters that determines the outcomes of elections demand that Israel be Jewish.

I am not doubting this is a Christian Agenda. As I have said, all groups have emergent properties and one of these properties is inevitably the way a group interacts its resources with the outside world, in other words politics. My only grip is: If this is true, shouldn't the Jewish community ethically refuse to play along with the Christian agenda? In other words, stop riding on their coattails by using the Bible, in particular the New Testament and Revelations, to extort control over Christians?

>-Hollywood is Jewish because it was created by Jews looking for an industry that wasn't blocked due to Gentile discrimination, AND gentiles didn't want in, based on snobbery. It's only been about twenty five years or so that Gentiles have wished to get into the movie business, when today's group of execs were already in mid-career. They paid their dues, and mow the industry Gentiles will have to pay theirs.

Your lame excuse to justify wanton discrimination. See my DISNEY example above.

>-The business is filled with successful non-Jewish producers and execs, as a quick reading of Variety proves. In time, they'll have their day. Eisner and Geffen get to have theirs now.

That's MALE non-Jewish producers and execs -- only one (1) element of the salient demographic. Women now hold FEWER positions as directors, producers and studio executives than they did a decade ago. John Cones says the studios are dominated by liberal, not very religious, Jewish MALES of European heritage. So note, one of the elements of this demographic is worsening, NOT improving. Let's stop making this conversation all about Jews.

>The only "discrimination" happened when Hollywood was formed, and the WASP establishment snubbed it. If they hadn't, there'd be more non-Jewish studio heads like Faye Vincent.

Is this some sort of theme? Jews never do anything wrong, only Gentiles.

>- No, they aren't - they have nothing to do with it, and don't believe Jews did anything wrong by creating Hollywood.

They stole the patent for the movie camera from Edison, a Gentile.

>Since you've produced no evidence of "discrimination" other than the fact that an industry started by Jews has a lot of Jews in it, they unsurprisingly don't find your claims compelling.

The results ARE the evidence. You just don't want to confront that.

>- Yes, Jim - that's why it's considered a creepy pseudoscientific cult started by a science fiction writer, and is currently under criminal investigation.

I've been hearing this for 20 years now. Typical journalist mentality.

>Ethnic groups don't work that way - just because a WASP was indicted for fraud at Arthur Andersen doesn't mean WASPs everywhere are responsible. Collective responsibility is bullshit.

Oh, so the fact that the predominantly WASP SEC has investigated and taken legal action against the WASP at AA, ISN'T an example of group ethics?!

>- Jim, the overwhelming majority of Jews are secular, and just consider themselves an ethnic group like Italians. If the studios try to imply that all Italians are Mafioso, you'd say that's a stereotype.

If you arrest 100 Mafioso and 99 of them are Italian, it's doesn't mean that all Italians are Mafioso, but if it keeps happening, it is a poor reflection on Italians and it's something that decent people who are Italian will become concerned about.

>In short, you aren't responsible for what other members of your ethnicity do.

Maybe you aren't responsible per se, but doesn't it behooves one, if they take any pride in the good name of their group, to help their fellows live happier more successful lives? And aren't such lives lived by doing what's lawful and moral?

- Yes, Jim - Jews everywhere log into JewNet where we have a massive mindmeld to plot the Jewish agenda. Do you realize HOW ridiculous you sound?

Then what is the purpose of identifying yourself as a Jew if you have NO binding agreements, principles, views on life or relationships? Mitch, are most of your friends Jewish or non-Jewish? I admit most of my friends are non-Jewish. I would like to have more Jewish friends, but I have never been invited into their world, even decades prior to my going public in support of John Cones research.

>- PHEW, that' s a real relief, Jim!!! For a second, I thought you meant that a fascist political party that plotted the extermination of millions for the cause of racial purity was a valid comparison to an ethnic group comprised primarily of doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, etc. that have the audacity to exist!

Since this subject is taboo, no one really knows what the Jews did or did not do to engender the wrath of the German people and their leader, Adolph Hitler. A new doc on the History channel says Hitler went crazy because of some medicine his doctor was giving him. So we are still finding out about this period of history. You tell me, did the Jews do anything to piss off the Germans or were they just innocent victims of a madman and an entire mad population? History wasn't my subject because I knew from a very early age that it was recounted mostly by the victors. The problem I have though, is I don't want to hear German history only recounted only via a media dominated by Jews because I feel the tendency to bias the truth is too great.

>- Sorry, but the most "nefarious" thing you've identified they might be responsible for is not hiring enough studio execs, and supporting Israel, which isn't a crime either.

Well Mitch, contrary to what you must think I think of Jews, I don't even consider these tow things "nefarious" because as I have tried to point out repeatedly, all groups indulge in the same activities. This is the problem in the former case because "Birds of a feather stick together." As far as the later case, there is nothing wrong with supporting your homeland. Where I have a problem is with dual loyalties as in the case of American Jews who also lobby to send excessive amounts of money and support to Israel even when it's not in the best interests of non-Jewish Americans.
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid Since 1949 as of November 1, 1997 alone have been well over $135,000,000,000

(source: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs)

>Except for the premises you've adopted from white racist Kevin MacDonald about Jews "supporting immigration from nations that aren't antisemitic," etc, you've established no "Jewish agenda."

No you recognize no Jewish agenda.

>- Yes, from neo-Nazi websites, like JewWatch and Stormfront.

Obviously you didn't try it.

- Nope, for you, it's all about the Jews.

Well yes it is, if it's the Hollywood Jews that are specifically doing the discrimination. But the stated demographic incorporates more than just Jews. It incorporates excessive MALE domination. Even though I happen to be a male, I would like to see more WOMEN studio executives, but unfortunately as I cited above, this hasn't been the trend. I would say the Jewish element of the control group demographic is probably the most binding with the elements of MALE and LIBERAL following second and third. I don't think people who are secular "bind" with each other except for when they ridicule "all the religious freaks" out there. I don't know whether the SECULAR element is more binding than the LIBERAL. All I know is I have far more friends that fall into the non-Jewish category thus I can surmise that Jews bind less with me than liberals or conservatives (as I associate with both), men or women (as I have friends with both), religious and secular (I have friends with both). I do have Jewish friends and associates who work with me on productions, but it seems they are less a part of my world than I would like for them to be.

Re(6): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 00:12:08 AM by Moshe the Goyim

Levine says: As you're aware, the reason 95% of her coworkers are Jewish is because 57 street was begun by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe that were diamond merchants abroad. Their families continue to go into the business, and it's not like scads of non-Jews want in to their operations there. They're working in an ethnic district of New York.

RESPONSE: The world diamond trade is a Jewish monopoly. (Read Epstein's book about it). 57th street (?) is only a sliver of the matrix that echoes Jewish domination of Hollywood. De Beers is controlled by the Oppenheim family. A large part of the diamond honing is actually in Israel. Belgium is another big (Jewish) center.

It is common knowledge. Jews run the diamond trade and the paradigm is quite the same as the film world. Look it up.

Re(6): Anti-German Levine?
Posted on February 5, 2005 at 10:47:50 PM by Moshe the Goyim

Mr. Levine insists there is no such thing as a "Jewish agenda." And that those who use this term are "anti-Semites." His position is so asinine it's beyond belief.

Type "Jewish agenda" in google. Go to the first link listed. What is it? It's the Jewish Agency of Israel. And what is the title of the page?

THE GLOBAL JEWISH AGENDA.

Every single sentence Mr. Levine writes is a complete veil to hide Jewish/Zionist tribal activism, and if there was any value in spending tons of time to deconstruct his lies (there isn't) every single thing he says could be exposed as smokescreen.


http://www.jafi.org.il/agenda/2001/english/index.htm

Re(2): Commentary on .... Cont
Posted on January 21, 2005 at 01:09:55 AM by Moshe the Goyim

In the same spirit of Mr. Levine's usual inane comments, I suggest that he join Gush Emunim and overtly join the Jewish fascist movement, since that seems to be his obvious tendency in support of brutal, apartheid Israel.

Re(1): Commentary on .... Cont2
Posted on January 22, 2005 at 05:23:09 PM by Heebie Jeebie

Wow...I leave for a year, and it's still the same 3 guys---The lonely Judenhassers club.

Goyim means nations.
Behemot means beasts.
Parot means cows or cattle.

Re(2): Commentary on .... Cont2
Posted on January 24, 2005 at 11:06:30 AM by Mitchell Levine

Unfortunately, a year from now Mr. Jaeger will still be telling people that Jews refer to Gentiles as "cattle."

Re(3): Commentary on .... Cont2
Posted on January 27, 2005 at 05:38:28 PM by James Jaeger

See my post above on this.

Hollywood and MEMRI
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 01:37:18 AM by Moshe the Goyim

From http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

[Imagine it. This blind Jewish Bozo decided to line up a bunch of the Jews who run Hollywood and the mass media to satirize in a film notions that Jews run Hollywood, the mass media, and Western culture. Lost to him is the fact that this "satire" would go a long way towards providing evidence for the thesis that Jews run way, way, way too much. One time: give us $350,000 and see what kind of movie WE make about Jews, the Jewish Lobby, and Jewish Power. Moore's 9-11 wouldn't hold a candle to it. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is well-known as a subversive Israeli/Zionist propaganda venture (see the article after the next one, below) co-founded by a former Israeli military intelligence officer. Basing a film on the "facts" supplied by the world Zionist Lobby only underscores the world Jewish web, which includes propaganda filmmaker Levin.]

Filmmaker Lifts Lid on Anti-Semitic Tract,
Yahoo! News, January 25, 2005
"Documentary director Marc Levin wanted to make a film spoofing "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- a century-old piece of propaganda claiming to be the Jews' master plan to rule the world. The book has resurfaced since Sept. 11 to support the claim that the Jews were involved in the attacks. Levin, whose credits include "Slam" and "Twilight Los Angeles," planned to enlist Hollywood's Jewish elite -- such producers, directors and comedians as Norman Lear, Rob Reiner, Woody Allen and Mel Brooks -- to help him in his quest. But he soon realized the impossibility of that idea. Through a bit of luck, Levin, whose new documentary "Protocols of Zion" premiered this weekend at Sundance, didn't need the help of the elder statesmen after all. Instead, he stumbled across the Middle East Media Research Institute, an organization that had collected a 40-hour miniseries based on the book and seen by millions of people on Arab television. Says Levin of the TV program, "I thought it was a goof when I first saw it -- something out of an Ali G routine. But once I realized it had been seen by millions, I was stunned. I knew I had to get it into a film." So he took those tapes he discovered and added to them interviews with Arab-Americans, black nationalists, Christian evangelicals, Aryan skinheads, Holocaust deniers and survivors and others to make up his very personal film, which examines how people are processing the aftermath of Sept. 11 and just how divided our world has become. The HBO production also investigates the anti-Semitic resurgence occurring in the United States and around the world and looks for answers as to why Jews are being blamed for the world's tragedies. Levin's group is looking for theatrical distribution for "Protocols of Zion" to help keep that dialogue going." [JTR editor's note: Dialogue? What "dialogue?" With who? Jews talk to Jews and everyone else watches on the sidelines. THAT is Jewish "dialogue."]

[What's "MEMRI," the foundation of Mr. Levin's film that wonders why Jews are being "scapegoated" all the time, above? Juan Cole is a professor at the University of Michigan. And the film about anti-Jewish kooks by Mr. Levin is a colossal propaganda scam. Bottom line: Levin's film -- and its inspiration -- reaffirm what he sought to disprove.]

Repressive MEMRI,
by Juan Cole, antiwar.com, November 24, 2004
"I just checked my campus mail and found a letter in it from Colonel Yigal Carmon, late of Israeli military intelligence, now an official at the Middle East Media Research Organization, or MEMRI. He threatened me with a lawsuit over blog comments I made at Informed Comment. This technique of the SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, has already been pioneered by polluting industries against environmental activists, and now the pro-Likud lobby in the U.S. has apparently decided to try it out against people like me. I urge all readers to send messages of protest to memri@memri.org. Please be polite, and simply urge MEMRI, which has a major Web presence, to withdraw the lawsuit threat and to respect the spirit of the free sharing of ideas that makes the Internet possible ... As a historian, I have no desire to have anything but the facts in evidence. MEMRI obviously a well-funded operation, as any familiarity with its scope and activities would make clear ... I continue to maintain that MEMRI is selective and biased against the Arab press, and that it highlights pieces that cast Arabs, especially committed Muslims, in a negative light. That it also rewards secular Arabs for being secularists is entirely beside the point (and this is the function of the "reform" site). On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigoted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated ... I did not allege that MEMRI or Col. Carmon are "affiliated" with the Likud Party. What I said was that MEMRI functions as a PR campaign for Likud Party goals. Col. Carmon and Meyrav Wurmser, who run MEMRI, were both die-hard opponents of the Oslo peace process, and so ipso facto were identified with the Likud rejectionists on that central issue. Col. Carmon was not a formal member of the Likud party while serving in Israeli military intelligence because active-duty military are not usually involved in civilian political parties! Since he retired to the U.S., he did not have the occasion to join the Likud, but there seems little question that if he were living in Israel he would vote for Likud rather than Labor, given his public stances ... More discussion on MEMRI on the Web can be found here. I've said all I am going to say to Col. Carmon just now. Israeli military intelligence is used to being able to censor the Israeli press and intimidate journalists, and it is a bit shocking that Carmon should imagine that such intimidation would work in a free society."

CONSPIRACY?
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 01:43:42 PM by James Jaeger

THE HISTORY CHANNEL runs a show called CONSPIRACY? on Sunday at 10PM. I have watch several of these shows, one on the JFK assassination and others on UFOs. Current and upcoming shows are TWA FLIGHT 800, AREA 51, DEATH OF PRINCESS DIANA, ANTHRAX ATTACKS, WHO KILLED MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR?, OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING, LINCOLN ASSASSINATION, KECKBURG UFO, FDR AND PEARL HARBOR, MAJESTIC TWELVE: UFO COVER-UP? and RFK ASSASSINATION.

This is a wide range of topics.

I'm not sure whether the POV of the shows is to debunk or give greater credence to various issues. I guess it's to simply look at all sides honestly. Okay, that's fine, but why haven't they done a show on one of the oldest conspiracy theories of all, one on the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION? I wondered if the HISTORY CHANNEL had done such a show but I had just missed it, so I went to their website and looked over the entire site. I entered the words "Protocols" and "Elders of Zion" into their search engine, but nothing came up indicating they had done such a show or that any elements of this subject were even in their data base.

This is strange. With such a wide range of topics, why is THIS conspiracy theory missing? At the very least, it would seem that, if they ARE trying to cover a wide range of subjects AND get at truth, this would be a prime candidate to either debunk or substantiate. After all if Jews really ARE trying to take over the world, don't you think everybody has a right to know this for their protection? By the same token, if this is just a fabrication to make Jews look sinister, don't you think everybody should know about this as well? Or if the truth is somewhere in between, known or unknown, wouldn't this be a topical subject for a show called CONSPIRACY QUESTION MARK -- the question mark indicating that we may never know, OR that the History Channel doesn't want to take a position.

I would think many Americans, such as myself, who have no idea whether there is any truth to the PROTOCOLS, would like to know who would write something like this and why. After all, one of the most famous industrial figures in American history, Henry Ford, based his writings in the Dearborn Independent on the PROTOCOLS. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/intern_jew.htm And, on an international scale, Hitler used the PROTOCOLS as a justification or manual for his war to exterminate Jews according to Nora Levin in THE HOLOCAUST (see http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html).

Again, I have no reason to believe the PROTOCOLS are true, but it does make me wonder why one of the most controversial, if not consequential, conspiracy theories of all, is being omitted by a major cable network show that has CONSPIRACIES as its central subject matter.

James Jaeger

The kosher "Passion" (with apologies to Mel)
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 10:11:22 PM by Moshe the Goyim

Note how this works in Jewish Hollywood. "Sister Rose's Passion" is up for an Academy Award? The Jewish tit-for-tat is a little too literal. Here a film condemning Christianity is nominated for an Academy Award (and the Jewish filmmaker is working on another one on the same theme). The timing is interesting -- while the Jewish Klan that controls Hollywood puts on a little window dressing. Mel Gibson's "anti-Semitic" film The Passion (Sister Rose's Passion is the one that's kosher) has been nominated for some minor Academy Awards (best shoelaces, etc.), but NOT Best Picture.

The issue is this: this Jewish filmmaker makes movies that assail Christian "anti-Semitism," yet there could be no comparable film made about Jewish (or Israeli) racism that could ever be considered for mass screening, let alone be up for an Academy Award.

More movies needed about how Christians oppress Jews!

Veteran Film Maker Oren Jacoby, Delighted by First Academy Award Nomination, Is Working on a New project,
PR Newswire, January 25, 2005

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050125/nytu189_1.html?printer=1

"Oren Jacoby, the New York film maker whose "Sister Rose's Passion" has been nominated for the Academy Award for Documentary Short Subject today expressed delight and determination to continue to take on challenging documentary subjects. "This Academy Award nomination crowns the efforts of Steve Kalafer, Peter LeDonne and Kellie Pyffer and a number of other people directly and importantly involved with 'Sister Rose's Passion.' Most important, it recognizes the life work of Sister Rose Thering herself." "The awards ceremony on Feb. 27th happens to fall on my birthday -- so, I'm hoping for the best," Jacoby commented. "But I think this would have made my father, Irving Jacoby, happy -- he was nominated in this same category 46 years ago. I'm also very grateful for all the support I've gotten from talented mentors and colleagues over my fifteen years in this field," Jacoby said. "I'm committed to continue to try and produce the best films I can and am very happy to be working, now, on another provocative and dramatic documentary," he added. Jacoby said his current project is based on the book "Constantine's Sword" by James Carroll, "the moving story of one Christian's odyssey of discovery - of his own and his Church's complicity in history's most lethal hatred. A saga crossing 20 centuries and the length of one man's life." Sister Rose's Passion, with Run time of 38 minutes 49 second, describes the largely thankless, often resisted lifelong crusade by a Catholic nun -- Sister Rose Thering - to challenge the doctrine that blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus. She played a key role in Vatican II, which officially changed the church's position on their relationship with the Jewish people. This documentary follows Sister Rose, today, at age 84, as she continues to fight against religious intolerance."

BRILLIANT article by a rabbi!
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 11:05:56 PM by Moshe the Goyim

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

This is a BRILLIANT article. We would be honored to have coffee with this man. Jews are destroying American culture. And a rabbi writes this. And that's what's incredible: Jewish honesty one time. In public! As opposed to the Wall of Jewish Lying. If he wasn't a Jew, he'd be tarred and feathered as an "anti-Semite." As it is, he may face Hell from the Tribe for his bluntness. The only drawback is that Rabbi Lapin veils the principles of Orthodox Judaism, which are racist, segregationist, sexist, and plenty more. Secular Jewish hedonism is a natural extension of traditional Judaism and this our dear rabbi refuses to understand. What we give Rabbi Lapin credit for is laying blame for anti-Semitism where it belongs -- in the Jewish lap, complete with hard-on. If there were thousands of Jewish activists like Rabbi Lapin, there probably wouldn't be the growing outrage against Jews that looms EVERYWHERE. Because it would be the beginning of a genuine negotiation about the problems in the world -- and not the standard censorial, fascistic, power-ploy Jewish dictate, stuffing another porno magazine in our faces.

Our Worst Enemy,
by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Toward Tradition, January 20, 2005

http://www.towardtradition.org/our_worst_enemy.htm

"I am an Orthodox Jewish rabbi sadly denouncing one of the box office hits of 2004. Which movie has earned my wrath? Here is a clue—it surprised everyone by selling over one hundred million dollars of tickets in its first week in theaters. No, it’s not Mel Gibson’s Passion. The movie causing me deep distress is a Rosenthal/Tenenbaum production starring Dustin Hoffman, and Barbra Streisand. I was sorry to see Barbra Streisand involved in the flagrant defamation of Judaism found in this, her latest movie hit. While she was making her film Yentl, for which I served as a consultant, she studied Judaism regularly and diligently with me. She was a warm and gracious guest on the occasions she had dinner with my family ... In the new film to which I refer, she plays not a role, but a heinous caricature of a Jewess. I am reluctant to name the movie on account of the implied vulgarity of its title. If you are reluctant to part with good money for the privilege of seeing the Jewish people being defamed, you should abstain from this movie. In spite of having several Jewish producers and several Jewish stars, this film’s vile notions of Jews are not too different from those used by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels ... You might recall that in the first movie we followed Pam Byrnes as she introduced her very Jewish and nerdy boyfriend, Greg, to her parents. This sequel shows the Byrnes visiting their daughter’s future in-laws. The movie depicts Greg’s conspicuously Jewish parents as sexually obsessed, constantly concupiscent degenerates. Nice people, but depraved. Their home is filled with bric-a-brac that juts with anatomic suggestiveness. Along with their son’s bar mitzvah talit, or prayer shawl, they have preserved the foreskin from his circumcision. To add to the hilarity, this souvenir makes a distasteful reappearance at an awkward moment. In reality, Jews treat the foreskin with reverence and bury it rather than turning it into a scrapbook joke. The hosts, who never miss an opportunity of exuding Jewish ethnicity, boast of their son losing his virginity to the gentile maid and they keep their guests waiting while they themselves practice what they preach in their bedroom upstairs. There are many more vile examples of Jewish people being defamed in this horrible excrescence. I am not sure that labeling it comedy excuses the defamation. I do not particularly care for dark, socially significant films. Give me funny movies like The Blues Brothers and Hopscotch. However I really loathe movies that perpetuate hideous stereotypes about racial, religious, or ethnic groups, no matter how funny they may seem. What is more, I cannot see how racial bigotry is lessened if perpetrated by blacks or that anti-Semitism is diminished if delivered by Jews. This movie defames Jews in a way that I haven’t seen since the worst that Woody Allen dished up. And Woody at his worst was breathtakingly hostile to Judaism. One need only recall how many of Woody’s films portray Jews, not to mention rabbis, as loathsome liars, desperate psychotics, pathetic perverts, and ridiculously lecherous losers. If Woody Allen were not Jewish, surely every Jewish organization would have roundly denounced him. And they would have been right ... It is not only in movies that Jews besmirch Jews as sexualizing the culture. Ruth Westheimer told The New York Times of her love for Judaism, Israel, and the Jewish people. Meanwhile, as Dr. Ruth, with her grandmotherly appearance and her high-pitched Jewish accent, she titillates her audiences with shockingly explicit sexual advice. Radio shock-jock Howard Stern intersperses his displays of dehumanizing depravity with a constant stream of "Oy veys" as if subconsciously compelled to highlight his Jewish ethnicity. Jerry Springer, widely known as the Jewish former mayor of Cincinnati, normalizes depravity by projecting a deviant sub-culture and its cheering hooligans right into America’s living room. A few years ago, the Los Angeles Jewish Journal gushingly profiled a Jewish pornographer whose stage name is Ron Jeremy. The piece praised the huge sums he’s been paid to "bed more gorgeous women than James Bond." Jeremy, who proudly admits to have acted in or directed over 1,500 porn videos, cited the preponderance of Jewish men in porn and explained, "Jewish families tend to be more liberal than Christian ones, they aren’t obsessed by the fear of the devil or going to hell." As if to eliminate any lingering doubt about Ron Jeremy’s Jewishness, the Jewish Journal breathlessly assures us that Ron Jeremy plans to marry in a synagogue. You’d have to be a recent immigrant from Outer Mongolia not to know of the role that people with Jewish names play in the coarsening of our culture. Almost every American knows this. It is just that most gentiles are too polite to mention it ... Furthermore we ought to recognize that this unwholesome perception of Jews is the result of anti-Semitism perpetrated by Jews rather than by non-Jews. It would seem that Isaiah’s twenty-eight hundred year old prophecy to the Jewish people has come true today—"Those that destroy you and those that wreck you go forth from thee." (Isaiah 49:17) By now, some Jewish readers will be cringing. You might be cursing me for making public the role of Jews in debasing the culture. Perhaps you subscribe to the notion that nobody has noticed. I sympathize and want you to know that I write about it only for the purpose of trying to solve the problem. Make no mistake, it is a problem, and the solution lies not in attempting to defame the critics, but in stepping forward to criticize the defamers. Indeed, if we Jews do not ourselves condemn the wrong that our brethren do, others with less sympathy eventually will do so. This excerpt from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf shows how that evil megalomaniac roused his nation to hurl an avalanche of destruction at the Jewish people:
Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it? What had to be reckoned heavily against the Jews in my eyes was when I became acquainted with their activity in the press, art, literature, and the theater….It sufficed to look at a billboard, to study the names behind the horrible trash they advertised…. Is this why the Jews are called the "chosen people"? The fact that nine tenths of all literary filth, artistic trash, and theatrical idiocy can be set to the account of a people, constituting hardly one hundredth of all the country’s inhabitants, could simply not be talked away; it was the plain truth. (Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Chapter II)
It does not excuse Hitler or his Nazi thugs for us to acknowledge that this maniacal, master propagandist focused on a reality that resonated with the educated, and cultured Germans of his day. Not once in Mein Kampf did that monster charge Jews with being complicit in the killing of Christ two thousand years earlier. He knew that long-ago event, shrouded in mystery and theological profundity, would never goad enlightened people to murder. Instead, he drew attention to the obvious and inescapable; that which every German knew to be true. The sad fact is that through Jewish actors, playwrights, and producers, the Berlin stage of Weimar Germany linked Jews and deviant sexuality in all its sordid manifestations just as surely as Broadway does today. Much of the filth in American entertainment today parallels that of Germany between the wars. About twenty years ago, one of Ayn Rand’s protégés, Leonard Peikoff, wrote a book called The Ominous Parallels in which he described how Germany’s cultural decline helped bring the Nazis to power. With haunting precision, Peikoff proves how similar is America’s cultural decline. I am not predicting vicious anti-Semitism in America but I am suggesting that most decent Americans today feel more viscerally outraged by the assault on decency than by the Crucifixion ... [W]e Jews routinely depict ourselves in repugnant caricatures of people you’d want nothing to do with in real life. Why do my colleagues in Jewish communal leadership never condemn this anti-Semitism? For if it is not anti-Semitism, what is? Ah, but wait. The leader of a famous Jewish defense organization that exists to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, recently denounced, in The Jerusalem Post, one of the most profitable movies of 2004 for its "vile notions of Jews." Reluctant to "contribute to the overflowing coffers" of the producers by encouraging attendance, he nonetheless insisted that "only by viewing it can one understand how offensive it is."
Was he describing the horrible sequel I am refusing to name? Sadly, not. He was referring to Mel Gibson’s The Passion. Nearly a year after its release, and after polls show increased regard for Jews among the film’s audiences, Jewish organizations still condemn The Passion as defamatory to Jews. Yet, astonishingly, they don’t consider the examples I cite above as defamatory to Jews. Here is a simple question: Do you suppose that people’s view of what Jews are really like is shaped more by Caius, an obscure two-thousand-year old character in The Passion or alternatively by the contemporary couple played by Streisand and Hoffman? Which movie more egregiously defames Jews? Consider the meaning of the word ‘defame.’ To de-fame means to undo the fame currently being enjoyed. Jews used to be known for having endowed the world with the notion of sexual restraint and modesty. Judaism is now being defamed by Jews. Inexplicably, nearly a year after its release and without a shred of proof that anyone thinks the worse of Jews on its account, The Passion continues to trouble some Jewish leaders. Hinting that their real target was Mel Gibson the religious conservative, rather than Mel Gibson the defamer of Judaism, a Jewish leader last week criticized Gibson for opposing the changes in Catholic teaching advocated by the Vatican II council. This is tantamount to a Christian leader criticizing an Orthodox Jew for opposing the acceptance of homosexuality advocated by the leadership of Reform Judaism. The only word for this is "Chutzpah"—indescribable impudence. For years the same Jewish leader has ignored Jews who flagrantly and fraudulently defame Judaism but he incessantly continues to condemn Mel Gibson. He fails to realize that it is his exaggerated attacks on Mel Gibson, whose movie recently took top honors at the 31st annual People's Choice Awards, that do considerable harm to American Jews, not the film itself. Apparently Jews may behave outrageously while Christians, however, will be held to a higher standard. This abolition of honest objectivity lays the foundation for a frightening form of censorship and arbitrary prosecution. It would surely cause the most cynical KGB commissar of the bad old days to drool with envy ... When will more Jewish leaders learn who their friends really are? When will they learn that those who incessantly bludgeon their friends eventually won’t have any friends left? It would be foolish not to realize that most decent Americans are bothered far more by the trashing of American culture today than they are by our possible complicity in the killing of Christ two thousand years ago. Because so many of the most prominent trashers possess Jewish names and proudly proclaim their Jewish ethnicity, it becomes a Jewish responsibility to condemn the vulgarity by means of which they defame Judaism."

The article in more readable form
Posted on January 26, 2005 at 11:47:23 PM by Moshe the Goyim

http://www.towardtradition.org/our_worst_enemy.htm

Our Worst Enemy
January 20, 2005

By Rabbi Daniel Lapin
President, Toward Tradition

I am an Orthodox Jewish rabbi sadly denouncing one of the box office hits of 2004. Which movie has earned my wrath? Here is a clue—it surprised everyone by selling over one hundred million dollars of tickets in its first week in theaters. No, it’s not Mel Gibson’s Passion. The movie causing me deep distress is a Rosenthal/Tenenbaum production starring Dustin Hoffman, and Barbra Streisand.

I was sorry to see Barbra Streisand involved in the flagrant defamation of Judaism found in this, her latest movie hit. While she was making her film Yentl, for which I served as a consultant, she studied Judaism regularly and diligently with me. She was a warm and gracious guest on the occasions she had dinner with my family. Yentl’s nostalgic, if not altogether authentic glimpse into 19th century Jewish life in Poland, evoked a feeling of fondness for the characters, but like many ethnic Jews, Streisand is largely isolated from her religious roots. In the new film to which I refer, she plays not a role, but a heinous caricature of a Jewess.

I am reluctant to name the movie on account of the implied vulgarity of its title. If you are reluctant to part with good money for the privilege of seeing the Jewish people being defamed, you should abstain from this movie. In spite of having several Jewish producers and several Jewish stars, this film’s vile notions of Jews are not too different from those used by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

I may be unsophisticated but I am not just a grouch with no sense of humor. I’ll fess up; I really enjoy funny movies. However you should know a little about this offensive excuse for entertainment. You might recall that in the first movie we followed Pam Byrnes as she introduced her very Jewish and nerdy boyfriend, Greg, to her parents. This sequel shows the Byrnes visiting their daughter’s future in-laws. The movie depicts Greg’s conspicuously Jewish parents as sexually obsessed, constantly concupiscent degenerates. Nice people, but depraved. Their home is filled with bric-a-brac that juts with anatomic suggestiveness.

Along with their son’s bar mitzvah talit, or prayer shawl, they have preserved the foreskin from his circumcision. To add to the hilarity, this souvenir makes a distasteful reappearance at an awkward moment. In reality, Jews treat the foreskin with reverence and bury it rather than turning it into a scrapbook joke. The hosts, who never miss an opportunity of exuding Jewish ethnicity, boast of their son losing his virginity to the gentile maid and they keep their guests waiting while they themselves practice what they preach in their bedroom upstairs. There are many more vile examples of Jewish people being defamed in this horrible excrescence. I am not sure that labeling it comedy excuses the defamation.

I do not particularly care for dark, socially significant films. Give me funny movies like The Blues Brothers and Hopscotch. However I really loathe movies that perpetuate hideous stereotypes about racial, religious, or ethnic groups, no matter how funny they may seem. What is more, I cannot see how racial bigotry is lessened if perpetrated by blacks or that anti-Semitism is diminished if delivered by Jews.

This movie defames Jews in a way that I haven’t seen since the worst that Woody Allen dished up. And Woody at his worst was breathtakingly hostile to Judaism. One need only recall how many of Woody’s films portray Jews, not to mention rabbis, as loathsome liars, desperate psychotics, pathetic perverts, and ridiculously lecherous losers. If Woody Allen were not Jewish, surely every Jewish organization would have roundly denounced him. And they would have been right. The problem is that he is Jewish and they don’t denounce him. Instead, we self-destructive Jews celebrate Woody Allen Week at Jewish Community Center film festivals.

It is not only in movies that Jews besmirch Jews as sexualizing the culture. Ruth Westheimer told The New York Times of her love for Judaism, Israel, and the Jewish people. Meanwhile, as Dr. Ruth, with her grandmotherly appearance and her high-pitched Jewish accent, she titillates her audiences with shockingly explicit sexual advice.

Radio shock-jock Howard Stern intersperses his displays of dehumanizing depravity with a constant stream of "Oy veys" as if subconsciously compelled to highlight his Jewish ethnicity.

Jerry Springer, widely known as the Jewish former mayor of Cincinnati, normalizes depravity by projecting a deviant sub-culture and its cheering hooligans right into America’s living room.

A few years ago, the Los Angeles Jewish Journal gushingly profiled a Jewish pornographer whose stage name is Ron Jeremy. The piece praised the huge sums he’s been paid to "bed more gorgeous women than James Bond." Jeremy, who proudly admits to have acted in or directed over 1,500 porn videos, cited the preponderance of Jewish men in porn and explained, "Jewish families tend to be more liberal than Christian ones, they aren’t obsessed by the fear of the devil or going to hell." As if to eliminate any lingering doubt about Ron Jeremy’s Jewishness, the Jewish Journal breathlessly assures us that Ron Jeremy plans to marry in a synagogue.

You’d have to be a recent immigrant from Outer Mongolia not to know of the role that people with Jewish names play in the coarsening of our culture. Almost every American knows this. It is just that most gentiles are too polite to mention it.

Naturally, I am not suggesting that Americans of Jewish descent should conceal their ethnic identity. I am urging those for whom Judaism is a link to the eternal values of Sinai, to wake up and realize how other Americans increasingly perceive us. Furthermore we ought to recognize that this unwholesome perception of Jews is the result of anti-Semitism perpetrated by Jews rather than by non-Jews. It would seem that Isaiah’s twenty-eight hundred year old prophecy to the Jewish people has come true today—"Those that destroy you and those that wreck you go forth from thee." (Isaiah 49:17)

By now, some Jewish readers will be cringing. You might be cursing me for making public the role of Jews in debasing the culture. Perhaps you subscribe to the notion that nobody has noticed. I sympathize and want you to know that I write about it only for the purpose of trying to solve the problem. Make no mistake, it is a problem, and the solution lies not in attempting to defame the critics, but in stepping forward to criticize the defamers. Indeed, if we Jews do not ourselves condemn the wrong that our brethren do, others with less sympathy eventually will do so.


This excerpt from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf shows how that evil megalomaniac roused his nation to hurl an avalanche of destruction at the Jewish people:

Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it? What had to be reckoned heavily against the Jews in my eyes was when I became acquainted with their activity in the press, art, literature, and the theater….It sufficed to look at a billboard, to study the names behind the horrible trash they advertised….Is this why the Jews are called the "chosen people"? The fact that nine tenths of all literary filth, artistic trash, and theatrical idiocy can be set to the account of a people, constituting hardly one hundredth of all the country’s inhabitants, could simply not be talked away; it was the plain truth. (Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Chapter II)

It does not excuse Hitler or his Nazi thugs for us to acknowledge that this maniacal, master propagandist focused on a reality that resonated with the educated, and cultured Germans of his day. Not once in Mein Kampf did that monster charge Jews with being complicit in the killing of Christ two thousand years earlier. He knew that long-ago event, shrouded in mystery and theological profundity, would never goad enlightened people to murder. Instead, he drew attention to the obvious and inescapable; that which every German knew to be true.

The sad fact is that through Jewish actors, playwrights, and producers, the Berlin stage of Weimar Germany linked Jews and deviant sexuality in all its sordid manifestations just as surely as Broadway does today. Much of the filth in American entertainment today parallels that of Germany between the wars.

About twenty years ago, one of Ayn Rand’s protégés, Leonard Peikoff, wrote a book called The Ominous Parallels in which he described how Germany’s cultural decline helped bring the Nazis to power. With haunting precision, Peikoff proves how similar is America’s cultural decline. I am not predicting vicious anti-Semitism in America but I am suggesting that most decent Americans today feel more viscerally outraged by the assault on decency than by the Crucifixion.

Bill Cosby rightly condemned black entertainment that hatefully glorifies destructive behavior. By contrast, Barbershop, the 2002 movie starring Icecube, and Cedric the Entertainer, limned a loving portrait of a hard-working African-American family valiantly struggling to achieve nobility in the face of formidable challenge. In the same year, Nia Vardalos did her hilarious My Big Fat Greek Wedding, clearly demonstrating her love for her warm-hearted and decent relatives. Contrarily, we Jews routinely depict ourselves in repugnant caricatures of people you’d want nothing to do with in real life. Why do my colleagues in Jewish communal leadership never condemn this anti-Semitism? For if it is not anti-Semitism, what is?

Ah, but wait. The leader of a famous Jewish defense organization that exists to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, recently denounced, in The Jerusalem Post, one of the most profitable movies of 2004 for its "vile notions of Jews." Reluctant to "contribute to the overflowing coffers" of the producers by encouraging attendance, he nonetheless insisted that "only by viewing it can one understand how offensive it is."

Was he describing the horrible sequel I am refusing to name? Sadly, not. He was referring to Mel Gibson’s The Passion. Nearly a year after its release, and after polls show increased regard for Jews among the film’s audiences, Jewish organizations still condemn The Passion as defamatory to Jews. Yet, astonishingly, they don’t consider the examples I cite above as defamatory to Jews.

Here is a simple question: Do you suppose that people’s view of what Jews are really like is shaped more by Caius, an obscure two-thousand-year old character in The Passion or alternatively by the contemporary couple played by Streisand and Hoffman? Which movie more egregiously defames Jews? Consider the meaning of the word ‘defame.’ To de-fame means to undo the fame currently being enjoyed. Jews used to be known for having endowed the world with the notion of sexual restraint and modesty. Judaism is now being defamed by Jews.

Inexplicably, nearly a year after its release and without a shred of proof that anyone thinks the worse of Jews on its account, The Passion continues to trouble some Jewish leaders. Hinting that their real target was Mel Gibson the religious conservative, rather than Mel Gibson the defamer of Judaism, a Jewish leader last week criticized Gibson for opposing the changes in Catholic teaching advocated by the Vatican II council. This is tantamount to a Christian leader criticizing an Orthodox Jew for opposing the acceptance of homosexuality advocated by the leadership of Reform Judaism. The only word for this is "Chutzpah"—indescribable impudence.

For years the same Jewish leader has ignored Jews who flagrantly and fraudulently defame Judaism but he incessantly continues to condemn Mel Gibson. He fails to realize that it is his exaggerated attacks on Mel Gibson, whose movie recently took top honors at the 31st annual People's Choice Awards, that do considerable harm to American Jews, not the film itself. Apparently Jews may behave outrageously while Christians, however, will be held to a higher standard. This abolition of honest objectivity lays the foundation for a frightening form of censorship and arbitrary prosecution. It would surely cause the most cynical KGB commissar of the bad old days to drool with envy.

A paramount principle of paleontology is that failure to adapt is a symptom of impending extinction. Anachronistically obsessing on yesterday’s dangers blinds one to contemporary perils. It is true that in the past, mobs of European Catholics did murder Jews. That has never happened in this most philo-Semitic of countries. American Jews are not threatened by rampaging Christians seeking revenge for the blood of Christ. However Jews are threatened by other forces against which we have precious few allies. Prominent among our allies are seriously religious, and for the most part, conservative Christians.

When will more Jewish leaders learn who their friends really are? When will they learn that those who incessantly bludgeon their friends eventually won’t have any friends left?

It would be foolish not to realize that most decent Americans are bothered far more by the trashing of American culture today than they are by our possible complicity in the killing of Christ two thousand years ago. Because so many of the most prominent trashers possess Jewish names and proudly proclaim their Jewish ethnicity, it becomes a Jewish responsibility to condemn the vulgarity by means of which they defame Judaism.

We can’t stop the Woody Allens and Howard Sterns, and in a nation that enshrined free speech, maybe we oughtn’t to try. However we could redeem ourselves by protesting them instead of dissipating valuable energies and priceless goodwill by endlessly protesting The Passion.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin is the president of Toward Tradition,
a national coalition of Christians and Jews defending
the Judeo-Christian values vital for our culture

MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on January 27, 2005 at 05:19:28 PM by James Jaeger

Even though I walked out of this movie when I saw it yesterday, I didn't think there was anything wrong with it at all.

The picture, MEET THE FOCKERS, is the sequel to MEET THE PARENTS, a very funny movie about a young Jewish boy having to pass muster with a nice Gentile girl's rather obsessive father, played hilariously by Robert DeNiro.

I walked out on MEET THE FOCKERS, not because it depicted an eccentric, sex-crazed Jewish couple, played by Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman, but because I just didn't feel it was that funny (and I had a full schedule of other things I had to do yesterday). On the other hand, MEET THE PARENTS was so damn funny, hardly any sequel could have come close.

But frankly, I thought it was refreshing to see Streisand and Hoffman playing roles like this because it showed some diversity in the way Jews are usually depicted on-screen/usually depict themselves on-screen. It showed that these Jewish filmmakers don't take their ethnicity so seriously and could have a little fun.(1) Many Jews could learn from this.

Given the set up of the movie, it was perfectly appropriate to have the "other" parents be as outlandish as they were. I certainly don't think all Jewish households are like this one, and anyone who would is way off base.

Again, this was a relatively funny little set of movies, the first installment being one of the funniest films ever made IMO. The second, not as funny, but amusing. None of this has anything to do with Jews. Again, I applaud all the filmmakers for at least attempting to let their hair down a little and have some fun with ethnicity. I have long argued that Jews take FIRM too seriously when they call me and John Cones anti-Semitic at a drop of a hat. Let's all relax and encourage diversity in the movies, both in who greenlights the pictures and what the subject matter gets green lit.

James Jaeger

-----------------
(1) Had this movie been made by a bunch of non-Jews, I certainly hope the Jewish community would have been able to roll with the punch. But something tells me they wouldn't have. That has to change if Jewish filmmakers are going to expect greater tolerance when THEY green-light/produce pictures that depict, say, Arabs, as the bad guys all the time.

Re(1): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on January 28, 2005 at 05:11:07 PM by Mitchell Levine

But frankly, I thought it was refreshing to see Streisand and Hoffman playing roles like this because it showed some diversity in the way Jews are usually depicted on-screen/usually depict themselves on-screen.
- That's how Jewish families are usually portrayed in comedies, as in most of Woody Allen's movies, shows like Dharma & Greg, etc.

Given the set up of the movie, it was perfectly appropriate to have the "other" parents be as outlandish as they were. I certainly don't think all Jewish households are like this one, and anyone who would is way off base.
- Jim, NO ONE's household is like that - it's a screwball comedy, and not a documentary.

Friggin' Erica Jong's house was probably not like that.

That has to change if Jewish filmmakers are going to expect greater tolerance when THEY green-light/produce pictures that depict, say, Arabs, as the bad guys all the time.
- a) Even the most jingoistic of those pictures, like The Siege, for example, are carefully counterbalanced to avoid the implication that ALL Arabs are zealots and terrorists.

b) Arab bad guys in films have more than a little to do with 9/11 and the War in Iraq, and if you think WASP studio heads would be (or are, in the case of Richard Parsons) doing things differently, you're sadly mistaken.

Re(2): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 05:21:36 PM by James Jaeger

>- That's how Jewish families are usually portrayed in comedies, as in most of Woody Allen's movies, shows like Dharma & Greg, etc.

Out of the tens of thousands of movies I have seen over the past 35 years, I can hardly recall any that have depicted Jewish families. I am aware that there have been Woody Allen movies, but I can't recall which ones and I hold no memory of any particular scenes. Perhaps you could give me a list of all the features that have depicted Jewish families in a similar way as they were depicted in FOCKERS.

>- Jim, NO ONE's household is like that - it's a screwball comedy, and not a documentary.

Thanks for telling me that, but technically, since you haven't checked out EVERY ONE'S household, you can't say that. There very well may be, and probably ARE, households out there that are FAR more screwy than that depicted in FOCKERS. How about the household where the mother drowned all five of her kids, for instance? I would say that is MUCH more screwy than anything in FOCKERS (although, of course, there was nothing funny about THAT).

>Friggin' Erica Jong's house was probably not like that.

No idea. Families can be very weird entities because Life is FAR more intense than anything mere MOVIES can imitate. I will assure you the family I grew up in -- when my father was a psychiatrist in charge of the violent male building at the Norristown State Hospital; my mother was a born-again, Mainline socialite; my grandfather was performing 3 brain operations a week at Jefferson and I was into Scientology (who consider the APA and neurosurgeons their enemies) -- had some very inconsistent realities going hence some very screwball moments, moments far more hilarious, if not sad, than anything in the FOCKERS household.

>- a) Even the most jingoistic of those pictures, like The Siege, for example, are carefully counterbalanced to avoid the implication that ALL Arabs are zealots and terrorists.

One is always safe when using the superlative degree. It's a form of qualification.

>b) Arab bad guys in films have more than a little to do with 9/11

Well I read it that the "bad guys" in 9/11 were actually mostly SAUDIS, yet ARABS is all the public is programmed to note -- as you have demonstrated here.

>and the War in Iraq, and if you think WASP studio heads would be (or are, in the case of Richard Parsons) doing things differently, you're sadly mistaken.

It doesn't matter how similar or how different WASP studio heads are/would be to Jewish studios heads for that's not the issue. The issue is that there is little diversity in the top-most ranks of the studios. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist.htm

James Jaeger

Re(3): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 07:42:45 PM by Mitchell Levine

Out of the tens of thousands of movies I have seen over the past 35 years, I can hardly recall any that have depicted Jewish families.
- You're not trying then, Jim. Try Annie Hall, Zelig, Radio Days, Family Business, about a dozen Neil Simon movies, The Chosen, Infinity, The Jazz Singer, Fiddler on the Roof, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, The Angel Levine (!), A Stranger Among Us, Yentl, Daniel and The Substance of Fire, to name just a very few.

Thanks for telling me that, but technically, since you haven't checked out EVERY ONE'S household, you can't say that. There very well may be, and probably ARE, households out there that are FAR more screwy than that depicted in FOCKERS. How about the household where the mother drowned all five of her kids, for instance? I would say that is MUCH more screwy than anything in FOCKERS (although, of course, there was nothing funny about THAT).
- I don't know, Jim, but somehow I think that everything in that house wasn't zany shtick like the exceedingly unrealistic families in screwball comedies.

If life was really like that, people wouldn't pay money to see the moview.

No idea. Families can be very weird entities because Life is FAR more intense than anything mere MOVIES can imitate. I will assure you the family I grew up in -- when my father was a psychiatrist in charge of the violent male building at the Norristown State Hospital; my mother was a born-again, Mainline socialite; my grandfather was performing 3 brain operations a week at Jefferson and I was into Scientology (who consider the APA and neurosurgeons their enemies) -- had some very inconsistent realities going hence some very screwball moments, moments far more hilarious, if not sad, than anything in the FOCKERS household.
- The difference is, in screwball comedy families, life is exclusively made up by those moments.

Well I read it that the "bad guys" in 9/11 were actually mostly SAUDIS, yet ARABS is all the public is programmed to note -- as you have demonstrated here.
- Sadly, the American public isn't prone to making fine distinctions like that. It's not due to "programming"; it's a simple feature of human nature that preexisted the media by thousands of years.

Films like The Seige and Spartan have at least done something to try and challenge those preconceptions.

It doesn't matter how similar or how different WASP studio heads are/would be to Jewish studios heads for that's not the issue. The issue is that there is little diversity in the top-most ranks of the studios. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist.htm
- It IS an issue, because you're blaming such characteristics on the Jewishness of those individuals.

Re(4): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 09:11:30 PM by Moshe the Goyim

Mr. Levine. You are out of touch. Your personal obsession towards veiling Jewish Hollywood bigotry blinds you. "The Siege" is progress?

Here's Roger Ebert's assessment of that movie:

"The prejudicial attitudes emobodied in the film are insidious."

The Siege's producers Zwick and Obst are Jewish. Jack Shaheen devotes 4 pages to this racist movie in his Reel Bad Arabs. How Hollywood Villifies a People, p. 430-434. "When the film opened on 6 November 1998, America's Muslims and Muslims demonstrated in front of movie theaters, citing the film's heinous portraits."

Even Jewish film critic Sharon Waxman of the Washington Post trashed the movie as an expression of bigotry.

Re(5): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 01:07:32 AM by Mitchell Levine

Compared to the 70s, when only Islamic terrorists would have been portrayed, and not sympathetic Arab characters like Tony Shalub's, and no mention of the true pacificist nature of the Koran's preachings, it's a step up.

The point of the film was that violating the rights of Muslims generically because of Islamic extremism undermines the fundamental basis of the nation.

There's nothing "racist" or "prejudiced" about that. The film wasn't intended to demonize Arabs, and, in fact, in light of 9/11, it was prophetic.

The protestors were wrong.

Re(4): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 2, 2005 at 08:19:11 PM by James Jaeger

>- You're not trying then, Jim. Try Annie Hall, Zelig, Radio Days, Family Business, about a dozen Neil Simon movies, The Chosen, Infinity, The Jazz Singer, Fiddler on the Roof, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, The Angel Levine (!), A Stranger Among Us, Yentl, Daniel and The Substance of Fire, to name just a very few.

OKay. But you know what, Mitchell, I guess what this comes down to is I put no special attention of Jewsish families any more than I do on Christian families or Muslim families.

I'm just there to see a good story.

>- I don't know, Jim, but somehow I think that everything in that house wasn't zany shtick like the exceedingly unrealistic families in screwball comedies.

Okay. But remember I didn't stay through the entire movie. Maybe it got much more screwball. I'll watch the entire movie when it comes to DVD.

>If life was really like that, people wouldn't pay money to see the moview.

If this is true, how come people pay so much time and attention to this rash of reality-based shows?

>- The difference is, in screwball comedy families, life is exclusively made up by those moments.

I see.

>- Sadly, the American public isn't prone to making fine distinctions like that. It's not due to "programming"; it's a simple feature of human nature that preexisted the media by thousands of years.

I don't know Mitch. Read a new book that's out called SLEEPING WITH THE DEVIL by an ex-CIA agent. The U.S. relationship with SAUDI ARABIA is held sacrosanct and protected at all costs. To this degree the media is in bed with big gov and big oil.

>Films like The Seige and Spartan have at least done something to try and challenge those preconceptions.

I see.

>>It doesn't matter how similar or how different WASP studio heads are/would be to Jewish studios heads for that's not the issue. The issue is that there is little diversity in the top-most ranks of the studios. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/control.htm#execlist.htm

>- It IS an issue, because you're blaming such characteristics on the Jewishness of those individuals.

NO I AM NOT. That is the ultimate straw argument when it comes to FIRM's position.

James Jaeger

Re(5): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 01:02:21 AM by Mitchell Levine

OKay. But you know what, Mitchell, I guess what this comes down to is I put no special attention of Jewsish families any more than I do on Christian families or Muslim families.
- That's not the point, Jim - the references establish that such depictions are the norm for Jewish families on film, let alone the TV ones, as in Flying Blind, Seinfeld, Rhoda, Friends, etc.

Whether or not you wish to pay attention to them is immaterial.

I'm just there to see a good story.
- So's everyone else - but aren't you the one that claims film's aren't just entertainment???

If this is true, how come people pay so much time and attention to this rash of reality-based shows?
- Because they just plop audience representatives into the same unreal situations; competing for Donald Trump, trying to marry a pinup while being forced to wear a mask, etc.

It's the ultimate premise: take the mundane and make it into the extraordinary. That's why people seek entertainment. There's nothing "real" about Reality TV.

I don't know Mitch. Read a new book that's out called SLEEPING WITH THE DEVIL by an ex-CIA agent. The U.S. relationship with SAUDI ARABIA is held sacrosanct and protected at all costs. To this degree the media is in bed with big gov and big oil.
- What's the media have to do with the Saudis, and what does that have to do with the stereotypical perception of Arabs???

NO I AM NOT. That is the ultimate straw argument when it comes to FIRM's position.
- Read the following paragraph, Jim:

"And yes, it does. Who do you think is spearheading the assault on Christian values right now? It's secular Jews that dominate Hollywood and the media hiding behind Judaism. Duh. Who do you is behind the ACLU? Duh. Nativity scenes out of the public square. Duh! The culture war against Mel Gibson. Duh!!! Endless billions for Israel? Duh. The war in Iraq? The neo-cons, predominantly Jewish. Duh! The Jews that dominate Hollywood are definitely pushing an agenda that favors and supports the Jewish lobby's agenda and the agenda of the AIPAC and the agenda of the Neo-Cons. Duh!! And much of this is all about uncritical support of Israel. Any surprise Murdoch is one of the biggest Zionists around. It doesn't matter if Murdoch doesn't SEEM like a Jew so long as he supports Israel and the hundreds of billions American citizens have pissed over there. You will NEVER see O'Reilly, who is a Murdoch mouth-piece into the Gentile Establishment, bad mouth Israel. Murdoch would fire him instantly. Thus this is evidence that Murdoch is not only Jewish, but pushes the Jewish agenda. "

In other words, it's not a "straw man." It's the heart of your position.

Your claim to be "misunderstood" is just a typical pile of fucking bullshit, as the above antisemitic tirade confirms.

By the way, the ACLU has defended the legitimate rights of Christians on scores and scores of occasions, one of which isn't a "right" to have the government endorse their religion with nativity scenes.

Re(6): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 5, 2005 at 10:29:47 PM by James Jaeger

>- That's not the point, Jim - the references establish that such depictions are the norm for Jewish families on film, let alone the TV ones, as in Flying Blind, Seinfeld, Rhoda, Friends, etc.

In all my years of movie-going I have never had the idea instilled in my mind as to WHAT a "normal" Jewish family is. I have, on the other hand, had FAR more ideas as to how treacherous Arabs are or how silly and irrelevant Christians are. This is what happens when a movie industry is dominated by a narrow group, in this case liberal, secular Jewish males.

>- So's everyone else - but aren't you the one that claims film's aren't just entertainment???

Jack Valenti has claimed that they are just mere entertainment. I claim that a certain percentage of them serve an agenda. In past posts I have put this at 10 to 20 percent, but there are movies that ARE entertaining, but here and there an agenda is peppered in for instance the theme of making Christians look silly, insane or irrelevant, as was done in CONTACT, directed by Robert Zemeckis, who is Jewish.

>- What's the media have to do with the Saudis, and what does that have to do with the stereotypical perception of Arabs???

People in the media and people in gov are close.

>- Read the following paragraph, Jim:
"And yes, it does. Who do you think is spearheading the assault on
Christian values right now? It's secular Jews that dominate Hollywood and the media hiding behind Judaism. Duh. Who do you is behind the ACLU? Duh. Nativity scenes out of the public square. Duh! The culture war against Mel Gibson. Duh!!! Endless billions for Israel? Duh. The war in Iraq? The neo-cons, predominantly Jewish. Duh! The Jews that dominate Hollywood are definitely pushing an agenda that favors and supports the Jewish lobby's agenda and the agenda of the AIPAC and the agenda of the Neo-Cons. Duh!! And much of this is all about uncritical support of Israel. Any surprise Murdoch is one of the biggest Zionists around. It doesn't matter if Murdoch doesn't SEEM like a Jew so long as he supports Israel and the hundreds of billions American citizens have pissed over there. You will NEVER see O'Reilly, who is a Murdoch mouth-piece into the Gentile Establishment, bad mouth Israel. Murdoch would fire him instantly. Thus this is evidence that Murdoch is not only Jewish, but pushes the Jewish agenda. "

>In other words, it's not a "straw man." It's the heart of your position.

The above serves as a perfect example of the horrendous things that happen when a narrow demographic dominates the most powerful communication channels yet devised. If these communication channels were dominated by Arabs or Christians we would see a whole host of DIFFERENT horrendous things happening.

To the degree the movie industry and media are DIVERSIFIED, they become WISE. The reason the BLOGOSPHERE is WISER than the mainstream media is because ANYONE can post a blog -- thus it is, ipso facto, diverse, independent, de-centralized and self-correcting, hence wise. James Surowiecki, in his book, THE WISDOM OF CROWDS, says that a 'crowd becomes WISE when it has a diversity of opinions from a decentralized group of independent members and a good method for aggregation.' Given that Hollywood studios and the media are NOT DIVERSE (because they are dominated by a narrow demographic), or INDEPENDENT (because, as Ted Turner and others say, the media has consolidated down to less than 10 multi-national corporations) or AGGREGATING (they can talk at you a lot more easily than you can talk back to them and they mostly only talk to their elite counterparts) -- much of what they put out is detrimental to society because it's old news, biased news, inhibited news hence it is UNWISE for society to pay attention to them or buy their products. This would, of course, include movies that have an ongoing, though subtle, agenda that was aligned with the dominating minority that controls the purse strings. 2004 was the year the MEDIA finally got it: the fact that the BLOGOSPHERE may soon be MORE POWERFUL than them. The Trent Lott situation is an example of this reality. So Mitch, looks like you are already on your way to becoming a blogger by simply posting here at the FIRM site as much as you do.

>Your claim to be "misunderstood" is just a typical pile of fucking bullshit, as the above antisemitic tirade confirms.

Fucking bullshit?! I thought it was focking bullshit. I am "misunderstood" only by apologists like you who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

>By the way, the ACLU has defended the legitimate rights of Christians on scores and scores of occasions, one of which isn't a "right" to have the government endorse their religion with nativity scenes.

Bill O'Reilly has exhaustively exposed the hypocritical antics of the ACLU such as the issue where they were suing to have a Christian symbol removed from the LA City logo but had no problem allowing some other pagan symbol to remain.

James Jaeger

Re(6): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 09:52:07 AM by Heebie Jeebie

"And yes, it does. Who do you think is spearheading the assault on Christian values right now? It's secular Jews that dominate Hollywood and the media hiding behind Judaism. Duh. Who do you is behind the ACLU? Duh. Nativity scenes out of the public square. Duh! The culture war against Mel Gibson. Duh!!! Endless billions for Israel? Duh. The war in Iraq? The neo-cons, predominantly Jewish. Duh! The Jews that dominate Hollywood are definitely pushing an agenda that favors and supports the Jewish lobby's agenda and the agenda of the AIPAC and the agenda of the Neo-Cons. Duh!! And much of this is all about uncritical support of Israel. Any surprise Murdoch is one of the biggest Zionists around. It doesn't matter if Murdoch doesn't SEEM like a Jew so long as he supports Israel and the hundreds of billions American citizens have pissed over there. You will NEVER see O'Reilly, who is a Murdoch mouth-piece into the Gentile Establishment, bad mouth Israel. Murdoch would fire him instantly. Thus this is evidence that Murdoch is not only Jewish, but pushes the Jewish agenda. "


I just can't wait to hear how the above is NOT anti-Semitic.

Personally, I'd like to see the overly vague term "anti-Semitic" replaced by the clearer, more accurate "Jew-hater."

Re(7): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 01:24:11 PM by LEL_is_the_Internet

I'd like it if the pair of you stopped your bashing of Mr. Jaeger for being 'Anti-Semitic'. What a staggering waste of time. Why is this so important to you?

Get lives. Before it's too late.

Re(8): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 4, 2005 at 04:21:20 PM by Mitchell Levine

Actually, that's what we're trying to communicate to Jim.

Rabbi Lapin on Anti-Semitism
Posted on February 5, 2005 at 10:37:34 PM by Chad Powers

Hitler, The Jews, and Rabbi Lapin
by Chad Powers

"You’d have to be a recent immigrant from Outer Mongolia not to know of the role that people with Jewish names play in the coarsening of our culture. Almost every American knows this. It is just that most gentiles are too polite to mention it."
-- Rabbi Daniel Lapin, "Our Worst Enemy", Toward Tradition, January 20, 2005


In modern "free," Western "democracies," one may defame the Pope, the prophet Mohammed, or even God Him/Herself, smearing and slurring anyone's "sacred cows" (Hindus' obviously included) with impunity, but the "Holocaust" -- holy, sacred, transcendent -- is beyond public reproach. Consider that in at least seven Western countries a critic can be fined and jailed for "denying" or even "trivializing" the Holocaust, that event of Jewish obsession that has usurped what was once known as World War II, a pan-human disaster from which as many as 64 million people may have died. There is an old adage to understand this phenomenon of the holocaustal pedestal in Western life: one may gauge true power in any culture by what is forbidden to be publicly spoken.

Which brings us to Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

Quite a milestone occurred on the pages of the Internet the other day. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, an Orthodox Jew, declared that Hitler was right. At least about one thing: that highly visible Jews were in the vanguard of cultural decadence in pre-Nazi Germany. In other words, Lapin dares to infer that which cannot be publicly spoken: Jewish responsibility -- at least partially -- for soliciting hostile German feelings that led to the Holocaust. And attendant Jewish blame.

As we all know, particularly in "free" Western democracies, no one is allowed to speak like this. Even agreeing with Hitler that the sky is blue engenders considerable political and personal risk. Hitler and the Nazis are held to be an airtight ideological package -- a kind of vacuum cleaner. If one dares to suggest that not everything Hitler said about Jews was maliciously invented, that -- in today's Judeocentric dictate -- brands the offender as a certifiable "Nazi" whose latent aim must be to murder Jewry.

Well, surprise. Rabbi Lapin has broken all the rules. And for a Jew to admit that Hitler's disdain for Jews had reasoned basis in pre-Nazi German culture, as Lapin explicitly does, is truly revolutionary. He poses a small ray of light in a very dark chamber, a light that can reveal clearly and honestly the moral and rational roots of Gentile (and Jewish!) "anti-Semitism" throughout the Jewish story.

Rabbi Lapin even has the galling audacity to quote Hitler, with both sympathy and understanding:

"Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it? What had to be reckoned heavily against the Jews in my eyes was when I became acquainted with their activity in the press, art, literature, and the theater….It sufficed to look at a billboard, to study the names behind the horrible trash they advertised…. Is this why the Jews are called the "chosen people"? The fact that nine tenths of all literary filth, artistic trash, and theatrical idiocy can be set to the account of a people, constituting hardly one hundredth of all the country’s inhabitants, could simply not be talked away; it was the plain truth."
( - Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Chapter II)

Lapin cites Mein Kampf (which is banned in some countries today) to illustrate the parallels between Jewish prominence in the destruction of traditional German values and to underscore similar Jewish erosion of its American counterpart today. (Lapin's limit, however, is that he believes that secular Jewry so prominently corrosive in American and pre-Nazi German culture has wandered far astray of its allegedly noble religious roots).

Lapin interprets Hitler's excerpted passage this way:

"It does not excuse Hitler or his Nazi thugs for us to acknowledge that this maniacal, master propagandist focused on a reality that resonated with the educated, and cultured Germans of his day. Not once in Mein Kampf did that monster charge Jews with being complicit in the killing of Christ two thousand years earlier. He knew that long-ago event, shrouded in mystery and theological profundity, would never goad enlightened people to murder. Instead, he drew attention to the obvious and inescapable; that which every German knew to be true. The sad fact is that through Jewish actors, playwrights, and producers, the Berlin stage of Weimar Germany linked Jews and deviant sexuality in all its sordid manifestations just as surely as Broadway does today. Much of the filth in American entertainment today parallels that of Germany between the wars."

Agreeing with Hitler about anything is one of foremost taboos in Western culture. Brutal, ruthless Adolf Hitler is the completely dehumanized icon for Evil: he is an amalgamation of the Devil, Darth Vadar, Tolkien's Dark Lord, Headless Horsemen, Zombie Death Machines, and bloodthirsty Martians from Outer Space. And within this heavy matrix, the gravity of Jewish suffering under the Nazis effectively screens inquirers from investigating the enduringly delicate "whys" of the way so much of Europe turned on the Torah's favored tribe. The frozen monolith of Jewish Good versus Anti-Semitic Evil is held to be polar, dualistic, dialectical: the Dark Lord enacts his bloody role in history from one side and completely Innocent Jewry fulfills their martyrological destiny on the other (although this has changed with nuclear bomb-laden Israel), with no middle ground or factual shades of any sort allowed.

Rabbi Lapin was careful to delineate -- as well he should -- the difference between what Hitler said and what he did. As much as Jewish convention dictates otherwise, decrying Jewish behavior and herding them into ovens aren't synonyms. Nor is there logical closure between open critique in 2005 and the peculiar contexts of World War II. The "Holocaust" occurred in the very heart of a very vicious war and, as reminder, the second world war did not center around the singular issue of Jewish survival problems in battlefield countries where anyone stood be decimated.

Rabbi Lapin is obviously a very unusual man, let alone an unusual Jew. You won't find any other Jews (or anyone else in "respectable" public discourse) quoting Hitler to make a point these days. And, truth be told, only a Jew has the remotest chance of getting away with it.

One would imagine that Jews at-large would be eager to understand the social, political, and psychological currents that gave rise to violent political action against them. You'd think they would want to remedy the problem of anti-Jewish hostility, once and for all. Once truly understood, one might logically presume that what Jews call "anti-Semitism" could be finally eliminated -- by negotiation, frank exchange, sharing of grievances, and building mutual good faith between Jews and Gentiles.

But of course the Jewish community as an organized group isn't really interested in understanding "anti-Semitism." On the contrary. It merely condemns and forbids it and that is all. In this regard, modern Jewry is obsessed with spirited censorship and myth-making towards the central premises of Darwinian self-survival or, much more correctly, tribal survival.

The key to understanding Jewish identity in 2005 is the Holocaust and Israel. Religious, racial, and ethnic Jewish identities morph and unmorph, overlap and underlap, but when the dust always settles it is Jewish fears of the omnipresent 'anti-Semitic" boogeyman that represents the pillar of Jewish self-conception. And in the hidden Jewish torture chambers lies the heart of modern Jewish being: the military garrison state of Israel, sworn to the sword to protect the world's diverse "stiff-necked" tribe -- whoever they are, whatever they've done, to the very last man or woman.

Herein lies the pulse of today's Jewish morality: corruption, deviance, exploitation, deception -- anything to protect the Tribe. Universalistic moral precepts take second rung to the hysterically defensive Judeocentric injunction to defend the Tribe from all and any attack, large, small, or marginally perceptible. This includes the regular censorial exercise of smothering the smallest "anti-Semitic" kindling, lest it broaden its fire of complaint.

Enter Rabbi Daniel Lapin with dire warnings for deaf Jewish ears.

But not even Lapin (who ignores the unseemly premises of traditionally racist, segregationist Judaism as a self-defined Orthodox Jew) seems to understand the dire "evil" that weighs so heavily in the Jewish direction. The principle threat to Jewish survival is not a "second-coming" Holocaust, led by barbarous Jew-hating goyim, in physical form. It is courageous Jews like Rabbi Lapin himself, who may not grasp the totality of the problem at hand, but stands firmly, defiantly, along the right track (more or less), digging deeply for the moral threads of his identity. The greatest threat to collective Jewish survival comes not from Frankenstein-like "anti-Semites" and a world Islamic uprising. It comes from the potential "Holocaust" within the Jewish fortress line: the long, steady tradition of Jewish "self-hatred" (an in-house form of "anti-Semitism") that has always paralleled -- like a magnetic echo -- Jewish self-obsession, self-delusion, and self-evasion. And this is what the formal Jewish community has always had to defend most robustly against.

Here lies the key to Jewish censorship and the profound dangers to Jews by dissident tribalists like Rabbi Lapin. In 2005, such a man is far more dangerous to Jewish comfort than any obscure anti-Jewish militants sporting red and white swastikas or an Arab "terrorist" sneaking over one of Israel's Mordar Walls. If rank-and-file Jewry (let alone the Gentile world) were ever allowed to freely face the factual hypocrisies, paradoxes, and outrages of Jewish identity and history, the community would probably self-destruct with an exodus of shame and disillusionment. Rabbi Lapin, intended or not, points in that direction. He starts bluntly with massively visible Jewish deviance that inspired Germans against them. Robbed of their incessantly propagandistic "victim hero" status, many "born Jews" would inevitably migrate out of the Jewish Fortress Against Other People, seeking new identity allegiances rooted in negotiation with their common man: the generic "anti-Semite."

Why did Hitler turn so vehemently against Jews? Rabbi Lapin directs us towards an honest answer, towards honest understanding, towards a true reconciliation. Introductions to the broader problems of Jewish attitude and hegemony in Germany's pre-Nazi Weimar Republic start below.

And it should look familiar:



* Jewish dominance of German culture (private banking, film, the theatre, publishing, etc.), leading up to the Nazi take-over

* Jewish dominance of the international white slavery (sex trade) racket, leading up to the Nazi take-over

* Traditional (Yiddish) Jewish perceptions of non-Jews, leading up to the Nazi take-over

* Ultra-Orthodox dominance of many Eastern Europe's Jewish communities, leading up to the Nazi take-over, and secular Israelis' parallel condemnation/disdain of them

Re(9): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 5, 2005 at 07:38:29 AM by LEL_is_the_Internet

Why? What for? For what purpose? Is there a purpose? Do you just not know it?

Why not just give it up? Explain the earth-shattering importance of getting James to satisfy you that he is an 'anti-semite'. If you can.

Re(10): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 5, 2005 at 05:17:54 PM by Mitchell Levine

The same reason psychiatrists see patients at a free clinic - to make the world a better place.

Re(11): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 02:45:00 PM by LEL_is_the_Internet

But you're not a psychiatrist, you don't even play one on the internet, you're just a sad obsessed bastard. And sad obsessed bastards do not make the world a better place, so that can't be your motivation deep down.

You might as well answer properly, as I won't leave you alone until you do explain youself to my satisfaction why you get your jollies off pestering poor Mr. Jaeger.

Explain yourself!

Re(12): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 7, 2005 at 02:48:41 PM by Mitchell Levine

I didn't say I WAS a psychiatrist - I said I had the same motivations as one - to make the world a better place.

The forces of intolerance have to be challenged wherever they appear, or they eventually take over. Or did the history of the 20th century not teach you that?

Re(11): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 5, 2005 at 10:32:55 PM by Moshe the Goyim

Jewish identity rests on the concept of the "other" that allegedly hates them. That is the essence of Jewish conception in today's world. Take away the "anti-Semite," and Jewish identity has nothing to rest upon.

It's all a form of self-delusion. So long as the "anti-Semite" is conjured for Jews to hate, they can avoid serious moral introspection.

Re(12): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 02:43:38 PM by Heebie Jeebie

I say take away the sanitized term "anti-Semitic." Let the Jew haters say it loud and clear: "We hate Jews." If I hated a certain group of people, I'd at least have the balls to say so.
Unlike the Jaegers and Goyim of the world who in typically cowardly fashion express, then DENY their true feelings. It's actually quite comical if you think about it.

Re(13): ON ANTI-SEMITISM
Posted on February 7, 2005 at 06:19:52 PM by James Jaeger

>I say take away the sanitized term "anti-Semitic." Let the Jew haters say it loud and clear: "We hate Jews." If I hated a certain group of people, I'd at least have the balls to say so. Unlike the Jaegers and Goyim of the world who in typically cowardly fashion express, then DENY their true feelings. It's actually quite comical if you think about it.

It's difficult to hate the individuals of a group just because you disagree or hate the mission or agenda of the group.

If you are at war with a particular group, then the term bigotry doesn't apply, because you're SUPPOSED to hate your enemies. If Jews in general, or Jews in the Studios are at war with Gentiles, then the term bigotry doesn't apply. Unfortunately, looking at the actions of Jews such as Levin, they seem to be living in the past. They are still at war with the world, especially Germans, even though World War II ended over 50 years ago.

Unfortunately many Jews seem to be at war with Gentiles, as evidenced by their incessant use of the term, "anti-Semitic," to label anyone they even remotely suspect as an enemy. Maybe if Jews in general stopped warring with their fellows, they wouldn't see "anti-Semitic" around every corner.

For the record, I have no reason to hate any of the Jewish people I have met or interacted with over the Net. This would include Mitch Levin, who I have actually grown to admire, even though we have never met. I accept Mr. Levin for his views and who he is/wants to be even though I disagree with him. I also disagree with the agenda I see emerging out of Jews as a group, much of which Mr. Levin represents. But my feelings aren't any different than feelings I might have for a given political party. I simply see it as certain people and groups have their agenda and others have theirs. What's new? This is life. There is no need to hate someone or some group just because they are liberal and you are conservative on certain issues or vica versa.

Thus, I view this phenomenon of calling people "anti-Semites as childish name-calling. The only strategic reason I can imagine the Jewish community, and their apologists, do it is to facilitate blacklisting, a form of discrimination. The Scientologists do the exact same thing only they use the word, "suppressive person" or SP for short. If you are labeled an SP by them, you will be blacklisted and/or excommunicated by the Church and most Scientologists will not communicate with you or only comm with you on a "fair roads and good weather" basis. I observe the Jewish film community uses many Scientology tactics. Or maybe Hubbard got these tactics from the Jewish community. If or several "opinion leader" members accuse or "declare" you an anti-Semite, this is an alert to all other Jewish "cult-members" to stay away or don't do business with that individual. This is bigotry and discrimination at its worst and unfortunately it's practiced in Hollywood even though it's kept under the table.

James Jaeger

NY Times Hollywood correpondent
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 10:09:47 PM by Moshe the Goyim

What are the essentials in this article? 1) A Jewish woman is the NY Times "Hollywood correspondent." 2) She spent a year studying in Israel 3) she met her husband at a dinner party at Israel's Foreign Ministry in the Jewish state, 4) when she was assigned to be the New York Times Hollywood correspondent, she "had never covered the entertainment industry," 5) when she met Arnold Schwarzenegger's publicist, she was delighted to find she was also Jewish and from her Cleveland neighborhood. And her last name was Parker -- such a shock!


Journalist Travels a Long, Winding Road to Tinseltown,
by Gabriel Sanders, [Jewish] Forward, February 4, 2005

http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?id=2654

"Between fielding phone calls for an article she was writing — [Sharon] Waxman is The New York Times's Hollywood correspondent — and preparing for the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, where her book, "Rebels on the Backlot: Six Maverick Directors and How They Conquered the Hollywood Studio System" (HarperEntertainment), would be officially launched, Waxman spoke to the Forward from her home in Santa Monica, Calif ... Waxman, 41, has been stationed in Hollywood since 1995, and her book is evidence of how well she knows the terrain ... Waxman was born into an Orthodox family in the Cleveland suburb of University Heights, Ohio, where she had what she termed an "old-style Jewish education," studying at a Hebrew day school with the same group of 20 girls from kindergarten through 12th grade. After graduation, Waxman, like many young Orthodox, went to Israel for a year of study. It was a pivotal year both for Waxman and for a number of her contemporaries. "Many of the kids I went to Israel with had a religious awakening," she said. "Many ended up living on the West Bank or the Gaza Strip." Waxman's awakening was of a different sort. "It was in Israel that I was first bitten by the journalism bug," she said. Though she was still operating in an Orthodox milieu, she began to write dispatches for her hometown Jewish paper, the Cleveland Jewish News. Waxman's Israeli stay coincided with Israel's 1982 return to Egypt of the Sinai Peninsula ... After college, graduate study at Oxford and some time in Egypt, Waxman took an internship on the Washington Post's foreign desk. With the outbreak of the first intifada in 1987, she determined that the Middle East, and not some quiet desk, was where she needed to be. "In the course of three weeks I literally dropped everything and moved to Jerusalem," she said. Though she had no job prospects when she left, as a speaker of both Hebrew and Arabic, she proved irresistible to potential employers. Within days of her arrival, she landed a job with Reuters, one she held for the next two years. At a dinner party hosted by Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Waxman met her future husband, a French businessman named Claude Memmi. Waxman moved to Paris in 1989 and spent the next six years writing from Europe on a freelance basis for a variety of American outlets — the Forward among them. Waxman tried for years, with little success, to secure a full-time writing job. But when the Washington Post, for which she had been working on an informal basis, offered her a newly-created position in Los Angeles, it came as something of a shock. "I had been looking for a job in the States," she said, "but had assumed it would be on the East Coast. I'd never even been to Los Angeles before." Nor had she covered the entertainment industry. And yet, for all the ground she's covered, Waxman remains convinced that the world is small. Before running off to Sundance, she shared one last anecdote. In the summer of 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor of California, the Washington Post assigned her to profile the actor-candidate, in part because of Waxman's contacts in the entertainment industry. In the course of her reporting, she interviewed Schwarzenegger's longtime publicist, Charlotte Parker. Over a deli lunch in the San Fernando Valley, in a discussion that touched on the question of the Austrian actor's roots, the two women got to talking about their own pasts. Though a decade or so apart, the two discovered that they were both not only from Cleveland Jewish homes, but also onetime residents of the same street and students at the same school. "I could have fallen off my chair," she said. "And Parker! It's maybe the most non-Jewish name you can come up with."

Re(1): NY Times Hollywood correpondent
Posted on February 6, 2005 at 10:10:38 PM by M the G

Addenda:

The NY Times is owned by the Jewish Sulzberger family and its editorial staff is predominately Jewish.

Re(14): MEET THE FOCKERS
Posted on February 7, 2005 at 02:52:18 PM by Mitchell Levine

Why exactly do you come here and make a jackass out of yourself supporting the anti-Jewish bigotry that pours out of the site?

Answer, damn you!!!

The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 8, 2005 at 08:20:40 PM by James Jaeger

>- Uh oh, we're back to "the Jewish agenda."

If there is no Jewish agenda, how come we have such organizations as the AIPAC and the ADL?

>- Yet another inane, bigoted idea -

No a comment that's right on the money.

>Jews aren't "at war" with you, Jim.

Duh! But they ACT as if they are still at war. When someone makes a reasonable suggestion that there be more diversity in Hollywood, they come out in droves attacking and name-calling.

>They...

They?! I thought there was no "they."

>...just don't like your numerous bigoted assertions and promotion of sterotypes,...

A stereotype may or may not be valid. An emergent property of a group is valid to the degree it gives the group force and direction (a vector).

>...which no one else would like if it were applied to them.

It's not a matter of whether one likes observable, empirical emergent properties -- they just are. You can whine all you want.

>- Uh, the reason they think you're "antisemitic" is because you keep making antisemitic statements,

YOU, and other Jews (and their apologists), characterize perfectly reasonable statements as anti-Semitic because you are attempting to obfuscate their truth and facilitate an agenda within the movie business and media. See my article, Hollywood's True Agenda at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/agenda.htm

>like your claims about "the Jewish agenda."

If there were no Jewish agenda there would be no need to have such organizations as the AIPAC and the ADL. Even the MPAA acts as the trade representative of companies dominated for the most part by liberal, secular Jewish males.

>You blame pretty much everything you don't like on Jews, from the ACLU to immigration to people saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas," and you promote ideas from neo-nazi groups like the bit about "goyim" meaning "cattle."

No I blame 9/11 on our oil dependency on Saudi Arabia and the unfortunate acts of desperate men, a.k.a. terrorists who detest this relationship. I blame our reliance on fossil fuels in general on the auto and fossil fuel lobbies combined with an complacent American public. I blame our anemic space program on Nixon and the Outer Space Treaty of 1978. I blame the over-medication of society and the state of our health industry on the Rockefeller Group and Congress. I blame inflation and the unconstitutional fiat currency we have had since 1913 on greedy New York money center banks lead by J.P. Morgan in consultation with representatives from the Bank of England. I blame the stagnation of democracy on the fact that we don't have term-limits in Congress. I blame the balance of trade deficit on NAFTA, GATT and our Fed-influenced elastic currency policy. I blame the public school system for the fact that we have kids that are growing up with poor math and science backgrounds. I blame the DEBT, DEFICIT and SOCIAL SECURITY crisis we are now facing on the American People for being unresponsive to government for too many years. I blame the rampant illegal drugs we have all over the U.S. on prohibition. I blame the breakdown of the family unit on Fed-caused inflation, the secularization of society by the movie industry and drug addiction, mainly alcohol. In short, as much as it may disappoint your ego Mitch: JEWS aren't responsible for EVERYTHING! Darn!

Now as far as the ACLU, it is my understanding that this organization is headed by a Jewish fellow and much of their staff is dominated by Jews. Someone point out that I am wrong on this and I will retract.

As far as immigration it is my understanding that, after many Jews, attempting to escape the ovens of the Holocaust, were turned away from U.S. coasts, the Jewish lobby said "never again" and had a firm hand in immigration policy thereafter.

As far as people saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas," just two nights ago O'Reilly brought up yet another instance of this issue whereby MACY'S had allowed no Merry Christmas but permitted Happy Hanukkahs to go out in some publication. I forget the exact instance. There are other examples being documented by William Donahue at the Catholic League.

As far as "goyim" meaning "cattle" is concerned, maybe I'm wrong about it meaning cattle per se, but it is clear that it IS a derogatory term depending on its usage.

>It doesn't follow that Jews are at war with gentiles because they don't like being defamed, for reasons not the least of which include the fact that most gentiles aren't antisemitic bigots.

But if you label a Gentile anti-Semitic for the most obvious and innocent of observations -– namely the empirical observation that Hollywood is dominated by Jews -– you have to expect you will engender resentment at the very least, if not hatred to the degree you
disallow someone to speak the truth as anyone can easily see it.

>- Case in point.

What point?

>- Note the idea here that NOTHING is antisemitic, including your calls for ethnic discrimination and paranoid ravings about Jewish conspiracies; i.e., "the Jewish agenda."

Wait a minute. I have never said their is any so-called Jewish conspiracy. Go back into all my writings and you will not see that stated. I honestly have no idea if there IS a Jewish conspiracy along the line of the PROTOCOLS. Is there Mitch? You tell me. I DO think, assuming there is no Jewish conspiracy, this would be a great topic to debunk on the History Channel's show, CONSPIRACY? However, as posted elsewhere, I see no such show in their current lineup. On the other hand, I HAVE said there seems to be a Jewish AGENDA. But an agenda is entirely different than a conspiracy. An agenda is overt whereas a conspiracy is covert. An agenda is just politics. A conspiracy is an attempt to pull the wool over peoples' eyes nefarious reasons. As far as I can see, Jews are perfectly within their right to form groups and go after certain goals, in other words, have an agenda. And they do. Maybe they aren't ALL in a given group, but my PERSONAL experience over the past 6 years is showing me that most of them I have encountered DO actually think PRETTY much alike on certain subjects. Nevertheless, EVERY group has an agenda. The Christian agenda is to sign everyone up to be saved by Jesus. The Scientologists' agenda is to "clear" the planet by auditing everyone. The Democrats' agenda is to re-capture the White House and Congress. A colony of Ants' agenda is to getting that leftover hoagie on the counter. FIRM's agenda is stated clearly stated at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/fmission.htm. MY agenda is the same as FIRM's agenda.

That said, it really doesn't matter if something is anti-Semitic when that something is am expression of a difference of opinion or a difference of agreement on some issue. If the Jewish agenda is counter to say the Republican agenda, it's perfectly okay to be anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic especially when the fact remains that Jews are, at the same time being anti-Republican or anti-Gentile or anti-Christian. The only place anything ANTI goes too far is when it gets into physical harm. I am against war and violence and believe issues should be fought out with words and reason. Thus when any two ANTI'S lock horns, this is perfectly okay debate. Like now, you and I are arguing. You think I'm anti-Semitic and I think you're anti-German. You think I'm anti-Semitic because I believe Hollywood studios should be more diverse, a proposition that might impact on fellow Jews. Even though, from my point of view, this is merely collateral damage in seeking a greater good for society – that of greater diversity in a powerful communications channel. I can live with your intolerance of my agenda and even your name-calling of me because of my agenda so long as our mutual argument seeks to rise to a better understanding of each other's point of view without violence. In the end, it will be the public that decides who is right and who is wrong.

- No, it's not "bigotry," Jim, because it's directed at behavior, which can be changed, and not identity, which can't be.
If you didn't want to business with idiots that raved about you representing the nefarious "German American former Scientologist agenda," you wouldn't consider that "bigotry."

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

James Jaeger

Re(1): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 8, 2005 at 11:07:44 PM by Mitchell Levine

If there is no Jewish agenda, how come we have such organizations as the AIPAC and the ADL?
- Because every group has lobbies to promote its legitimate interests.

Does the existence of the CDL "prove" there's a nefarious Catholic agenda to take over the world?

Duh! But they ACT as if they are still at war. When someone makes a reasonable suggestion that there be more diversity in Hollywood, they come out in droves attacking and name-calling.
- Because instead of making "reasonable suggestions," you engage in ethnic slurs and calls for discriminatory legislation.

No one's saying that diversity in Hollywood isn't a good thing, just like it is everywhere else.

A stereotype may or may not be valid.
- By definition, stereotypes aren't valid - they're used to prejudge members of an entire group in terms of negative overgeneralizations.

An emergent property of a group is valid to the degree it gives the group force and direction (a vector).
- Yes, Jim, no screed of yours would be complete without your trademark pseudointellectual bombast.

t's not a matter of whether one likes observable, empirical emergent properties -- they just are. You can whine all you want.
- Sorry, but stereotypes aren't "observable, empirical emergent properties": they're bigoted overgeneralizations in which prejudice is applied to every member of a group generically without the slightest objective process of discernment to determine that a genuine emergent property even exists, and even in spite of the results of such a process.

Unless you're suggesting that your anti-Jewish prejudice is just a German race trait like humorlessness, insensitivity, and dullness, combined with your Scientology flakiness and Episcopalian greedly materialism.

No I blame 9/11 on our oil dependency on Saudi Arabia and the unfortunate acts of desperate men, a.k.a. terrorists who detest this relationship. I blame our reliance on fossil fuels in general on the auto and fossil fuel lobbies combined with an complacent American public. I blame our anemic space program on Nixon and the Outer Space Treaty of 1978. I blame the over-medication of society and the state of our health industry on the Rockefeller Group and Congress. I blame inflation and the unconstitutional fiat currency we have had since 1913 on greedy New York money center banks lead by J.P. Morgan in consultation with representatives from the Bank of England. I blame the stagnation of democracy on the fact that we don't have term-limits in Congress. I blame the balance of trade deficit on NAFTA, GATT and our Fed-influenced elastic currency policy. I blame the public school system for the fact that we have kids that are growing up with poor math and science backgrounds. I blame the DEBT, DEFICIT and SOCIAL SECURITY crisis we are now facing on the American People for being unresponsive to government for too many years. I blame the rampant illegal drugs we have all over the U.S. on prohibition. I blame the breakdown of the family unit on Fed-caused inflation, the secularization of society by the movie industry and drug addiction, mainly alcohol. In short, as much as it may disappoint your ego Mitch: JEWS aren't responsible for EVERYTHING! Darn!
- Not really, Jim, because you blame all the above things on Jews - the Fed, Hollywood, greedy New York banks, etc. You probably think Morgan was either secretly a Jew or an agent of the Jews.

YOU, and other Jews (and their apologists), characterize perfectly reasonable statements as anti-Semitic because you are attempting to obfuscate their truth and facilitate an agenda within the movie business and media.
- That's the point: your statements AREN'T reasonable. They're paranoid and bigoted. You take some of John Cone's reasonable criticisms and shuffle them into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Now as far as the ACLU, it is my understanding that this organization is headed by a Jewish fellow and much of their staff is dominated by Jews. Someone point out that I am wrong on this and I will retract.
- Even if that were so, you're completely missing the point: the ACLU has defended the legitimate civil rights of Christians on thousands of occasions, including their rights to free expression and practice of their religion. Your characterization of their activities is bogus.

Fighting to maintain the separation of church and state demanded by the Establishment Clause isn't "anti-Christian."

As far as immigration it is my understanding that, after many Jews, attempting to escape the ovens of the Holocaust, were turned away from U.S. coasts, the Jewish lobby said "never again" and had a firm hand in immigration policy thereafter.
- Even if that were true, which I'm not sure it is, so what?

You're citing racist antisemite Kevin MacDonald's claims about immigration as if they were proven fact, which they hardly are.

As far as people saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas," just two nights ago O'Reilly brought up yet another instance of this issue whereby MACY'S had allowed no Merry Christmas but permitted Happy Hanukkahs to go out in some publication. I forget the exact instance. There are other examples being documented by William Donahue at the Catholic League.
- O'Reilly was mistaken: Federated Department Stores had no such policy, and allows its divisions to say "happy holidays" and "merry Christmans" as they wish:

www.fds.com/merrychristmas/

And besides, you printed a whole diatribe about how it pisses you off that people say "happy holidays," period, as if concern about other peoples' feelings was a big Jewish plot that you blamed on Hollywood.

As far as "goyim" meaning "cattle" is concerned, maybe I'm wrong about it meaning cattle per se, but it is clear that it IS a derogatory term depending on its usage.
- So is the word "Jew." So what?

But if you label a Gentile anti-Semitic for the most obvious and innocent of observations -– namely the empirical observation that Hollywood is dominated by Jews -– you have to expect you will engender resentment at the very least, if not hatred to the degree you
disallow someone to speak the truth as anyone can easily see it.
- As already noted, your observations are HARDLY innocent. They're inflammatory and prejudicial, often based on material from blatantly racist and antisemitic individuals like Kevin MacDonald, Jenks, and whatever neo-Nazi group you picked up the "goyim means cattle" myth.

Wait a minute. I have never said their is any so-called Jewish conspiracy.
- Bunk - your whole theory of the history of Hollywood is a Jewish conspiracy, and you think they're controlling immigration and the Federal Reserve Board on top of it.

Nevertheless, EVERY group has an agenda.
- Yes, but according to you, the "Jewish Agenda" is to control the world and destroy Christianity.

That said, it really doesn't matter if something is anti-Semitic when that something is am expression of a difference of opinion or a difference of agreement on some issue. If the Jewish agenda is counter to say the Republican agenda, it's perfectly okay to be anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic especially when the fact remains that Jews are, at the same time being anti-Republican or anti-Gentile or anti-Christian.
- No, Jim, because Jews are an ethnicity that people are born into, while the Republicans are a group that people choose to join because they agree with its platform on the issues.

That's like saying "it's OK to be racist, if you oppose the Negro Agenda of living on welfare and having sex with white women, because its no different than being anti-Republican."

You think I'm anti-Semitic because I believe Hollywood studios should be more diverse, a proposition that might impact on fellow Jews.
- No, Jim - I think you're antisemitic because you base that belief on a Jewish conspiracy theory founded on stereotypes, prejudice, and paranoid claims about an "attack on Christianity."

You don't even argue that Hollywood should be diverse - just the CEOs of the major studios. You don't even have any evidence that the employees of the studios AREN'T diverse, just that the CEOs aren't.

You don't even have any evidence that there ARE any gentiles in the business that are equally qualified to the current CEOs - equal number of years in the industry at top managerial levels, etc. You just want them to be hired solely on the basis of their ethnicity.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
- Simple: someone that criticizes your behavior only isn't expressing "bigotry," because bigotry is intolerance of what a person IS, which can't be changed, and not what they do, which can be.

For example, if someone says they don't like FIRM because it appears to be using bogus claims of support for diversity to covertly advance an agenda of discrimination, that's not bigotry.

If someone says that they don't like FIRM because you're a stupid Kraut that needs to have an E-Meter jacked up your ass, that's bigotry.

Note the difference - it's an important one.

Re(2): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 10, 2005 at 08:42:24 PM by James Jaeger

Continued...


>>As far as immigration it is my understanding that, after many Jews, attempting to escape the ovens of the Holocaust, were turned away from U.S. coasts, the Jewish lobby said "never again" and had a firm hand in immigration policy thereafter.

>- Even if that were true, which I'm not sure it is, so what?

Well, when such immigration policies are at the heart as to why we can't seem to close/police the U.S. boarders from seeping 1 million illegal aliens a month in to this country, the "so what" is the fact that sooner or later a portable nuke is going to arrive in an SUV and we will kiss an entire city of 25,000 to 500,000 Americans goodbye. At the current rate, it's only a matter of time before this happens. That’s "so what." Don't you think this is a little selfish of the Jewish lobby just so they can dilute the U.S. population down with people deemed to be less anti-Semitic than Europeans?

>You're citing racist antisemite Kevin MacDonald's claims about immigration as if they were proven fact, which they hardly are.

I don't know who he is. You can read the Immigration acts on line. Just Goggle them.

>- O'Reilly was mistaken: Federated Department Stores had no such policy, and allows its divisions to say "happy holidays" and "merry Christmans" as they wish: www.fds.com/merrychristmas/

Well when I hear a clarification or retraction from him I will consider it valid. But not until.

>And besides, you printed a whole diatribe about how it pisses you off that people say "happy holidays," period, as if concern about other peoples' feelings was a big Jewish plot that you blamed on Hollywood.

It's no secret that the Jewish lobby, and other predominantly secular groups, are behind the attempts to secularize the holiday season. The assault on Merry Christmas is one such issue. And yes, this is part of Hollywood's agenda, a Hollywood dominated by secular Jewish males.

>- As already noted, your observations are HARDLY innocent.

If I have lost any innocence, it is because of people like you.

>They're inflammatory and prejudicial, often based on material from blatantly racist and antisemitic individuals like Kevin MacDonald, Jenks, and whatever neo-Nazi group you picked up the "goyim means cattle" myth.

I was being attacked by people like you years before I even knew of Jenk's existence and the existence of ANY other people or books addressing Jewish history, culture or agenda.

>>Wait a minute. I have never said their is any so-called Jewish conspiracy.

>- Bunk - your whole theory of the history of Hollywood is a Jewish conspiracy, and you think they're controlling immigration and the Federal Reserve Board on top of it.

Nothing I have said is conspiracy. It pure, out-in-the-open agenda.

>>Nevertheless, EVERY group has an agenda.

>- Yes, but according to you, the "Jewish Agenda" is to control the world and destroy Christianity.

Is it? Many groups have as their mission or agenda to save or clear or control or dominate the world.

>- No, Jim, because Jews are an ethnicity that people are born into, while the Republicans are a group that people choose to join because they agree with its platform on the issues.

Fine. I have nothing against Jews because of anything they are born with but I have the right to disagree various policies and agenda that I find a significant portion of them support. There are a few Jews out there that don't have these policies and agenda and I am aligned with them. It just seems that most Jews I have encountered in connection with FIRM this past 5 years have a lot in common, i.e., they misinterpret our mission and instantly brand me and/or John Cones anti-Semitic. This was happening to John Cones even BEFORE we set up FIRM. See WEB CINEMA DIGEST arguments at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/archives/webcine.htm

>That's like saying "it's OK to be racist, if you oppose the Negro Agenda of living on welfare and having sex with white women, because its no different than being anti-Republican."

I DO oppose any African American men that have as a policy or agenda thwarting their responsibilities to be good fathers and husbands, as Bill Cosby had the guts to bring up. I don't feel this negligence is hard wired into the genes of blacks anymore than certain behaviors are hard-wired into the genes of Jews. But it doesn't make me a bigot just because I'm critical of some identifiable group's activities.

>>You think I'm anti-Semitic because I believe Hollywood studios should be more diverse, a proposition that might impact on fellow Jews.


>- No, Jim - I think you're antisemitic because you base that belief on a Jewish conspiracy theory founded on stereotypes, prejudice, and paranoid claims about an "attack on Christianity."

Frankly I don't care whether there is or is not any so-called Jewish conspiracy. That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. What's relevant is the observable FACT that the top positions of studio/distributors are occupied by a very narrowly defined demographic: liberal, secular Jewish males of European heritage. That's the only issue. You are bringing up all this other stuff in an attempt to discredit me and/or obfuscate the simplicity of the matter.

>You don't even argue that Hollywood should be diverse - just the CEOs of the major studios. You don't even have any evidence that the employees of the studios AREN'T diverse, just that the CEOs aren't.

I'm not concerned about everyone else in Hollywood because I know, so long as the top people are NOT diverse, they will continue to hire and greenlight projects with predominantly the same crowd and upon the same subjects that are basically of interest to them. It's only natural – not nefarious Mitch.

>You don't even have any evidence that there ARE any gentiles in the business that are equally qualified to the current CEOs - equal number of years in the industry at top managerial levels, etc. You just want them to be hired solely on the basis of their ethnicity.

All of the pre-Eisner DISNEY staff is evidence. DISNEY was doing fine for many years. Plus, 25 – 30 percent of the top executives that are ALREADY employed in Hollywood studios in the top positions ARE Gentiles. The fact that they are there PROVES that there are "gentiles in the business that are equally qualified to the current CEOs." Are you losing your mind?

>- Simple: someone that criticizes your behavior only isn't expressing "bigotry," because bigotry is intolerance of what a person IS, which can't be changed, and not what they do, which can be.

I AM only criticizing the behavior of the top studios executives. I am agreeing with John Cones that they use unethical, predatory and sometimes illegal business practices to maintain power. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm for substantiating data.

>For example, if someone says they don't like FIRM because it appears to be using bogus claims of support for diversity to covertly advance an agenda of discrimination, that's not bigotry.

Well I'm saying that I don't like the studio/distributors because they, and their apologists, appear to be using bogus claims to support the idea that they and Hollywood is diverse enough but what they are really doing is advancing an agenda of discrimination and support of liberal causes. That's not bigotry.

>If someone says that they don't like FIRM because you're a stupid Kraut that needs to have an E-Meter jacked up your ass, that's bigotry.

Show me where I have said 'I don't like Hollywood studios because they're run by a bunch of stupid Jews that need to have E-Meters jacked up their asses.'

>Note the difference - it's an important one.

I think it's you that don't get the difference.

James Jaeger

Re(3): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 15, 2005 at 03:22:45 PM by Mitchell Levine

Well, when such immigration policies are at the heart as to why we can't seem to close/police the U.S. boarders from seeping 1 million illegal aliens a month in to this country, the "so what" is the fact that sooner or later a portable nuke is going to arrive in an SUV and we will kiss an entire city of 25,000 to 500,000 Americans goodbye. At the current rate, it's only a matter of time before this happens. That’s "so what." Don't you think this is a little selfish of the Jewish lobby just so they can dilute the U.S. population down with people deemed to be less anti-Semitic than Europeans?
- Jim, as always, you have no idea what you're talking about:

1) The problem isn't LEGAL immigration; it's ILLEGAL immigration. Legal immigrants are a tiny fraction of the Mexican nationals who move to the U.S.

And the reason for it isn't "the Jewish Lobby" - it's the fact that a) California and Florida can't harvest their crops without Mexican migrant farmworkers; and b) A huge border like ours with Mexico is next to impossible to keep impoverished suffers from infiltrating without spending billions to build a security barrier and flood the area with border agents. That's less than a priority to the Feds post-9/11, given the huge number of tax dollars spent on anti-terrorism.

2) You've not only demonstrated no evidence whatsoever that immigration to the U.S. - which falls under the authority of the State Department - is controlled by Jews, you haven't shown that whichever Jews in Congress and the State Department have influence over the matter are in fact the ones that pushed the legislation through. For all you know, it could be all the Gentiles in Congress that are responsible.

3) Even if it were, it HARDLY logically follows that the reason they supported the current legislation was because they "wanted to keep out antisemites."

That's just Kevin MacDonald's antisemitic theory, and there's not a shred of evidence to support it. All it is is a lame attempt at scapegoating Jews for the immigration of brown-skinned Mexicans that bigots have a racist dislike of.

5) The theory that Mexicans are somehow less antisemitic than Europeans is bogus, as a brief glance at the Voz de Atzlan site will confirm.

Mexico is a virtually uniformly Catholic country whose churchs taught virulently antisemitic doctrines for hundreds of years, and primarily rejected the Vatican II reforms in the Sixties. As nations go, it's at least as pervaded with antisemitism as Europe, if not more so.

Basically, what this line of reasoning demonstrates is how willing you are to stretch logic way past its breaking point, if it lets you blame things you don't like (based on racism) on Jews.

I don't know who he is. You can read the Immigration acts on line. Just Goggle them.
- Oh yes, you do know him, as you posted about the fact that Cones wrote a forward to the 2nd edition of his antisemitic book, The Culture of Critique, a book that promotes MacDonald's scheme for massive discrimination against Jews in college admissions and discriminatory taxes on Jewish income to create "ethnic parity."

Well when I hear a clarification or retraction from him I will consider it valid. But not until.
- Oh, definitely: Bill O'Reilly is the arbiter of truth!

It's no secret that the Jewish lobby, and other predominantly secular groups, are behind the attempts to secularize the holiday season. The assault on Merry Christmas is one such issue. And yes, this is part of Hollywood's agenda, a Hollywood dominated by secular Jewish males.
- Yes, Jim, it's no secret, if you get your information about the world from the National Vanguard.

Anyone with a brain understands that has nothing to do with "secularizing Christmas," and everything to do with maintaining the appropriate separation of church and state. If anyone ever opposes Christians celebrating Christmas in their homes and churches, then you can make these claims. The government of the United States isn't supposed to be endorsing religion, as much as you might want to be superior to those that don't practice the majority religion.

I was being attacked by people like you years before I even knew of Jenk's existence and the existence of ANY other people or books addressing Jewish history, culture or agenda.
- Keep promoting stereotypes, myths, and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, and people will continue to consider you an antisemite.

I DO oppose any African American men that have as a policy or agenda thwarting their responsibilities to be good fathers and husbands, as Bill Cosby had the guts to bring up. I don't feel this negligence is hard wired into the genes of blacks anymore than certain behaviors are hard-wired into the genes of Jews. But it doesn't make me a bigot just because I'm critical of some identifiable group's activities.
- If you weren't a bigot, you'd simply say you oppose irresponsible fathering without connecting it to the color of anyone's skin.

In reality, you're using a universal problem as a tool to attack blacks.

Frankly I don't care whether there is or is not any so-called Jewish conspiracy. That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. What's relevant is the observable FACT that the top positions of studio/distributors are occupied by a very narrowly defined demographic: liberal, secular Jewish males of European heritage. That's the only issue. You are bringing up all this other stuff in an attempt to discredit me and/or obfuscate the simplicity of the matter.
- Sorry, but YOU do that yourself by connecting it with immigration, the ACLU, your disgust at the separation of church and state, etc. If you really only cared about diversity in the studios, you'd talk about diversity in the studios.

I'm not concerned about everyone else in Hollywood because I know, so long as the top people are NOT diverse, they will continue to hire and greenlight projects with predominantly the same crowd and upon the same subjects that are basically of interest to them. It's only natural – not nefarious Mitch.
- But they hire a diverse group of people, as just a quick look at a copy of the trades will show, and the subjects of the films they produce have nothing to do with their interests, and everything to do with the interests of the ticketbuying audiences.

If they were making movies about their interests, you certainly wouldn't be seeing all these films starring and about extreme sports heroes and rappers. They make them because the audiences will pay to see them.

All of the pre-Eisner DISNEY staff is evidence. DISNEY was doing fine for many years. Plus, 25 – 30 percent of the top executives that are ALREADY employed in Hollywood studios in the top positions ARE Gentiles. The fact that they are there PROVES that there are "gentiles in the business that are equally qualified to the current CEOs." Are you losing your mind?
- Have you lost your mind, Jim? Prior to Eisner, Disney made pictures like The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes. Eisner and Jeff Katzenberg made it into the mainstream powerhouse the studio is today.

Quite simply, Roy Disney and the pre-80's staff weren't capable of doing that. That's why they didn't.

I AM only criticizing the behavior of the top studios executives. I am agreeing with John Cones that they use unethical, predatory and sometimes illegal business practices to maintain power. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm for substantiating data.
- While that might be true of Cones, it's not of you - you go way beyond that, and then hide behind John Cone's rational arguments.

By the way, I agree with Mr. Cones. I'm sure they do use unethical business practices, but, as we've seen over the last few years. so does the rest of the corporate world.

It's your linking their business practices to their Jewishness that's bullshit. Gentile corporate businessmen are just as corrupt.

Well I'm saying that I don't like the studio/distributors because they, and their apologists, appear to be using bogus claims to support the idea that they and Hollywood is diverse enough but what they are really doing is advancing an agenda of discrimination and support of liberal causes. That's not bigotry.
- A) Nobody's supporting discrimination - you've just never been able to provide the slightest evidence that there IS discrimination on an ethnic basis.

Hiring the execs with the most successful careers and greates number of years in the business is hardly discriminatory. You've never been able to produce any evidence whatsoever that the studios turn down good script ideas simply because the execs that option them aren't Jewish.

B) Support for liberal causes is HARDLY an agenda, and not commensurate with support for racism in any way.

Show me where I have said 'I don't like Hollywood studios because they're run by a bunch of stupid Jews that need to have E-Meters jacked up their asses.'
- I didn't say you did - I was just pointing out the difference. Claiming without even the slightest evidence that illegal immigration is the fault of Jews is just as stupid.

Re(4): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 11:04:48 PM by M the G

Jews have been central to the immigration game. They have been the key lobbyists. The more "diversity" there is, the more difficult it is to single out Jewry's racist Zionism. But it's starting to backfire, since Muslims have been coming here too and they -- on Jewish terms -- are overwhelmingly "anti-Semitic," per world Jewish support of racist Israel.

Of particular note was their hysterical lobbying to get tons of Russian Jews into America. Thanks to that, we've got the "Russian" mafia well-entrenched in the U.S.

The poster boy for it all was Natan Sharansky, who chose to go to Israel and today is a right-wing minister in the Israeli government.

Re(5): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 01:40:13 PM by Heebie Jeebie

>>>Jews have been central to the immigration game.


They are truly an extraordinary people who exert their Zionist treachery whenever and wherever possible.



For example, even though Sam Walton was a fine upstanding Gentile (or "Goy" in Jew-speak, which they claim means "nations" but really means "putz")Wal-Mart is a nefarious Zionist plot to destroy the US economy---which they already control through the Fed---by creating dependence on cheap Chinese goods, which are produced by slave laborers, and everybody knows the Jews are central to the slave trade, not to mention pornography which the Jews use to subvert the morals and soil the undergarments of fine upstanding Gentile citizens, and don't get me started on how they have subverted the musical taste of Americans and others by forcing us to listen to (and "enjoy" the prostitutional antics of) the sexually depraved Britney Spears (nee Shapiro) instead of the inspirational anthems of Wagner, and how degraded the virtuous Gentile girl Christina Aguilera (or "shiksa," which actually means "worthless whore") and have otherwise ruined her life with her racist Jewish/Zionist managers, producers, accountants and lawyers stealing all her money.

Re(6): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 03:36:09 PM by Mitchell Levine

You're a funny guy, Heebie.

Re(4): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 15, 2005 at 09:56:49 PM by James Jaeger

>By the way, I agree with Mr. Cones.

Good.

>It's your linking their business practices to their Jewishness that's bullshit.

I don't link them. That's bullshit.

The above is all you need to know. I don't have time for your horseshit obfuscations any longer Levine.

James Jaeger

Re(5): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 01:37:21 PM by Mitchell Levine

Sadly, Jim, the world doesn't have time for your horseshit obfuscations, and it's telling you that by ignoring you.

If you stopped coming off as a rabid bigot, people would be more willing to listen to your many interesting ideas.

Re(6): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 06:39:12 PM by James Jaeger

If I was the rabid bigot you paint me as, I would never have entertained your circular logic for as long as I have. Especially knowing that you are Jewish.

James Jaeger

Re(7): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 03:02:44 PM by Mitchell Levine

I didn't say you were a "rabid bigot"; I said Jenks was a rabid bigot.

You're a different case. That's why I'm bothering to discuss this with you.

Re(8): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 00:06:11 AM by M the G

Levine, you never "discuss." You dictate.

Re(7): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 11:00:55 PM by M the G

Indeed! The greatest test of true "tolerance" is reading today's twisted Levine post (rife with anti-Gentile bigotry) without having to upchuck.

Re(3): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 11, 2005 at 02:59:50 PM by M the G

Levine says this: If someone says that they don't like FIRM because you're a stupid Kraut that needs to have an E-Meter jacked up your ass, that's bigotry.

REPLY: There's psychoanalytic terms for this kind of displacement. Mr. Levine might well put himself under the mesmerization of some Jewish psychoanalyst so he might understand with clarity the not-so-veiled subtexts in his racial attacks against Mr. Jaeger. Modern Jewish hatred for anything "German" is legendary. Levine knows that. There are even debates, still, in the Jewish community whether Jews should buy German products.

Levine smears Jaeger's German heritage under the guise of postulating "What if I smeared your heritage?"

Read between the lines. Levine's hysterical racism (particularly towards Germans) is beginning to leak out.

Shame on you, Levine!

Re(4): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 15, 2005 at 03:27:26 PM by Mitchell Levine

i.e., Jenks is sick and tired of people correctly discerning him as a raving bigot, and would like displace the disdain of non-bigots onto Jews.

Note that neither Germans or Jews are "races," so his claims of racism are typical bogus drivel intended to use emotionally loaded epithets no matter how completely inaccurate they are.

He'll even use "psychoanalytic" phrases that he denigrates as "Jewish," if he thinks he can somehow get some kind of hit points out of them.

I specifically stated that the sentence was bigoted to show the difference between legitimate criticism and bigotry. As usual, Jenks is too stupid to tell the difference.

Re(5): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 10:58:41 PM by M the G

Why, Mr. Levine, do you fart out your usual smokescreen semantics to hide your disdain for Germans and their heritage? Call it "racism" or call it "bigotry" or whatever anyone wants, but it is clearly there in you. You seem to detest anyone who is not busy defending Jewish bigotry and ethnocentrism.

Per "psychoanalytic," like Hollywood the psycho game is close to a Jewish monopoly (like Hollywood). It's not my idea. There's plenty of Jewish literature on the subject. We've got it posted at
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

Re(6): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 03:06:38 PM by Mitchell Levine

Why, Mr. Levine, do you fart out your usual smokescreen semantics to hide your disdain for Germans and their heritage?
- Because I don't have "disdain for Germans and their heritage." My heritage IS German, just as much as Jim's is.

I love Kant, Goethe, Schiller, and Gauss as much as the next individual with German ancestry does.

You seem to detest anyone who is not busy defending Jewish bigotry and ethnocentrism.
- No, I detest you and your raving, poisonous antisemitism, and so should everyone else.

Re(7): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 03:17:01 PM by Heebie Jeebie

"My heritage IS German, just as much as Jim's is.

I love Kant, Goethe, Schiller, and Gauss as much as the next individual with German ancestry does. "

Levine? German? You've got to be kidding.
Didn't you get the Nuremberg memo?

Re(8): The Jewish Agenda? Cont...
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 04:21:28 PM by Mitchell Levine

Believe it or not, ALL of us weren't exterminated.

Re(2): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 10, 2005 at 08:41:46 PM by James Jaeger

>- Because every group has lobbies to promote its legitimate interests.

Well that's what I am saying. Jews act as a lobby and promote their interests. I'm not saying they are a conspiracy.

>Does the existence of the CDL "prove" there's a nefarious Catholic agenda to take over the world?

I have not said it's nefarious. I don't know if it is or not. I do feel the Jewish agenda as far as endless financial support of Israel is counter-productive for the U.S. as it's been going on for 50 years.

>- Because instead of making "reasonable suggestions," you engage in ethnic slurs and calls for discriminatory legislation.

I began with FIRM about 5 years ago simply supporting John Cones' research. Then after being incessantly attacked from the VERY beginning by people like you, I began to realize you are trying to hide something deeper. I now see that you are just acting like so many Jewish people who all act the same. Almost the same words, same name-calling. It's as if you are a bunch of clones. If you want to call the stereotyping, fine, but I call it my experience with about 100 Jews in the past 5 years.

And it's not me that's calling for discriminatory legislation, it's the people running the studios that are attempting to continue with their discriminatory practices.

>No one's saying that diversity in Hollywood isn't a good thing, just like it is everywhere else.

Well obviously YOU are saying it's not a good thing otherwise you wouldn't be attacking people like me who are calling for it starting with the top posts. If the top posts aren’t diversified the lower posts will NEVER become diversified for real. The "diversity" the industry trucks out from time to time, like the 2002 Oscars, is just window dressing.

>- By definition, stereotypes aren't valid - they're used to prejudge members of an entire group in terms of negative overgeneralizations.

There is no such definition of the word. A stereotype is just something in fixed form. It's not even necessarily negative. At least this is what my dictionary says. Since a stereotype is something in fixed form, and an emergent property is a property of individual nodes, terminals or people when they interact that takes on a fixed form, one can easily say that an emergent property is evidence of a valid stereotype.

>>An emergent property of a group is valid to the degree it gives the group force and direction (a vector).

>- Yes, Jim, no screed of yours would be complete without your trademark pseudointellectual bombast.

There's nothing pseudo about this. Emergent properties are quite valid when discussing social networks.

>- Sorry, but stereotypes aren't "observable, empirical emergent
properties":

Yes they are. An emergent property IS observable, otherwise no one would be able to recognize that it exists. Fixed forms are also observable. This stereotypes are observable. But by this I am not saying all stereotypes are valid. I recognize the type of stereotype you are trying to pin on me.

>they're bigoted overgeneralizations in which prejudice is applied to every member of a group generically without the slightest objective process of discernment to determine that a genuine emergent property even exists, and even in spite of the results of such a process.

Any and all of my attitudes about Jews come from my personal interaction with Jews, such as yourself. I started out with no fixed stereotype.

>Unless you're suggesting that your anti-Jewish prejudice

There is no PRE. If there was PREjudice, all my early books, written 10 years before FIRM, would have started out with this as a premise and none of them do. So again, please stop name-calling.

>is just a German race trait like humorlessness, insensitivity, and dullness,

I don't know enough German people to make any sort of generalization as to how they act. Perhaps you do.

>combined with your Scientology flakiness

You can call Scientology flaky, but I'm willing to bet you haven't studied it very much nor have you ever had any auditing or training in it. It is true I do have my disagreements with Scientology which have been keeping me from being active in it, but I can say this about them: they have their act together much better than the psychiatrists and any other mental health group I know of. And BTW, one of the observations I am compiling is that Jews don't seem to like Scientologists or Scientology. Is this a stereotype too Levine?

>and Episcopalian greedly materialism.

I was raised Episcopalian and I guess it's safe to say that there are a lot of greedy Episcopalians around here. But then I don't think they are any more greedy than the Jews around here.

>>No I blame 9/11 on our oil dependency on Saudi Arabia and the unfortunate acts of desperate men, a.k.a. terrorists who detest this relationship. I blame our reliance on fossil fuels in general on the auto and fossil fuel lobbies combined with an complacent American public. I blame our anemic space program on Nixon and the Outer Space Treaty of 1978. I blame the over-medication of society and the state of our health industry on the Rockefeller Group and Congress. I blame inflation and the unconstitutional fiat currency we have had since 1913 on greedy New York money center banks lead by J.P. Morgan in consultation with representatives from the Bank of England. I blame the stagnation of democracy on the fact that we don't have term-limits in Congress. I blame the balance of trade deficit on NAFTA, GATT and our Fed-influenced elastic currency policy. I blame the public school system for the fact that we have kids that are growing up with poor math and science backgrounds. I blame the DEBT, DEFICIT and SOCIAL SECURITY crisis we are now facing on the American People for being unresponsive to government for too many years. I blame the rampant illegal drugs we have all over the U.S. on prohibition. I blame the breakdown of the family unit on Fed-caused inflation, the secularization of society by the movie industry and drug addiction, mainly alcohol. In short, as much as it may disappoint your ego Mitch: JEWS aren't responsible for EVERYTHING! Darn!

>- Not really, Jim, because you blame all the above things on Jews - the Fed, Hollywood, greedy New York banks, etc. You probably think Morgan was either secretly a Jew or an agent of the Jews.

Not true. Whereas it's true, there are a lot of Jews in banking and there are a lot of Jewish firms that own the Federal Reserve (see list at http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/fr3.htm) it was really J.P. Morgan interests that established it in the year of his death, 1913. Also, the most powerful group on the planet by far is the Rockefeller Group. Jewish interests, in banking and otherwise, are insignificant by comparison.

>>YOU, and other Jews (and their apologists), characterize perfectly reasonable statements as anti-Semitic because you are attempting to obfuscate their truth and facilitate an agenda within the movie business and media.

>- That's the point: your statements AREN'T reasonable. They're paranoid and bigoted. You take some of John Cone's reasonable criticisms and shuffle them into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

No, it's Jews like you that have antagonized me to such a point it makes me wonder what's really going on. If there were nothing going on, you wouldn't be so concerned about a mere call for more diversity in the top of the studios. So the more you persist in arguing with me, the more guilty it makes you seem to me as a representative of your group. And to the degree I observe other Jews giving me the exact same line, as they all do, almost clones of each other, the more it confirms that FIRM has hit a nerve.

>- Even if that were so, you're completely missing the point: the ACLU has defended the legitimate civil rights of Christians on thousands of occasions, including their rights to free expression and practice of their religion. Your characterization of their activities is bogus.

I have mixed feelings about the ACLU. I hear a lot of negative about them from O'Reilly but I happen to agree with their stance on the current Churchill issue.


>Fighting to maintain the separation of church and state demanded by the Establishment Clause isn't "anti-Christian."

No, there is no "separation of church and state demanded by the Constitution. This is a bogus interpretation of the 1946 Everett v. the Board of Education ruling. The Establishment clause simply says that the government must not respect any religion over any other. It does NOT say, or imply that there must be a separation between church and state as if religion were some sort of a disease. The framers embraced ALL religion. Thus I as a Christian have as much right to have my religious symbols up in the public square as you do your symbols as a Jew. Anti-Christian people like yourself are attempting to construe the Board of Education ruling in such a way that you can "justify" removing the influence of Christianity from society. And you are doing this for the specific reason that you are paranoid bigots, afraid that the Christian community has too much power and influence in the nation and in the government. On these matters I disagree with the ACLU's anti-Christian, bigoted activity. And you, like many Jews I have encountered in monolithic fashion, are apologists for this.

cont...

Re(3): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 15, 2005 at 05:44:16 PM by Mitchell Levine

Well that's what I am saying. Jews act as a lobby and promote their interests. I'm not saying they are a conspiracy.
- It's not even beginning to be true, as few Jews even agree as what their interests are.

I have not said it's nefarious. I don't know if it is or not. I do feel the Jewish agenda as far as endless financial support of Israel is counter-productive for the U.S. as it's been going on for 50 years.
- Bullshit, Jim. The U.S.'s support is based on Christian ideology and the majority vote Christians wield.

If the Book of Revelations didn't say that Jews have to control Israel for the Second Coming to occur, the Israelis wouldn't get a dime, and the Arabs would have exterminated them a long time ago, just like Husseini requested the Nazis for.

I began with FIRM about 5 years ago simply supporting John Cones' research. Then after being incessantly attacked from the VERY beginning by people like you, I began to realize you are trying to hide something deeper. I now see that you are just acting like so many Jewish people who all act the same. Almost the same words, same name-calling. It's as if you are a bunch of clones. If you want to call the stereotyping, fine, but I call it my experience with about 100 Jews in the past 5 years.
- i.e., your continual antisemitic slurs provoked the logical reaction, and you're tired of the social taboo on bigotry being directed at you.

I began with FIRM about 5 years ago simply supporting John Cones' research. Then after being incessantly attacked from the VERY beginning by people like you, I began to realize you are trying to hide something deeper. I now see that you are just acting like so many Jewish people who all act the same. Almost the same words, same name-calling. It's as if you are a bunch of clones. If you want to call the stereotyping, fine, but I call it my experience with about 100 Jews in the past 5 years.
- You've never given even the slightest evidence this is true. Hiring a Jewish CEO if you believe they're the best candidate and they're the most experience is hardly "discrimination" - you've never identified any CEO that wasn't hyper-competent, or any Gentile executive that was better - and just the names in the trades alone prove that Hollywood hires a very diverse group of producers, directors, and writers.

The fact that a lot of Jews work in the business alone doesn't "prove" discrimination.

Well obviously YOU are saying it's not a good thing otherwise you wouldn't be attacking people like me who are calling for it starting with the top posts. If the top posts aren’t diversified the lower posts will NEVER become diversified for real. The "diversity" the industry trucks out from time to time, like the 2002 Oscars, is just window dressing.
- Bunk - they hire a load of diverse people now, and the Gentiles in the industry will get to the top spots when they've paid their dues.


There is no such definition of the word. A stereotype is just something in fixed form. It's not even necessarily negative. At least this is what my dictionary says. Since a stereotype is something in fixed form, and an emergent property is a property of individual nodes, terminals or people when they interact that takes on a fixed form, one can easily say that an emergent property is evidence of a valid stereotype.
- Yet more bullshit. Merriam-Webster doesn't agree with you:

Main Entry: 2stereotype
Function: noun
: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : an often oversimplified or biased mental picture held to characterize the typical individual of a group.

The sense of the word I'm referring to has nothing to do with the sense you're trying to promote, and that' s a logical fallacy called "equivocation."

Yes they are. An emergent property IS observable, otherwise no one would be able to recognize that it exists. Fixed forms are also observable. This stereotypes are observable. But by this I am not saying all stereotypes are valid. I recognize the type of stereotype you are trying to pin on me.
- "Emergent properties" are characteristics of physical systems and not human beings. Any scientist familar with the concept would laugh their ass off at your misuse.

And my remarks are based on your actual behavior and not any group stereotype.

There is no PRE. If there was PREjudice, all my early books, written 10 years before FIRM, would have started out with this as a premise and none of them do. So again, please stop name-calling.
- Please - bigots everywhere make this claim.

Your predisposition to blame what you don't like - like, say, Mexican immigration - no matter how strained the connection is "prejudice" - the tendency to think badly of others without sufficient warrant.

I don't know enough German people to make any sort of generalization as to how they act. Perhaps you do.
- No, Jim - the point was that those are stupid stereotypes, like the ones you direct at Jews, not that this is really true of German people as a whole.

You can call Scientology flaky, but I'm willing to bet you haven't studied it very much nor have you ever had any auditing or training in it.
- Interestingly enough, that's false: I took classes and had auditing done at the Buffalo org about twenty years ago. I've read most of the Hubbard books like Dianetics and Dianetics Today, and took a communications course there as well.

Thanks to Scientology, I now know that the Earth was part of a space colony run by an intergalactic tyrant named Xemu that warehoused his penal convictees on the Earth, and created the reactive mind after he nuked the above criminals and their thetans went underground, then attached themselves to homo sapiens when they evolved.


It is true I do have my disagreements with Scientology which have been keeping me from being active in it, but I can say this about them: they have their act together much better than the psychiatrists and any other mental health group I know of.
- Bunk - clinical psychology actually has research data validating it, unlike the Scientology nonsense.

And genuine service and health organizations don't have to run black ops against journalists critical of the organization like the "Paulette Cooper Freak-out."


And BTW, one of the observations I am compiling is that Jews don't seem to like Scientologists or Scientology. Is this a stereotype too Levine?
- No, people with brains don't like Scientology and recognize that it was a scam perpetrated by a very bad science fiction writer in the 1950s. Jews are just a subset of the former group.

No, it's Jews like you that have antagonized me to such a point it makes me wonder what's really going on. If there were nothing going on, you wouldn't be so concerned about a mere call for more diversity in the top of the studios. So the more you persist in arguing with me, the more guilty it makes you seem to me as a representative of your group. And to the degree I observe other Jews giving me the exact same line, as they all do, almost clones of each other, the more it confirms that FIRM has hit a nerve.
- No, it confirms that you persist with anti-Jewish slurs and stereotypes, and hide behind John Cones' books when they provoke the predictable reaction.

If your only concern was diversity in the studios, no one would care.

I was raised Episcopalian and I guess it's safe to say that there are a lot of greedy Episcopalians around here. But then I don't think they are any more greedy than the Jews around here.
- One more time: THE POINT WAS THAT STEREOTYPES ARE STUPID, AND NOT THAT EPISCOPALIANS ARE ANY MORE "GREEDY" THAN ANYONE ELSE.

No, there is no "separation of church and state demanded by the Constitution. This is a bogus interpretation of the 1946 Everett v. the Board of Education ruling.
- False: it's exactly what the Supreme Court has said since the days of Oliver Wendell Holmes, and was established conclusively in Lemon vs. Kurtzman, which held that, on the basis of the Establishment Clause, government must not have "excessive entanglement with religion."

It also formulated the Lemon Test for determining whether or not a particular act of the government violated the principle of separation of church and state. The Lemon doctine states that any act of the government must meet the criteria imposed by the following three questions:

"Does the challenged law, or other governmental action, have a bona fide secular (non-religious) or civic purpose?

Does the primary effect of the law or action neither advance nor inhibit religion? In other words, is it neutral?

Does the law or action avoid excessive entanglement of government with religion? "

Only if the answer is "yes" to all three questions is the constitutional demand met.

And, by the way, your interpretation of the Everett decision is bogus. Hugo Black said the following:

"*Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.

* Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions nor prefer one religion over another.

* Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

* No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.

* No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

* Neither a state nor the federal government can openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. "

Those are the values that the ACLU supports, and they aren't doing anything "anti-Christian" by doing so. Christians don't have the right to have the government endorse their religion, any more than Jews or Muslims do.

The Establishment clause simply says that the government must not respect any religion over any other. It does NOT say, or imply that there must be a separation between church and state as if religion were some sort of a disease.
- Bullshit - that's exactly what it says. Any governmental action respecting religion is inherently a violation of neutrality. The government and religion are two separate entities, neither of which is permitted to influence the other, except through the vote.

The framers embraced ALL religion. Thus I as a Christian have as much right to have my religious symbols up in the public square as you do your symbols as a Jew.
- False: neither have any right to have the government endorse their religion, nor does any other religion.

Anti-Christian people like yourself are attempting to construe the Board of Education ruling in such a way that you can "justify" removing the influence of Christianity from society.
- Bullshit: I'm not "anti-Christian" in even the slightest sense, and the only influence that religion is allowed to have in society is in the private sphere. The government can't endorse it in any way, period.

And you are doing this for the specific reason that you are paranoid bigots, afraid that the Christian community has too much power and influence in the nation and in the government.
- No, it's that government endorsement of ANY religion is an inherent violation of the rights of non-believers, period. It's just as true for Judaism as it is for Christianity.

This is NOT a Christian nation, nor a Jewish nation, nor a nation for any other religion. It's a nation where people of all religions have equal rights, and one right is not to have the government endorse anyone else's religion.

You may want believers in your religion to have superior rights to non-believers, but you're not going to get it. Period.

On these matters I disagree with the ACLU's anti-Christian, bigoted activity. And you, like many Jews I have encountered in monolithic fashion, are apologists for this.
- Once again, complete bullshit. The ACLU only stands for the legitimate civil rights of all Americans, and defends the rights of Christians all the time, recently, for example, when it defend the right of Christian preachers to prosyletize on the Vegas strip.

It's done so on thousands of others occasions, and will continue to do so any time the genuine civil rights of Christians and all other religious faiths established by the Constitution are violated.

However, any time religious bigots try to get their beliefs endorsed by the state in violation of the Establishment Clause, the ACLU and the Supreme Court will stop them, until the end of time.

Re(4): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 15, 2005 at 10:03:18 PM by James Jaeger

Levine, I no longer have time for your horseshit arguments designed to place me on the defensive, waste my time and obfuscate the issues for the public. You know what the issues are and they are stated in the Mission Statement -- thus it doesn't make any difference what your opinion of my opinions is.

James Jaeger

Re(3): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 11, 2005 at 02:51:56 PM by M the G

The absolute key to understanding Judeocentric propagandists like Mr. Levine is that it is ESSENTIAL for guys like him to put everyone else on the defensive, as policy, thereby distancing the central issues at stake from immediate perception and concern. In this case, at this discussion forum, the issue is simply "diversity in Hollywood" and the prominent Jewish influence in narrowing that.

Levine, in allegiance with generic "Jews," perceives that if he can wrest all critics into a defensive posture by declaring them to be "anti-Semites," "bigots," "Nazis," etc. etc. etc. he will successfully created dust storms around the Judeocentric network in Hollywood (and everywhere else).

Don't let him get away with this fraud. The true "bigot" is him, the guy who constantly wiggles to diffuse concerted criticism away from true "bigotry" -- the Jewish kind in Hollywood.

Levine is also an ardent censor. That is another subtext to all his endless haranguing and "Nazi-like" blather.

Re(4): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 12, 2005 at 00:15:40 AM by FilmBuff99


i have been reading this dialog quietly for a few days now and i think you're right---levine is acting like a bigot.

Re(5): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 15, 2005 at 05:47:19 PM by Mitchell Levine

Bunk - I've demonstrated prejudice against no one and never would.

The point I was making is that stereotypes perpetrated against the groups Jim belongs to are just as insidious and stupid as the ones he perpetrates against Jews.

Jim lamely tries to claim that the reaction he rightfully gets when he tries to attack Jews and hide it behind diversity is somehow based on him being German, instead of his bigoted actions.

It's still just as much bullshit as it ever was.

Re(6): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 15, 2005 at 10:07:59 PM by James Jaeger

Levine, you give Jews a bad name because you have taken a simple straight forward issue we have presented at FIRM and, instead of working to improve things, you are spending 99% of your time doing nothing more than invalidating and attacking me.
If I say A, you will say B. If I say B, you will say A. So, the game ends here. You know my position and know yours. The readers can make up their own minds at this point.

James Jaeger

Re(7): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 01:57:08 PM by Mitchell Levine

Jim, the reason why you're being invalidated is that there's no validity to your arguments.

If you actually stuck to the FIRM mission statement, instead of blathering on about how Jews are responsible for illegal immigration, the separation of church and state, the CD-R format, etc, I wouldn't be complaining.

Instead, you're making a joke out of John Cone's original points by linking it with inflammatory scapegoating, and then hiding behind the FIRM mission statement after you provoke a very logical reaction.

You're hurting FIRM's credibility and your own too.

More Levine-Straw Arguments
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 06:54:04 PM by James Jaeger

>Jim, the reason why you're being invalidated is that there's no validity to your arguments.

Then how come a book and a documentary just came out on Hollywood and its negative effect on American culture and the family unit. FIRM's exact arguments: influence of movies in a democratic society. Watch for the doc this Sunday called AMERICA VS HOLLYWOOD and the book is called HOLLYWOOD INTERRUPTED.

>If you actually stuck to the FIRM mission statement, instead of blathering on about how Jews are responsible for illegal immigration,

I did not bring up the immigration law, someone else did. I only stated what happened.

>You are the one who the separation of church and state,

The consitution provides for NO seperation of church and state. Only an activist court ruling does.

>the CD-R format,

What does this have to do with Jews? Nada. You are the one who wants to keep Jews at the center of every discussion, not me. I am getting board with Jews because the more of them I get to knowm the more it seems they chant the same mantra. So much for your individualism theorys.

>etc, I wouldn't be complaining.

Ha. You live for the sole purpose of complaining and invalidating anything that's not printed in the New York Times.

>Instead, you're making a joke out of John Cone's original points by linking it with inflammatory scapegoating, and then hiding behind the FIRM mission statement after you provoke a very logical reaction.

John Cones and I were being attacked as anti-Semites from day-one. It's all in the archives. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/archives.htm The more apologists like you I encounter, the more I realize that the broaded issues, those not addressed by FIRM, may have merit. Thus it is you that are digging your own grave, not I.

>You're hurting FIRM's credibility and your own too.

The people that feel FIRM had no credibility yesterday are the same people that feel it has no credibility today and will feel the same tomorrow.

For the record, I have never said that the negative attributes of Hollywood are caused because it's dominated by Jews. . . or by liberals, or by men, or by secularists for that matter. It's probably just the nature of the beast. But if the studio/distributors were more diversified at the top, at least more people would be able to tell their stories.

Re(1): More Levine-Straw Arguments
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 08:52:01 PM by Mitchell Levine

Then how come a book and a documentary just came out on Hollywood and its negative effect on American culture and the family unit. FIRM's exact arguments: influence of movies in a democratic society. Watch for the doc this Sunday called AMERICA VS HOLLYWOOD and the book is called HOLLYWOOD INTERRUPTED.
- Note that: a) they're both promoted by hyper-conservatives and b) neither blame everything on the studios' Jewishness.

I did not bring up the immigration law, someone else did. I only stated what happened.
- That certainly didn't stop you from waxing antisemitic about the matter, did it; i.e., "isn't it selfish of the Jewish lobby to cause our Mexican problem?"

The consitution provides for NO seperation of church and state. Only an activist court ruling does.
- False: the idea that there's such a thing as an "activist" Supreme Court ruling is a myth.

The high court holds the unique authority to interpret the Constitution, and they have the power to enforce it by overturning any law or lower court ruling. That's judicial review.

The idea that there's any kind of limit to their power to do that is a conservative fantasy invoked whenever a ruling is disliked and used to avoid the reality that their beliefs have been rejected.

If the court says there's a separation of church and state - and they have since Oliver Wendell Holmes - there is one. When you can get the court to say otherwise, you can make this statement. Good luck.

What does this have to do with Jews? Nada. You are the one who wants to keep Jews at the center of every discussion, not me. I am getting board with Jews because the more of them I get to knowm the more it seems they chant the same mantra. So much for your individualism theorys.
- Apparently, you've forgotten your complaints about Sony using DVD formats to crush competition from independent studios.

Ha. You live for the sole purpose of complaining and invalidating anything that's not printed in the New York Times.
- Just like the way you live for the sole purpose of complaining and (what is evidently in your mind) "invalidating" anything that's not printed on The Jewish Tribal Review.

John Cones and I were being attacked as anti-Semites from day-one. It's all in the archives. See http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/archives.htm The more apologists like you I encounter, the more I realize that the broaded issues, those not addressed by FIRM, may have merit. Thus it is you that are digging your own grave, not I.
- John Cone's points have little or nothing to do with your inflammatory scapegoating of Jews for Mexican immigration, people saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas," etc.

You just hide behind Cones to deflect criticism of the scapegoating when appropriate, although you do sometimes discuss Cones' material on its own as well.

Accusing John Cones of antisemitism and accusing you of making various antisemitic remarks are two entirely different things. Cones doesn't use FIRM as a platform for generalized scapegoating.

Why exactly do you think Jenks reprints your posts on his antisemitic hate site?

The people that feel FIRM had no credibility yesterday are the same people that feel it has no credibility today and will feel the same tomorrow.
- Once again, I'm not discussing FIRM's credibility; I'm discussing yours. You're undermining what could be a decent project supporting diversity.

Why do you think all the hatemongers that post here are attracted to the site? Because bigots believe in diversity???

You think maybe that has something to do with you?

Re(7): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 09:16:12 AM by Heebie Jeebie

>>>"Levine, you give Jews a bad name"

Please make up your mind. I thought it was the not-very-religious Kikes of European origin.

Re(2): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 10, 2005 at 05:37:23 PM by saurturion

quote:
"Duh! But they ACT as if they are still at war. When someone makes a reasonable suggestion that there be more diversity in Hollywood, they come out in droves attacking and name-calling.
- Because instead of making "reasonable suggestions," you engage in ethnic slurs and calls for discriminatory legislation."

--> like what? could you give examples?

quote:
"You think I'm anti-Semitic because I believe Hollywood studios should be more diverse, a proposition that might impact on fellow Jews.
- No, Jim - I think you're antisemitic because you base that belief on a Jewish conspiracy theory founded on stereotypes, prejudice, and paranoid claims about an "attack on Christianity." "

--> I asked a question to liberal Asians who by and large have a problem with Christianity on modelminority.com

Here it is: Give examples of good Christian fundamentalist characters in Hollywood movies?

To date TWO APPROPRIATE EXAMPLES were given (Left Behind, The Waltons). I ask you the same question Mr. Levine but with a twist. Give as many examples as you can produced by Jewish controlled megablocks such as MGM, Uiversal, ...

If you could give 10 examples, I will loudly proclaim that Hollywood is not anti-evangelical Christian.


and while you're at it give 10 examples of bad Jewish characters (without accompaning good Jewish characters in the same movie)

note: Left Behind is biblically inaccurate and The Apostle was an independent film

Re(3): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 15, 2005 at 08:29:34 PM by Mitchell Levine

like what? could you give examples?
- Sure, Jim's consistently called for ethnic quotas as long as I've been reading the site, like his claim that laws should passed forcing Hollywood to hire 50% more employees, all of whom should be non-Jewish. Since there's not enough jobs for that kind of hiring, that would create ethnic quotas.

As far as ethnic slurs go, see his above claim that Mexcian immigration "diluting America" is due to the "Jewish lobby" controlling the State Department to avoid allowing "antisemitic Europeans" into the country, as if Mexico was less antisemitic than Europe in the first place.

If you could give 10 examples, I will loudly proclaim that Hollywood is not anti-evangelical Christian.
- I can do that easily: (in no particular order, and concentrating on TV)

1) Reverend Camden and family on 7th Heaven.

2) Almost the whole cast on PAX's "Doc."

3)The Bonnie Hunt character on Life with Bonnie.

4) Much of the cast on Touched by an Angel.

5) Several of the characters on Promised Land.

6) The Sue Thomas character on Pax's Sue Thomas Private Eye.

7) Most of the characters in both of Michael Landon's hit shows Little House on the Prarie and Highway to Heaven.

8) The Odone family in Lorenzo's Oil

9) Rosa Lee, Tess Harper's character in Tender Mercies.

10) Pastor Dan Parker in Raising Helen.

There are many other examples, and these are just the first ones to come to mind, right off the top of my head.

However, it should be mentioned that fundamentalists have been very hostile to Hollywood, and protested against shows from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the Teletubbies. Many simply refuse to watch anything other than specifically Christian programming.

Because of that, few productions that meet their specialized demands get made.

Re(2): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 9, 2005 at 11:51:23 PM by M the G

Who wants to read all your convoluted myth-making Levine? I read a couple lines and its your usual insanity overload.

It is YOU who dictate that to say "Jewish agenda" is "anti-Semitic," despite the fact that the Jewish Lobby verifiably uses the term. And it is YOU who define "agenda" as "taking over the world."

Blah, blah, blah ... When are you going to make sense one time?

The way you function is to pop a few heavy drugs and space-out into Neverneverland, misrepresent what people have stated in every way possible, hammer pearls into pig turds, always obsessively reinventing words and meanings to fit your "nefarious" purposes.

And you haven't reminded us lately how brilliant you think you are. Could you please stand up on your toilet stall, wipe the bullshit off your shoes, and remind everyone again?

Oh! And please! More vulgar slanders would be MOST appropriate -- and consistent with your usual tone.

Re(3): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 15, 2005 at 08:35:05 PM by Mitchell Levine

It is YOU who dictate that to say "Jewish agenda" is "anti-Semitic," despite the fact that the Jewish Lobby verifiably uses the term. And it is YOU who define "agenda" as "taking over the world."
- No, "the Jewish lobby" does NOT use the term - JAFI named their newspaper the Global Jewish Agenda, and that HARDLY carries the implication Jim's use of the phrase does.

When you can demonstrate that the publishers of JAF newspaper believe in the existence of an Jewish plot to seize control of immigration and so on, then you can make that statement.

And once again, I don't need to provide any further proof of your low IQ - you prove it every time you open your mouth.

Re(4): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 11:11:55 PM by M the G

"Global Jewish Agenda."

It's quite humorous, Levine. You're running around trying to toss a baby's sock on an elephant to hide it from view.

"Don't pay any attention to the "Global Jewish Agenda" that is the name of a prominent Jewish organization's journal! It's only the name of a journal. It doesn't really MEAN what it says."

Re(5): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 06:48:46 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, it means what it says - it just doesn't mean what you say it does, or what Jim calls the "Jewish agenda," as I suspect Jim wasn't discussing a political newsjournal.

Re(3): The Jewish Agenda?
Posted on February 10, 2005 at 02:20:45 AM by Mitchell Levine

The name of the "Global Jewish Agenda" does NOT refer to any conspiracy like the ones Jeager raves about, any more than the Malawi "National Agenda" newspaper does. It's a synonym for "political journal" in that sense.

And I've never discussed my "brilliance, " just your hilarious stupidity, which I don't need to mention because you broadcast it to the world every time you open your mouth.

Footnote 1
Posted on February 8, 2005 at 10:30:48 PM by James Jaeger

"Washington Post columnist David Ignatius added another element to the equation in his piece last week - the FBI's investigation into the activities of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). According to Ignatius, the investigation has landed on the doorstep of a number of senior neo-conservatives in the administration, and at least six administration officials have been forced to take on the services of attorneys in an effort to ward off charges that they leaked information to the pro-Israel lobby."

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=537319

Re(1): Footnote 1
Posted on February 8, 2005 at 11:09:57 PM by Mitchell Levine

I've got some news for you, Jim - we spy on all our allies too - Canada, Britain, Australia, and even Israel.

So does everyone else. It's how the game is played.

Let's Stay on Topic Fellas!
Posted on February 9, 2005 at 12:37:47 PM by John Cones

The general topic here is Film Industry Reform. As tempting as it is for some of you to make generalizations that go far beyond the film industry, that continues to be inappropriate for this site. In addition, the name-calling does nothing to further the debate, thus some of that has been removed.
Thanks for your cooperation.

John Cones

Re(1): Let's Stay on Topic Fellas!
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 01:15:11 PM by thesingularity

Are you aware of any films in existence about the federal reserve, its history, the conspiracy surrounding its creation, its unconstitutional powers and how it has, without opposition, raped all Americans of their assets and rights as citizens?

There are volumes of texts about it and the internet is full of references, articles, etc., but in my opinion, if this type of film has not been made, it should be. If it has been made, it should be re-made and re-released and marketed to every voter registered and unregistered.

If you are interested in making films independently or having them funded or distributed independently, then this topic should be number one on your list. I wonder if Mel Gibson has considered it? He should and if he reads these posts (which I doubt), I hope he does.

Being involved with grass roots efforts to affect changes in our monetary system is the only way to be heard on this topic. For the last 92 years, this has been ineffective. We need to mass market a film about the greatest fraud in human history to the people that are forced to pay for interest on their own currency.

Why has this not been done, John?

Re(2): Let's Stay on Topic Fellas!
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 01:32:01 PM by Mitchell Levine

Who in their right mind would EVER want to sit through a film about the Fed???

Sitting through a film about Watergate was a little over the top for most people, and that actually had a dramatic arc.

Re(3): Let's Stay on Topic Fellas!
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 01:58:33 PM by thesingularity

People have sat through films about a lot of boring topics. The list is very extensive. So, by asking this type of question, you're assuming that there is NO story to tell here? No drama? No international intrigue? No heros? No patsies? Nothing about how the federal reserve was ralroaded through Congress and used to manipulate Woodrow Wilson, FDR and a host of other Presdients as well as the American people is interesting--dare I say, long overdue? Paaaallleeease, sir. Please tell me you don't believe that. Please don't give me examples of your lack of consideration of where 20-40% of all the money you earn in your lifetime is going. Please don't tell me that you think no one would be interested.

No, the fact is that EVERYONE that pays taxes would be interested. Presented the right way, this topic would cause a revolution in this country. Implying that it has been avoided because it is a stale topic or one that would not garner enough interest to make it worth doing is pretty superficial. Not surprising, but superficial nonetheless.

If Michael Moore really wanted to make a buck, he'd do his next film exposing the Fed for what it really is. I'd say that the life expectancy of a person releasing a film about the Federal Reserve is pretty short though.

Re(4): Let's Stay on Topic Fellas!
Posted on February 21, 2005 at 05:54:55 AM by Mitchell Levine

When are you going to start with the anti-semitism like the rest of the intellectual midgets around here?

Re(5): Let's Stay on Topic Fellas!
Posted on February 21, 2005 at 10:51:59 AM by thesingularity

Atheists are anti-everything.

Fed-Gov-Media Relationship
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 06:34:33 PM by James Jaeger

>If Michael Moore really wanted to make a buck, he'd do his next film exposing the Fed for what it really is. I'd say that the life expectancy of a person releasing a film about the Federal Reserve is pretty short though.

Maybe. Depends on the people that are on the team. A lot of very smart people are becoming aware of the situation and the effect fiat money is having on the economy. Only a fool like Levine could be asleep on this one.

I used to correspond a little with Michael Moore and his wife Veronica before he became super famous. During this time I asked Michael to fund a documentary on the Fed about 10 times over the course of 1996 - 2001. I also remineded him that he works for WARNER BROS. and WARNER BROS., like all the media giants, is seriously in bed with Washington. Polititians can't get elected without media cooperation and air-time for spots and media/film companies can't get favorable legislation passed if they don't keep the gov happy. It's a similar situation as in other industries, but the media/film industry is different because of the propaganda dimention.

At this time the Federal Reserve System is where the government gets most of its money, not through taxes. Thus, if the mainstream media were to put out negative material on the Fed, it would inhibit the gov's ability to monetize endless debt and create the fiat money to satisfy its addiction. Where do you think all the money comes to wage perpetual war? The Fed. Pork programs? The Fed. Endless expansion of government? The Fed.

Thus, the studios don't put out anything that will rock the gov's boat becase the gov will rock the studios' boat. And the studios are well aware that it's more high time to revisit the laxing of seperation of distribution and exhibition than seperation of church and state.

We saw a small example of the gov-media relationship when DISNEY pulled the distribution plug on Moore's doc because Jeb Bush, the president's brother, is governor of Florida and that's where DISNEY does a lot of binny.

So it goes. But the good news is the blogosphere is becoming so powerful it's only a matter of time before the mainstream media/studios will have to crawl on their hand and knees and beg for the right to exist.

Re(4): Let's Stay on Topic Fellas!
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 02:39:23 PM by Mitchell Levine

People have sat through films about a lot of boring topics. The list is very extensive. So, by asking this type of question, you're assuming that there is NO story to tell here? No drama? No international intrigue? No heros? No patsies? Nothing about how the federal reserve was ralroaded through Congress and used to manipulate Woodrow Wilson, FDR and a host of other Presdients as well as the American people is interesting--dare I say, long overdue? Paaaallleeease, sir. Please tell me you don't believe that. Please don't give me examples of your lack of consideration of where 20-40% of all the money you earn in your lifetime is going. Please don't tell me that you think no one would be interested.
- Bunk. No one could even stay awake through Rollover, let alone a story about the most sexless creatures on Earth: ancient economic policy wonks.

No, the fact is that EVERYONE that pays taxes would be interested. Presented the right way, this topic would cause a revolution in this country. Implying that it has been avoided because it is a stale topic or one that would not garner enough interest to make it worth doing is pretty superficial. Not surprising, but superficial nonetheless.
- No, because not everyone's as convinced about the supposed "evil" of the Federal Reserve Board. In fact, the people who usually make conspiracy charges against the Fed are morons who know zero about banking.

The people who actually know most about such things, like the economics faculty at major universities believe that the Fed prevents federal fiscal policy from being hijacked for political gain.

Like Dr. Ed Flaherty, chairman of the economics department at the College of Charleston says:

"The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain. "

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html

Your feature about the Fed would be most likely to play at compounds in Idaho.

If Michael Moore really wanted to make a buck, he'd do his next film exposing the Fed for what it really is. I'd say that the life expectancy of a person releasing a film about the Federal Reserve is pretty short though.
- Several documentaries about the Fed have already been made, and Michael Moore might be a good person to make another, if you could convince him that there's really anything to "reveal," which is hardly a given.

Since there's no evidence that anyone who's criticized the Fed, or made a documentary about it in the past has ever been killed, your claims here can be chalked up as a crackpot conspiracy theory.

Even William Pierce said that he wasn't willing to discuss banking conspiracy theories because he knew nothing about banking and he didn't want to embarass himself. Most people would do well to take his advice.

Re(5): Let's Stay on Topic Fellas!
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 06:37:00 PM by James Jaeger

Levine, you're so ignorant and vanilla on the Fed situation it laughable.

James Jaeger

Re(6): Let's Stay on Topic Fellas!
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 07:32:19 PM by Mitchell Levine

Sorry, Jim, but I actually studied economics - you might like it, as it's one of the largest applications of mathematics to the social sciences that's yet been attempted - and you take a book by Griffin as gospel.

Jews, Hollywood, and Israel
Posted on February 11, 2005 at 10:26:38 PM by M the G

Context for the article below: bear in mind that "FIRM" is widely assailed as being "anti-Semitic," merely for addressing the issue of diversity in Jewish-dominated Hollywood. What really is "anti-Semitism?" As presently constituted, it is whatever Jewish dictate says it is.

And here below is an example of the closure between the (Judeocentric) entertainment industry and Israel and Jewish ethnocentrism. And the propaganda factor that undergirds all.

Marlon Brando also once got duped like this (i.e., mercilessly exploited by Jewish politicking) in the Hollywood/New York nexus.

Early in his career, Brando took an important role in a play called A Flag is Born, written by avid Zionist Ben Hecht and directed by Luther Adler -- both Jewish. As Brando notes, "It was essentially a piece of political propaganda advocating the creation of the state of Israel ... Everyone in A Flag Is Born was Jewish except me ... I did not know then that Jewish terrorists were indiscriminately killing Arabs and making refugees out of them in order to take their land. The play, as well as my friendship with the Adlers, helped make me a zealous advocate for Israel and later a traveling salesman for it." [Brando/Lindsey, 1994, p. 107-111]

Understand how this works. If your Jewish agent/Jewish movie dealer/Jewish mogul all come to your door (and you're a famous non-Jewish celebrity) are you going to say NO to appearing in a huge propaganda effort to snuff out "anti-Semitism?" (And what EXACTLY is that please? FIRM?)

Ads make Jews of Beyonce and Leo,
by Sam Ser, Jerusalem Post, February 11, 2005

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1108005884023

"Beyonce Knowles is Jewish. So is Leonardo DiCaprio. Or at least they're ready to go on-air and say they are, to help fight anti-Semitism. Several stars of the pop charts and the silver screen have agreed in principle to
film public service announcements denouncing worldwide anti-Semitism and identifying with the Jewish people. MTV is donating studio time for filming the ads, which are to appear in Europe, the US and even Israel. The "I am a Jew" ads are the latest idea from the New York-based Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, which works to promote cross-cultural dialogue. Rabbi Marc
Schneier and Russell Simmons are the driving force behind the campaign, and the president and chairman of the FFEU, respectively. Schneier, the author of Shared Dreams: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Jewish Community, holds senior positions in national Jewish organizations, and has led the foundation's efforts to improve ties between Jews and other minority groups in America. Simmons, the cofounder of the Def Jam record label, is widely regarded as the man who, more than any other, pushed hip-hop music and culture into the American mainstream. He runs booming entertainment and fashion enterprises and uses his influence to promote numerous initiatives against poverty, inner-city violence and racism. "The man has such an abiding passion for black-Jewish relations," Schneier said of Simmons. As an
entertainment mogul, he also has plenty of pull. Rumors that Denzel Washington and Ricky Martin, Knowles, DiCaprio and other big-name stars had expressed interest in the project have Entertainment Tonight and VH-1 eager to cover the story, Simmons told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. And that was before he had a chance to talk to Eminem. "The impact that these personalities make, not only on the masses but specifically on younger people, is huge," said Schneier. Simmons is taking the campaign very seriously. "Anti-Semitism is growing so quickly around the world... I want to do everything I can to fight it," he said. "People forget how quickly the world can change. I mean, it was only yesterday that [Jewish] people were being put in ovens." Just which celebs the ads feature will determine how effective the anti-Semitism message is. So, while Simmons could call on
Jewish rap legends the Beastie Boys – "they're like my children, I raised them," he said – he won't. This project is for gentiles only. "I was talking with Russell about European anti-Semitism over a year ago," Schneier told the Post, "saying that we [Jews] can't fight it alone. He got excited and told me, 'You're excused on this one.' There are to be no Jews in this campaign – and believe me, some very, very famous Jews have called to take part. They were turned down." The foundation is specifically seeking famous black, Latino and Asian artists to drive home the message to those minority groups. The way it looks now, the foundation will have to turn some stars away. "All the people that I'm reaching out to recognize the need for this," Simmons said. And while not every celebrity will be able to make the taping, six to eight weeks from now, "I don't think anyone is going to say no," he said."

Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 02:11:28 PM by thesingularity

If you read through the many volumes of information about the federal reserve, you will find enough plot, characters and drama for ten films. It is an untouched wilderness for film that is ripe for the picking. There is an epic there waiting to happen. There are documentaries. There are travelogues. There are dramas and romances. It's all there.

But Hollywood will never release those films--NEVER. It would rather tell us about middle-aged men in tights that play dodgeball or million dollar babies or the Fockers. Anything to pacify the masses and keep them from, in short, THINKING.

Re(1): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 02:20:20 PM by Mitchell Levine

What a load of crap! It would be the most boring film ever made.

Documentaries about the the FRB have already been produced, and that's the only audience that would ever buy tickets.

The reason why films about dodgeball and the Fockers get made is because focus groups tell marketing researchers that they'd pay to see them. And, judging from box office receipts, they're right.

No focus group in the world would ever give high marks to a story about Allen Greenspan.

Re(2): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 02:37:30 PM by thesingularity

Documentaries? Not one has been produced to expose the Fed for what it is. They're all made for finance 101 students or folks that get their hsitory from TV.

I will give you a hint though. The film I speak of, if ever made, wouldn't even mention Greespan, at least not until the last 10 seconds when the camera pulls away from a close up of him signing the next interest rate increase and then moves inexorably to the wide shot of DC, New York, London and then the entire planet revolving around a glowing sun.

The problem with a film about the Fed, other than the fact that it would demonize (and rightly so) everyone involved with its creation and perpetual control of the American taxpayer is not that it is boring material. Nope. It's that it's too much reality for the public to handle. Reality TV would pale in comparison to it.

Again, Hollywood knows which side it's bread is buttered on, and the focus groups don't get asked questions about fiat money and the cartel that runs every facet of their existences. Nope, Hollywood's job is to pacify. It seems to have worked on you, sport.

Re(3): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 02:44:16 PM by Mitchell Levine

Documentaries? Not one has been produced to expose the Fed for what it is. They're all made for finance 101 students or folks that get their hsitory from TV.
- Bunk - several have been made, particular by conspiracy flakes, like Secrets of the Federal Reserve.

The problem with a film about the Fed, other than the fact that it would demonize (and rightly so) everyone involved with its creation and perpetual control of the American taxpayer is not that it is boring material. Nope. It's that it's too much reality for the public to handle. Reality TV would pale in comparison to it.
- Please discuss your credentials to be making these statements, and exactly what your conspiracy theory is. I'd like to know exactly how familiar you are with federal banking policy.

Again, Hollywood knows which side it's bread is buttered on, and the focus groups don't get asked questions about fiat money and the cartel that runs every facet of their existences. Nope, Hollywood's job is to pacify. It seems to have worked on you, sport.
- Don't think so, because I know a little about economics, and I wouldn't be able to stay awake through your proposed feature film.

If you walked out in the street and asked ten typical people at random, I'm sure they'd tell you the same thing.

A good documentary about the Fed might be interesting, and it would probably dispell the myths you seem to have picked up from people like Eustace Mullins.

Re(4): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 04:08:57 PM by thesingularity

Myths? That’s typical. I’ve read other posts by you here. You like to dispel anything anyone says either as a myth or as without merit on the grounds that they haven’t produced diplomas from ‘major universities’ or haven’t been intimately involved with the particular industry or topic they speak of, or that they are crackpot conspiracy nuts, then you cite a few cursory references to play yourself off as someone who draws their knowledge from real sources. That’s a tired strategy. The fact is, that I could flood you with research on the Fed and it’s origins. FLOOD you. It’s all readily available though so you should take a look yourself. After all, you do pay taxes—at least I’m assuming you do.

You are correct about at least one thing though. You do know very little about economics and about banking. That much is obvious. I can’t help you there. Put down your remote and pick up a book. That should help.

As far as documentaries go, that’s not the genre for the film that has to be made. You seem to be not getting this point. It should be told as other epics have been told. Only then will it gain the audience it truly deserves. Ask 10 people on the street about the taxes they pay and whether or not they think they know where the dollars are going and why they have to pay them. Think you’ll get any answers Mitch? Lemme guess, no one would care right? Were you on the planet during the last election?

You seem like a smart guy, so I find it fascinating that you think everyone that rails against the Fed is crackpot. Some very astute scholars, elected officials, bankers, businessmen and a host of other people much more experienced in the field than you or me have called for the repeal of the federal reserve act. In fact, every year, new legislation is put before congress to do so. Half of all the states in the union have grass roots campaigns to abolish the fed. Guess they’re all crackpot conspiracy nuts right? On the contrary, they’re all taxpayers supporting an unconstitutional piece of legislation (you going to try and refute that one too?) that earmarks a huge chunk of their income for foreign banks.

And yet, you put forth this as reason enough to accept the Fed as good for America,

"The people who actually know most about such things, like the economics faculty at major universities believe that the Fed prevents federal fiscal policy from being hijacked for political gain"

Here’s a newsflash my naïve and misinformed friend, IT ALREADY HAS BEEN HIJACKED—for the last 92 years. Sheesh! How about another one, THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY KNOW MOST ABOUT SUCH THINGS AREN"T EMPLOYED BY MAJOR UNIVERSITIES.

Or this,

"Like Dr. Ed Flaherty, chairman of the economics department at the College of Charleston says:

"The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain. "

Dr. Who? Right, he’s an authority. Hey, I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma I’m selling. You interested Mitch? Another newsflash for you, sport, THE FED HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED---NEVER. Those that crafted the original act were very careful and meticulous. That language never made it in. Imagine that. So show me on a balance sheet where the Fed has rebated the interest it charges the Treasury since beginning operations in 1913. You can’t find it because the entries don’t exist. Guess what does though? That’s right—debt to the American taxpayer. I suppose it all came from somewhere else, some other fractional reserve implementing institution.

Fractional reserve banking is an inflationary, counterfeiting process whose chief vehicle, the Federal Reserve, needs to be exposed through a film of epic proportions. Pick an event—WWI, WWII, The Great Depression, The Crash of 1929, whatever you like as the backdrop, and POOF!, you have a movie. If Hollywood can’t sell that, then they aren’t trying.

Oh, but wait, they’re not.

Precisely.

Re(5): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 07:18:44 PM by Mitchell Levine

Myths? That’s typical. I’ve read other posts by you here. You like to dispel anything anyone says either as a myth or as without merit on the grounds that they haven’t produced diplomas from ‘major universities’ or haven’t been intimately involved with the particular industry or topic they speak of
- Don't think so: why would anyone ever accept some drivel from an unqualifed source as accurate?

Just because Eustace Mullins makes some ridiculous charges hardly means they're therefore valid.

or that they are crackpot conspiracy nuts, then you cite a few cursory references to play yourself off as someone who draws their knowledge from real sources.
- Sorry, but you haven't quoted any "real sources," or presented any facts, so you'll have to do so before making this silly claim.

That’s a tired strategy. The fact is, that I could flood you with research on the Fed and it’s origins. FLOOD you. It’s all readily available though so you should take a look yourself.
- And little of it comes from any valid source, or has any credibility whatsoever. Most of it DOES come from conspiracy nuts like Michael Hoffman, and when experts debunk it, they're said to be part of the conspiracy.

After all, you do pay taxes—at least I’m assuming you do.
- And as a taxpayer, I certainly don't politicians to be able to jack banking policies for their own personal agenda. That's why the Fed exists.

As far as documentaries go, that’s not the genre for the film that has to be made. You seem to be not getting this point. It should be told as other epics have been told. Only then will it gain the audience it truly deserves.
- Uh, no - ask ten random people on the street, and they'll say they don't give a shit, and would never pay to see a fictional feature film about it in the first place. Just because you happen to be obsessed with the topic hardly means the average guy or gal could care less.

That's why only a documentary would ever have a chance at gaining a audience. You can provide whatever statistical information you have otherwise, if you wish.

You seem like a smart guy, so I find it fascinating that you think everyone that rails against the Fed is crackpot.
- Because I haven't seen anyone that isn't.

Some very astute scholars, elected officials, bankers, businessmen and a host of other people much more experienced in the field than you or me have called for the repeal of the federal reserve act.
- Usually for reasons other than the public benefit. While I've certainly seen legitimate scholars call for reform of the Fed's policies, nothing I've seen validates the ridiculous claims conspiracy nuts make.

On the contrary, they’re all taxpayers supporting an unconstitutional piece of legislation (you going to try and refute that one too?) that earmarks a huge chunk of their income for foreign banks.
- At least you're making some concrete claims here: to start off with, there's nothing whatsoever "unconstitutional" about the Federal Reserve, as the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to uphold the constitutionality of the Second National Bank, certifying that the "necessary and proper" clause gave Congress the authority to control banking.

And the law does NOT permit either the public nor foreigners to own member shares in the FRB, as Thomas Woodward demonstrates in "Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality."

In fact, 98% of the profits of the Fed are funneled back to the U.S. government through their rebate to the Treasury.

Here’s a newsflash my naïve and misinformed friend, IT ALREADY HAS BEEN HIJACKED—for the last 92 years. Sheesh! How about another one, THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY KNOW MOST ABOUT SUCH THINGS AREN"T EMPLOYED BY MAJOR UNIVERSITIES.
- What basis do you have for this remarkable claim? Simply because they say so???

Dr. Who? Right, he’s an authority. Hey, I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma I’m selling.
- Uh, he's the chairman of FSU's economics faculty, former president of the Council for National Policy, and was an adviser to the 1st Bush adminstration.

Another newsflash for you, sport, THE FED HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED---NEVER. Those that crafted the original act were very careful and meticulous. That language never made it in.
- Once again, that's a completely bogus charge: the Fed is audited by the General Accounting Office, which was made the legal overseer of all FRB activity with the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act in 1978.

The GAO has also thoroughly audited all three of the Fed's bodies around 100 times since then.

AUDITED---NEVER. Those that crafted the original act were very careful and meticulous. That language never made it in. Imagine that. So show me on a balance sheet where the Fed has rebated the interest it charges the Treasury since beginning operations in 1913. You can’t find it because the entries don’t exist. Guess what does though? That’s right—debt to the American taxpayer. I suppose it all came from somewhere else, some other fractional reserve implementing institution.
- Here you go:

(figures in billions)

Income, Expenses, & Profits: 1994 1995 1996 1997

Interest on Treasuries $19.2 23.8 23.9 25.7
Other income 2.3 1.6 1.2 1.2
----------------------------
Total income 21.5 25.4 25.1 26.9
Net expenses 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0
----------------------------
Profit 19.7 23.6 23.2 24.9

Payments & transfers to Treasury 20.5 23.4 20.1 20.6

That's directly sourced from the FRB's Board of Governer's report in 1994, which you can find (as well as the current 90th one) at www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/.

That's what's wrong with conspiracy theories - they seek to deceive you. You've been fed a load of bunk by people like Kah and Mullins, and you've bought it hook, line and sinker.

Lemme guess, no one would care right? Were you on the planet during the last election?
- When was the Federal Reserve Board an issue during the election???

Re(5): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 06:12:03 PM by James Jaeger

You are correct about the Fed. Remember, if you say A, Levin will say B just to generate an argument. Plus, you must remember, he's a staunch apologist for the status quo, for his delusion dictates that there is an anti-Semite under every rock and every institution that might have even one Jew connected with it.

Anyone who has read a book called THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND knows the Fed's history and formation was shrouded in mystery and its operation --its effect on monetary policy, inflation and the national debt -- needs to be reviewed by the American publis ASAP. See http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html for a review of the above book.

James Jaeger

P.S. A movie IS being made about the Fed which will blow it out of the water. All particulars of the production are, of course, as top-secret as the meeting of Benjamin Strong, Paul Warburg, Frank Vanderlip, Abraham Andrew, Nelson Aldrich, Henry Davison and Charles Norton (who collectively represented one-fourth of the total wealth of the entire world), in 1910 at the private resort of J.P. Morgan on Jekyll Island.

Re(6): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 01:20:09 AM by thesingularity

Jim,

How do you know about the film? Any links I could check out? Who is making it? When will it be released?

Re(7): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 07:42:14 PM by James Jaeger

>Jim, How do you know about the film? Any links I could check out? Who is making it? When will it be released?

I'm sorry I can't tell you anything. I do appreciate you making people aware of this important subject however.

James

Re(6): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 07:25:58 PM by Mitchell Levine

You are correct about the Fed. Remember, if you say A, Levin will say B just to generate an argument. Plus, you must remember, he's a staunch apologist for the status quo, for his delusion dictates that there is an anti-Semite under every rock and every institution that might have even one Jew connected with it.

Anyone who has read a book called THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND knows the Fed's history and formation was shrouded in mystery and its operation --its effect on monetary policy, inflation and the national debt -- needs to be reviewed by the American publis ASAP. See http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html for a review of the above book.
- Jim, the book has been exposed as a load of crap by more than one scholar, and the major premises of the book have been thoroughly debunked. You might want to check out Flaherty's analysis of it, or the Economic Policy Institute, as in:

www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_nader_conf_speech



And I HARDLY "support the status quo," as I'm just about the most anti-Bush guy around.

The problem is that you're willing to uncritically accept anything that seems ANTI-status quo without even doing the slightest analysis of it or examining contradictory evidence.

Because of that, you tell people things like "'goyim' means cattle."

Re(7): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 10:06:12 PM by James Jaeger

>- Jim, the book has been exposed as a load of crap by more than one scholar, and the major premises of the book have been thoroughly debunked. You might want to check out Flaherty's analysis of it, or the Economic Policy Institute, as in: www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_nader_conf_speech

I'm going to check out Flaherty's comments on Griffin, but in the meantime, I read the article at the above URL and it was the most brainless article I have ever read. Said absolutely nothing of any import. Not even worth my attention.

James Jaeger

P.S. I scanned Flaherty's article and I have seen this before. Mr. Griffin does not make the claims Mr. Flaherty is "debunbking" in his book, THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLE ISLAND. I am, however, in the interest of truth, going to review Flaherty's specific address about Mr. Griffin and will comment on it later: debunking the debunk if necessary.

Re(8): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 03:49:24 PM by Mitchell Levine

I have no idea why you consider both Epinet's analysis (and Ralph Nader's commentary) "brainless," but I'm sure you'll explain.

Griffin certainly does make many of the claims Flaherty debunks, although Griffin himselfs rejects some of the myths related on this site, like "The Fed is owned by foreigners," and "The Fed has never been audited."

He claims that he's never made those charges in his lectures or books.

However, Flaherty and Griffin had a long debate which appears to me to have been won by Flaherty.

For example, he asked Griffin to document his claim that the Fed is able to deduct billions in dollars in "expenses" before it rebates its profits to the Treasury department by citing where in the Federal Reserve charter that's sanctioned, or provide evidence of it in the first place.

Griffin was not able to do so.

Re(9): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 09:31:37 PM by James Jaeger

>I have no idea why you consider both Epinet's analysis (and Ralph Nader's commentary) "brainless," but I'm sure you'll explain.

I don't have time to explain except to say they didn't cover the issue.

>Griffin certainly does make many of the claims Flaherty debunks, although Griffin himselfs rejects some of the myths related on this site, like "The Fed is owned by foreigners," and "The Fed has never been audited." He claims that he's never made those charges in his lectures or books. However, Flaherty and Griffin had a long debate which appears to me to have been won by Flaherty.
For example, he asked Griffin to document his claim that the Fed is able to deduct billions in dollars in "expenses" before it rebates its profits to the Treasury department by citing where in the Federal Reserve charter that's sanctioned, or provide evidence of it in the first place. Griffin was not able to do so.

I don't know if this is true but whether it is or not it's not the essence of the issue. The essence of the issue with the Fed is whether the US should have an elastic currency or not. I am perfectly willing to believe the Fed does its bookkeeping and accounting properly and that there's no conspiracy going on, but again the issue is whether we should have a fiat currency that's elastic. I feel we shouldn't because I believe the free market can set the cost of money better than the Fed. I have nothing against Alan Greenspan and in fact admire him. I listen to his talks to congress and I'm proud to say, if there are no interruptions in the room where I'm watching him, I can follow his train of thought. Also, I might note, Mr. Greenspan actually does believe in a gold backed currency, at least he did prior to his post at the Fed.

The issue is thus whether we should have a silver and/or gold-backed currency that is valued by the cost of money in the free market. I know it's nice to be able to print up all the money we want for social and humanitarian programs, but this can't go on forever. If the US had a solid specie-backed currency, I believe we would be growing upon a more solid ground with less waste and destruction -- and ultimately, we would have the money for the social programs, but from a point of view of strength with assets rather than strength with debt.

James Jaeger

Re(10): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 19, 2005 at 01:00:09 AM by Mitchell Levine

I am perfectly willing to believe the Fed does its bookkeeping and accounting properly and that there's no conspiracy going on, but again the issue is whether we should have a fiat currency that's elastic.
- Ok, now that's a reasonable argument, but that's hardly the kind of thing that the gentleman I was debating was saying!

And that's not what Griffin - who makes several basic economic misstatements in The Creature was really discussing either.

I was responding to his ridiculous conspiracy charges. At least you're raising a genuine economic issue.

lso, I might note, Mr. Greenspan actually does believe in a gold backed currency, at least he did prior to his post at the Fed.
- In 1966! But, like Murray Rothbard noted, he only seemed to believe in it as a philosophical abstraction and never did anything to promote it in his career.

I know it's nice to be able to print up all the money we want for social and humanitarian programs, but this can't go on forever.
- That's why we have institutions to control the money supply.

I believe we would be growing upon a more solid ground with less waste and destruction -- and ultimately, we would have the money for the social programs, but from a point of view of strength with assets rather than strength with debt.
- It's hardly the case that social programs are limited to fiat-based currency systems, nor are governments with commodity-based money really any more debt-free than we are.

Our debt problem is due to bad fiscal policies and other political and social issues, and not our monetary policies.


Re(11): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 21, 2005 at 05:41:47 PM by James Jaeger

>>I am perfectly willing to believe the Fed does its bookkeeping and accounting properly and that there's no conspiracy going on, but again the issue is whether we should have a fiat currency that's elastic.

>- Ok, now that's a reasonable argument, but that's hardly the kind of thing that the gentleman I was debating was saying!

True.

>And that's not what Griffin - who makes several basic economic misstatements in The Creature was really discussing either.

I have reviewed Mr. Griffin's book several times since it was first published, so I am reasonably familiar with it. I see Mr. Griffin's central thesis as the issue of fiat money: whether a government should be allowed to issue fiat money, especially in times of peace. He contends that most of the Framers were against fiat money and backs it up with voluminous quotes from the most major of them (i.e., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton). I can dig out the quotes if you need to see them.

>I was responding to his ridiculous conspiracy charges. At least you're raising a genuine economic issue.

Mr. Griffin doesn't seem to characterize the Fed as a conspiracy, but he does use the word cabal at times. If you consider a cabal the same as a conspiracy, then I guess one could say he considers it a conspiracy. But even more accurate than either cabal or conspiracy I would say he considers it a cartel -- to be specific, a quasi-private, government-sanctioned banking cartel. Personally, I feel this is a fair description of what the Federal Reserve System is. I wouldn't go so far to say it's a conspiracy because everything they do and that has happened is a matter of public record. But to the uninformed, the Fed can certainly SEEM like a conspiracy because its operations and effects are relatively complex for the layman to appreciate.

>>Also, I might note, Mr. Greenspan actually does believe in a gold backed currency, at least he did prior to his post at the Fed.

>- In 1966!

Yes.

>But, like Murray Rothbard noted, he only seemed to believe in it as a philosophical abstraction and never did anything to promote it in his career.

Right. But, to his credit, I think he understands the sentiments of the Founders and their views on fiat currency. I don't think Alan Greenspan personally benefits in any illegal or predatory way from his chairmanship of the Fed and I feel he truly DOES work to further America's best interests, given the system he has to work within and the people he has to serve/please.

>>I know it's nice to be able to print up all the money we want for social and humanitarian programs, but this can't go on forever.

>- That's why we have institutions to control the money supply.

Well, the crux of what I'm trying to say is I feel it would be better for the free market to control the money supply than these institutions.

>>I believe we would be growing upon a more solid ground with less waste and destruction -- and ultimately, we would have the money for the social programs, but from a point of view of strength with assets rather than strength with debt.

>- It's hardly the case that social programs are limited to fiat-based currency systems, nor are governments with commodity-based money really any more debt-free than we are.

True, but a fiat-based money system makes it soooo easy for the politicians to create and spend money. And, remember, every Federal Reserve Note that comes into existence comes into existence by being lent into the economy -- so this inevitably contributes to national debt. Sure, a system of commodity-based money can also go into debt, but my point is that it's orders of magnitude less likely.

>-Our debt problem is due to bad fiscal policies and other political and social issues, and not our monetary policies.

You can never really know the answer to this, as to whether it was a fiscal policy or a monetary policy that took the economy off the rails because there are too many variables entered into the equation. If the money supply were strictly increased or decreased by market demand, you would take the human factor out of the equation. As it is now a very tiny handful of men decide how much money and credit there will be in the multi-trillion dollar economy. I say no man, or no group of men are capable of making this determination, whereas a free supply and demand market for money will set the quantity and cost of money almost perfectly and no privileged group will benefit. The problem is: the privileged groups that are benefiting by this fiat scheme don't want to give up their benefits. These privileged groups are the congressmen and government suppliers/contractors, including the military-industrial complex, and I suppose the banking world in general. I'm not so sure if it is the actual stockholders of the Fed we need to be concerned about, as there are many other ways they can benefit by various other ownership's that use the fiat system.

But all this makes my point: if the money supply is NOT under the control of men and institutions, it's not subject to their bad decisions and policies.

James Jaeger

Re(7): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 09:29:05 PM by James Jaeger

>- Jim, the book has been exposed as a load of crap by more than one scholar, and the major premises of the book have been thoroughly debunked. You might want to check out Flaherty's analysis of it, or the Economic Policy Institute, as in: www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_nader_conf_speech

I'm going to check out Flaherty's comments on Griffin, but in the meantime, I read the article at the above URL and it was the most brainless article I have ever read. Said absolutely nothing of any import. Not even worth my attention.

James Jaeger

Re(7): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 07:51:59 PM by James Jaeger

.- Jim, the book has been exposed as a load of crap by more than one scholar, and the major premises of the book have been thoroughly debunked.

That's ridiculous. Even William Greider's book, SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE, substantiated CREATURE, they only varied on how it should be handled.
You are clueless on this subject. Griffin is known as a world-class reseacher. For instance, his book, WORLD WITHOUT CANCER, predicted the current problems we are having with the FDA decades ago.

>You might want to check out Flaherty's analysis of it, or the Economic Policy Institute, as in:
www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_nader_conf_speech

I will.

>And I HARDLY "support the status quo," as I'm just about the most anti-Bush guy around.

Presidents come and go. They hardly represent the Establishment or the status quo.

>The problem is that you're willing to uncritically accept anything that seems ANTI-status quo without even doing the slightest analysis of it or examining contradictory evidence.

Have you actually read CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND or TEMPLE? What a bout Quigley's research? It's a little silly of you to say this when I have been in the film industry many years longer than you (going on 38 years now) and I have been studying the banking industry since about 1975.

>Because of that, you tell people things like "'goyim' means cattle."

Hey, you tell people things like the liberal, secular Jewish males who have been dominating Hollywood studios for the past 100 years are there entirely on merit and they are the best people for the job. Please!

James Jaeger

Re(7): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 01:18:24 AM by thesingularity

Fascinating stuff. The Board of Governors? Please. Do you know how those people become ‘governors’. If I’m a conspiracy nut, you’re a useful idiot. Talk about blinded.

The GAO does NOT have complete access to all aspects of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act of 1978 stipulates the following areas are to be excluded from GAO inspections:

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;
(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;
(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.

In other words, The Fed can’t be audited.


Ask yourself a question, Mitch, before spouting off a lot of ‘everyone is an crackpot’ crap. How many shares of the federal reserve have you been able to purchase lately? None is your answer. Who owns them? Why aren’t they available for sale? The answers are well known to anyone who does even a cursory investigation. I can buy US Treasuries, stock in a corporation, even stock in private company if I’m close to the owners. The Fed is unavailable to me. If it was, it would have to show me its books. It doesn’t show those to anyone, contrary to what you believe to be true.

Not unconstitutional? You need to bone up on the constitution. The Fed is THE most unconstitutional institution ever created. What a farce.

Not an election issue? Taxes are an election issue—in every election. Taxes are levied in large part to service governmental debt owed to those that purchase it—foreign banks that own the Fed. Simple. If you don’t think this is the case, you are mistaken. It’s the reason world wars were fought and the reason millions died at the hands of dictators like Stalin and Hitler and if there isn’t a movie in there somewhere it’s because those that make movies are puppets of those that control the world’s monetary policy—basically those that own the Fed, you know the ones that bend you over every year at tax time.

You seem inordinately preoccupied with dispelling the fact that there is a conspiracy behind the Fed. What a waste of time. Who are you saving? Who are you trying to protect?

I am not religious. Not anti-anyone. Don’t care of you worship the cross, the torah or the sun-god. The Fed stinks. It’s a bad idea. Fractional reserve banking is a fraud. Until it is abolished, every American is being played as a fool.

Re(8): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 08:03:56 PM by James Jaeger

The Federal Reserve System is a quasi-private, government sanctioned banking cartel.

It's NOT a conspiracy. It's just a cartel operating mostly in its own interests and the interests of those who spend the money in Washington, i.e., the entrenched congressmen. This is why term limits MUST be enacted sooner or later. The Federal Reserve System will never be abolished or reformed until one of two things happen: a) enough people understand its inflationary and trade deficit effects and repeal the Glass-Owen Bill that formed it or b) it crashes the U.S. economy utterly.

James Jaeger

Re(8): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 02:54:54 PM by Mitchell Levine

ascinating stuff. The Board of Governors? Please. Do you know how those people become ‘governors’. If I’m a conspiracy nut, you’re a useful idiot. Talk about blinded.
- They become governors after they're appointed by the President of the U.S., and no, he doesn't have to choose from a list given to him by banking officials.

In other words, The Fed can’t be audited.
- Also false: the GAO doesn't audit those sectors of the transactions; private CPA firms like Coopers and Lybrand are hired anually as General Auditors to: 1) audit every individual reserve bank, and 2) the yearly balance sheet and transactions of the Fed, the Board of Governors report, and the mandated financial controls.


Ask yourself a question, Mitch, before spouting off a lot of ‘everyone is an crackpot’ crap. How many shares of the federal reserve have you been able to purchase lately? None is your answer. Who owns them? Why aren’t they available for sale? The answers are well known to anyone who does even a cursory investigation. I can buy US Treasuries, stock in a corporation, even stock in private company if I’m close to the owners. The Fed is unavailable to me. If it was, it would have to show me its books. It doesn’t show those to anyone, contrary to what you believe to be true
- What are you talking about? Shares in the Fed aren't available to ANYONE besides American banks. The Federal Reserve Act forbids it.

That's because the Fed is "the banker's bank." It holds mandatory reserves in accounts for American savings and commercial banks, and offers them "window loans" to help them maintain their liquidity, among other service functions.

Not unconstitutional? You need to bone up on the constitution. The Fed is THE most unconstitutional institution ever created. What a farce.
- Where did you get this ridiculous idea? The Constitution grants Congress authority over money and interstate commerce, and all powers "necessary and proper" to carry out those duties.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to establish banks and oversee the money supply, and, since the high court has judicial sovereignty over interpretation of the Constitution, Congress has exactly the rights to control banking they've accepted.

Not an election issue? Taxes are an election issue—in every election. Taxes are levied in large part to service governmental debt owed to those that purchase it—foreign banks that own the Fed.
- Once again, no "foreign bank" can own shares in the Fed, period. If a bank's intial incorporation wasn't within U.S. borders, and the majority of its assets aren't held in the U.S., it cannot be a reserve bank.

According to the SEC's audit and yearly reports, the only foreign investor that holds any significant number of shares in a U.S. bank is a Saudi who owns 8.9% of Citicorp, and that's hardly enough to grab control of the Fed's assets through equity participation in a member bank.

It’s the reason world wars were fought and the reason millions died at the hands of dictators like Stalin and Hitler
- Hardly. Those wars were fought because of dictators like Stalin and Hitler, both of whom had nationalized banks.

and if there isn’t a movie in there somewhere it’s because those that make movies are puppets of those that control the world’s monetary policy—
- The Fed doesn't "control" world monetary policy; it controls U.S. monetary policy - the banking systems in the EU control Europe's and so on.

basically those that own the Fed, you know the ones that bend you over every year at tax time.
- I'm sorry, but for reasons already discussed, this is just a paranoid delusion that seems to have grabbed control of your mind.

The total amount of profits returned to Fed shareholders, all of them based in the U.S, last year was $238 million dollars. The rest was rebated to the Treasury. That's not exactly going to make U.S. taxpayers bend over to anyone.

You seem inordinately preoccupied with dispelling the fact that there is a conspiracy behind the Fed. What a waste of time. Who are you saving? Who are you trying to protect?
- No, the problem is that you're inordinately obsessed with a boogeyman that you don't understand.

You've been duped by a stupid conspiracy theory whose perpetrators hoped that you'd be uninformed enough for them to shove their ridiculous ideas down your throat.

If the Fed was skimming off untold mega-billions every year, then the money supply would drop off, causing measurable inflation every single year. But since 1933, we haven't had inflation every single year, and, in fact, there have been periods of observable DEflation. That doesn't square with your conspiracy theory.

Check out what happened in the 80s and 90s when banking was massively deregulated: you had the S&L debacle. That's why banking should be highly regulated, and it's a BAD idea to centralize that authority in the U.S. government, where politicians can play games with the money supply to get themselves elected.

That's why it's important to decentralize it. Is it still possible for corruption to happen? Sure, but it's possible for it to happen in ANY system.

The more authority is decentralized, the more checks and balances there are, and the more it can be caught.

Re(9): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 08:57:14 PM by James Jaeger

>- What are you talking about? Shares in the Fed aren't available to ANYONE besides American banks. The Federal Reserve Act forbids it.

The entities that own the Fed are at http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/fr3.htm

>>Not unconstitutional? You need to bone up on the constitution. The Fed is THE most unconstitutional institution ever created. What a farce.

True.

>- Where did you get this ridiculous idea? The Constitution grants Congress authority over money and interstate commerce, and all powers "necessary and proper" to carry out those duties.

Many people interpret Article II Sections 8 & 10 to mean that the U.S. is expected to have a silver-backed currency. In other words, the Framers realized that a fiat currency, i.e., currency backed by nothing but the promises of the government, is detrimental. If this is true, the Fed is in violation of the Constitution. Also, I might add, we have had 2 other fiat central banks in the U.S. Each time the citizens realized what was happening they were abolished. This is one of the reasons the Federal Reserve BANK was called the Federal Reserve SYSTEM. They wanted it to bear as little resemblance to the other fiat central banks that had been abolished. Also, the use of the words "Federal" and "Reserve" were strategic. As I said elsewhere, the Fed is a QUASI-private bank. Thus use of the term Federal is somewhat misleading. The Fed is OWNED by private banks AND individuals. Again, you can see a list of them at the URL I referenced above. Secondly, the word "Reserve" is designed to indicate there are RESERVES somewhere and thus the "SYSTEM" (not any one central BANK) is secure. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There ARE no reserves, and even FDIC only protects less than .01% of the total deposits. Any money or so-called reserves the Federal RESERVE System has are created by monetizing debt. In other words, the government authorizes a bond issue and the bonds are bought by the Federal Reserve Banks. The so called money the Federal Reserve uses to "buy" the bonds with is PRINTED up on-demand by the Fed. THIS is why the trash you use to buy things is called FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES (FRNs). As the Fed prints up more and more of these things to pay for wars and the endless expansion of government, you the citizen suffer because each dollar, each FRN, that is placed into circulation DILUTES all the other FRNs out there. Thus your purchasing power decreases. The Fed spinmasters then call this "inflation" a misnomer, as PRICES aren't INFLATING, the money supply is inflating and the value of your FRNs is DEPRECIATING. All of these complexities and obfuscations are designed into the system to make it difficult for the average citizen to follow what's going on or they get lost arguing the trivia -- such as the arguments Levine is dragging through regarding auditing and the set up/operations of the Fed's day-to-day -- all irrelevant.

>- Once again, no "foreign bank" can own shares in the Fed, period. If a bank's intial incorporation wasn't within U.S. borders, and the majority of its assets aren't held in the U.S., it cannot be a reserve bank.

Trivia obfuscation.

>- The Fed doesn't "control" world monetary policy; it controls U.S. monetary policy - the banking systems in the EU control Europe's and so on.

False. The Fed's alter-ego, the IMF/World Bank has a lot to do with controlling the world's monetary policy, however, with the rise of the EURO and the Chinese Yuan, the Dollar's days as the world's reserve currency are numbered. The Fed, in short, has been exporting the US inflation for decades and we are now seeing the cracks in the wall with the serious balance of trade deficit. For an excellent dissertation of the World Bank, see an article called WORLD BANK: Global Loan Sharks" at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22824

>- I'm sorry, but for reasons already discussed, this is just a paranoid delusion that seems to have grabbed control of your mind.

Typical.

>If the Fed was skimming off untold mega-billions every year, then the money supply would drop off, causing measurable inflation every single year. But since 1933, we haven't had inflation every single year, and, in fact, there have been periods of observable Deflation. That doesn't square with your conspiracy theory.

None of that is where the banking-gov cartel makes its money. They make their money by a) virtue of the fact that they use the mandrake mechanism to create money out of nothing and thus have first call on the purchasing power of the new money; b) thwarting capital formation by artificially low interests rates, interest rates that are low because no one can compete with the Fed money, money created out of nothing, AND money created through fractional reserve lending policies (also money created out of nothing); c) financing far too many business start-ups and taking mortgages and ARMs on homes, a significant percentage of which default and the banks confiscate the assets and collateral packages. When you consider the fact that the Federal Reserve and its Member Banks are lending out TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars -- all product created out of thin air -– and collecting debt service and interest payments on these loans, it's a pretty rosy picture for a bunch of crooks. Most of the people, companies and government agencies that are in the military-industrial complex and operate the Federal government are paid through the monetizing of debt. As I write this, they have monetized $250 - 300 billion for the war in Iraq and the Prez is asking for an additional $80 billion right now. This $80 billion will come from the Federal Reserve who will print up the new dollars and exchange them for a bunch of bogus T-Bills-, T-Bonds and/or T-Notes.

So it goes. The Fed will eventually ruin the U.S. and needs to be abolished ASAP.

James Jaeger

Re(10): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 03:00:03 PM by Mitchell Levine

The entities that own the Fed are at http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/fr3.htm
- Sorry, Jim, but all you're doing is proving your own gullibility.

The book cited in the above well-known Internet myth is "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence, Staff Report" which was published by the House of Representatives Committee on Banking in 1976.

There's NOTHING in the document even remotely similar to the bogus "graph" you just referenced. It's a fabrication that was falsely attributed to the book to make it look legitimate.

Not only that, but the real book doesn't discuss OWNERSHIP of the Fed; it only focusses on the Board of Governors' role. In other words, your source is a fraud.

A list of the entities that own shares of the Fed is published by the SEC every single year, and none of them are international banks, as the 1933 Banking act strictly forbids it.

Many people interpret Article II Sections 8 & 10 to mean that the U.S. is expected to have a silver-backed currency. In other words, the Framers realized that a fiat currency, i.e., currency backed by nothing but the promises of the government, is detrimental. If this is true, the Fed is in violation of the Constitution.
- It's false, and a well-known misinterpretation of the Constitution:

As the high court said in U.S. v. Rifen in 1978:

"The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts ... Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10."

In other words, the Constitution only bars STATES from instituting a fiat currency, and says nothing about Congress's ability to do so.

Also, I might add, we have had 2 other fiat central banks in the U.S. Each time the citizens realized what was happening they were abolished.
- Bunk - The 2nd National Bank wasn't "abolished" in any way, and didn't attract public interest at all.

Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats attacked it with the former's presidential veto which led to it being unable to form a new charter, and then later when bankrupt after a series of bad trades in currency speculation.

This is one of the reasons the Federal Reserve BANK was called the Federal Reserve SYSTEM.
- No, the reason why it was called the "Federal Reserve System" is that it was a cooperative venture between the Fed and many reserve banks to help commercial banks to meet their reserve deposit requirements and provide them services to meet their liquidity needs.

As I said elsewhere, the Fed is a QUASI-private bank.
- Don't think so: private banks only offer services to individuals, while the Fed only offers services to BANKS.

The Fed is OWNED by private banks AND individuals. Again, you can see a list of them at the URL I referenced above.
- Jim, you are THE biggest source of misinformation I know of - NO private banks NOR individuals can own shares of the Fed by law, and the list you gave is bogus.

Secondly, the word "Reserve" is designed to indicate there are RESERVES somewhere and thus the "SYSTEM" (not any one central BANK) is secure. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There ARE no reserves, and even FDIC only protects less than .01% of the total deposits.
- 1) Bullshit - there certainly are reserves - banks keep the percentage of their total deposits mandated by law, or "reserves," in accounts held by reserve banks. That's the Fed's primary purpose.

2)The 1% statistic for percentage of total deposits insured you cite is an interesting figure, considering that, according to FDIC's annual 2001 report, in that year, total deposits equalled approximately $5.4 trillion and total insured deposits were around $2.8 trillion.

www2.fdic.gov/SDI/main4.asp

Any money or so-called reserves the Federal RESERVE System has are created by monetizing debt. In other words, the government authorizes a bond issue and the bonds are bought by the Federal Reserve Banks. The so called money the Federal Reserve uses to "buy" the bonds with is PRINTED up on-demand by the Fed. THIS is why the trash you use to buy things is called FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES (FRNs). As the Fed prints up more and more of these things to pay for wars and the endless expansion of government, you the citizen suffer because each dollar, each FRN, that is placed into circulation DILUTES all the other FRNs out there. Thus your purchasing power decreases.
- This is, as usual, total horsecrap. Federal Reserve Notes aren't collateralized on reserve deposits - they're primarily backed by gold certificates and U.S. government securities, as well as the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government.

So deposit reserves have nothing to do with inflation.

False. The Fed's alter-ego, the IMF/World Bank has a lot to do with controlling the world's monetary policy, however, with the rise of the EURO and the Chinese Yuan, the Dollar's days as the world's reserve currency are numbered. The Fed, in short, has been exporting the US inflation for decades and we are now seeing the cracks in the wall with the serious balance of trade deficit. For an excellent dissertation of the World Bank, see an article called WORLD BANK: Global Loan Sharks" at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22824
- No, Jim - the IMF has NOTHING to do with the Fed, and it figures that you'd cite a source as uncredible as WorldNet as authoritative. You might as well quote the Inquirer.

The Fed is a central bank and regulatory institution, and the IMF simply makes loans to countries that need money for financing or to stabilize their currency. It has ZERO oversight or regulatory functions or authority, period.

None of that is where the banking-gov cartel makes its money. They make their money by a) virtue of the fact that they use the mandrake mechanism to create money out of nothing and thus have first call on the purchasing power of the new money; b) thwarting capital formation by artificially low interests rates, interest rates that are low because no one can compete with the Fed money, money created out of nothing, AND money created through fractional reserve lending policies (also money created out of nothing); c) financing far too many business start-ups and taking mortgages and ARMs on homes, a significant percentage of which default and the banks confiscate the assets and collateral packages. When you consider the fact that the Federal Reserve and its Member Banks are lending out TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars -- all product created out of thin air -– and collecting debt service and interest payments on these loans, it's a pretty rosy picture for a bunch of crooks
- Jim, WHAT are you talking about??? The FRB controls the money supply under HIGHLY regulated conditions imposed by Congress.

It has to maintain a balance between the rates of inflation that support the dollar value of regulated bank reserves (to keep the system from collapsing like it did in '29) and interest rates that aren't so high that loaning institutions end up having zero liquidity (also threating the potential of massive bank runs.)

They can't just arbitrarily jack up the M1 or M3 money supplies to somehow increase their profits, or the system would simply collapse, and their three overseers - the Treasury, the FDIC, and the various state banking institutions - would gut them, just like they deregulated everything they could get their hands in the '80s.

Your conspiracy theory is just absurd. You really need to study the basics of the differences between fiat and commodity-based economies. You clearly do NOT understand them.

This $80 billion will come from the Federal Reserve who will print up the new dollars and exchange them for a bunch of bogus T-Bills-, T-Bonds and/or T-Notes.
- Are you nuts? You'd be bring your cash to the grocery store in a wheelbarrow.

The war costs will be paid out of tax dollars, and not Treasury runs, otherwise inflation would spiral out of control like Weimar Germany.

So it goes. The Fed will eventually ruin the U.S. and needs to be abolished ASAP.
- I'm sorry, Jim, but you're simply not well-informed enough about these issues to be making that statement. You clearly don't understand even the fundamentals of economics.

While the Fed certainly does need reform, massive deregulation Reagan-style plus is not the answer.

The last time we tried it, we got a $250 billion S&L failure that we're still paying for now.

Re(11): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 21, 2005 at 07:47:19 PM by James Jaeger

I just wrote both the author of this chart as well as Mr. Griffin. So far I have heard nothing from the author of the chart, but I did just get an email from Mr. Griffin and he says: "I have never seen anything to authenticate this chart. - Ed Griffin"

So maybe you're right, maybe the chart is bogus. But I will have to do more research on this before I can say. And you should too. Don't just depend on one source.

>Not only that, but the real book doesn't discuss OWNERSHIP of the Fed; it only focusses on the Board of Governors' role. In other words, your source is a fraud.

I have not seen the book.

>A list of the entities that own shares of the Fed is published by the SEC every single year, and none of them are international banks, as the 1933 Banking act strictly forbids it.

Fine. But my beef is not about all this, it's a concern over the central issue of whether a fiat money system is appropriate.

>- It's false, and a well-known misinterpretation of the Constitution:

No, there is legitimate controversy on both sides of the issue as to what the INTENTION of the Framers was when they wrote the Constitution. To clear this up, one should look at the temperament of the times and the attitude towards fiat money and the attitude was negative about fiat money and legal tender laws. This was the prevailing view held by the great number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Oliver Ellsworth, for instance, declared: "This is a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper (fiat) money. The mischief of the various experiments which have been made are now fresh in the public mind and have excited the disgust of all the respectable parts of America."

Thomas Paine, although not a delegate, was against fiat money calling it 'counterfeiting by the state.' He added "The punishment of a member (of a legislature) who should move for such a law ought to be death."

>As the high court said in U.S. v. Rifen in 1978: "The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts ... Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars.

The fact that Article I states that no state shall "emit bills of credit" speaks directly to the matter of fiat money, for, after all, a Federal Reserve Note IS a "bill of credit" because the very word, "Note," means a debt instrument and a debt instrument is evidence of credit having been extended.

>Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10." In other words, the Constitution only bars STATES from instituting a fiat currency, and says nothing about Congress's ability to do so.

First of all, you are only citing a relatively recent court opinion which, although technically correct, alters the intent of the Founders. My cite above from Oliver Ellsworth, again, not only a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but a man who later became the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court gives us the firm message that Article I, sections 8 & 10 are to be interpreted that fiat money is not okay for either the STATES or the FEDERAL government. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not spell out the word FEDERAL government and this has lead to the misinterpretations by people not well aquatinted with the temperament of the times and the attitudes of the Framers.

>- Bunk - The 2nd National Bank wasn't "abolished" in any way, and didn't attract public interest at all. Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats attacked it with the former's presidential veto which led to it being unable to form a new charter, and then later when bankrupt after a series of bad trades in currency speculation.

You're referring to the Bank of the United States, formed after the Bank of North America. The Bank of North America was riddled with fraud and put out inflated bank notes, notes which were eventually rejected by ordinary citizens and which ceased to circulate outside the bank's home city of Philadelphia. It's charter eventually expired around 1783. Thus the citizens effectively abolished it by boycotting the "notes of credit" (i.e., fiat money) it was emitting. The Bank of the United States was then formed by fiat money advocates/Congress in 1791 and was basically a replica of the first central bank, complete with fraud. This bank cause massive inflation which, in the first 5 years of it's existence, confiscated 42% of the People's savings. On January 24, 1811 its charter renewal was defeated by one vote in each house. It was effectively abolished by the Congress with good riddance by the People.

>- No, the reason why it was called the "Federal Reserve System" is that it was a cooperative venture between the Fed and many reserve banks to help commercial banks to meet their reserve deposit requirements and provide them services to meet their liquidity needs.

That's all window dressing.

>>As I said elsewhere, the Fed is a QUASI-private bank.

>- Don't think so: private banks only offer services to individuals, while the Fed only offers services to BANKS.

Do think so: That's why I said QUASI. It's a Private bank for bank entities.

>- Jim, you are THE biggest source of misinformation I know of - NO private banks NOR individuals can own shares of the Fed by law, and the list you gave is bogus.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. I am calling for more reference on this list.

>- 1) Bullshit - there certainly are reserves - banks keep the percentage of their total deposits mandated by law, or "reserves," in accounts held by reserve banks. That's the Fed's primary purpose.

Are you talking about fractional reserves?! If so, this is such a bogus scheme it's laughable to those who understand how it fleeces customers. The banks are allowed to lend out about 10 times more money than what they keep "on reserve." THIS is the reserve you defend. This means, any member bank has outstanding many times more loans than it has money to lend. The only reason the banks get away with doing this is because all the people that have placed their money into the bank don't come calling on it at once. I will assure you it they did, there would BE NO RESERVES and the FDIC would quickly collapse.

>-2)The 1% statistic for percentage of total deposits insured you cite is an interesting figure, considering that, according to FDIC's annual 2001 report, in that year, total deposits equalled approximately $5.4 trillion and total insured deposits were around $2.8 trillion.
www2.fdic.gov/SDI/main4.asp

This just refers to the number of deposits insured, it says NOTHING about whether such insurance could make good on them if there were a run on the banks. As I stated above, if there were a run on the banks, FDIC would only be able to pay out for less than .01% of the money insured.

>- This is, as usual, total horsecrap. Federal Reserve Notes aren't collateralized on reserve deposits - they're primarily backed by gold certificates and U.S. government securities, as well as the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government.

I never said they WERE. I said FRN's are collatralized with government debt. In other words, debt is MONETIZED through the Federal Reserve. And the only way this gets done is because the debt is collateralized by the "full faith and credit" of the Unites States government. It all still comes down to printing up money out of thin air.

>- No, Jim - the IMF has NOTHING to do with the Fed, and it figures that you'd cite a source as uncredible as WorldNet as authoritative. You might as well quote the Inquirer.

The IMF is the alter-ego of the Fed because so much of the money that gets into the IMF is Fed-generated fiat money. The article I cite wasn't written by one of the regular staff writers at WorldNet, not that there is anything wrong with the regular staff members. It was written by Anne Williamson, one of the world's most knowledgeable experts on the IMF/World Bank and an investigative reporter who has often written for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. My reference is thus to Ms. Williamson, not necessarily WorldNet.

>The Fed is a central bank and regulatory institution, and the IMF simply makes loans to countries that need money for financing or to stabilize their currency. It has ZERO oversight or regulatory functions or authority, period.

Both banks operate on similar principals and are thus inflicting similar damage.

>- Jim, WHAT are you talking about??? The FRB controls the money supply under HIGHLY regulated conditions imposed by Congress.

Mitch, that's just it: you DON'T have any idea what I'm talking about.

>It has to maintain a balance between the rates of inflation that support the dollar value of regulated bank reserves (to keep the system from collapsing like it did in '29) and interest rates that aren't so high that loaning institutions end up having zero liquidity (also threating the potential of massive bank runs.)

And to this I say a free market will do a better job.

>They can't just arbitrarily jack up the M1 or M3 money supplies to somehow increase their profits, or the system would simply collapse, and their three overseers - the Treasury, the FDIC, and the various state banking institutions - would gut them, just like they deregulated everything they could get their hands in the '80s.

Duh. They aren't going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, they are going to keep the goose only alive enough to keep laying eggs while they go on to enjoy a privileged share of the fruits of all the labor represented by the money supply.

>Your conspiracy theory is just absurd.

That's your term.

>You really need to study the basics of the differences between fiat and commodity-based economies. You clearly do NOT understand them.

Unfortunately, as your limited understanding of the negative effects of a fiat-based money system and the actual protection built into the system demonstrates, I think it may be you that needs to revisit the basics.

>- Are you nuts? You'd be bring your cash to the grocery store in a wheelbarrow.

Do you deny this? Where do you THINK the government gets all this money: $300 billion and another $80 billion for war? Taxes? Dream on.

>The war costs will be paid out of tax dollars, and not Treasury runs, otherwise inflation would spiral out of control like Weimar Germany.

The debt is already over $7.6 trillion. The deficit is forecast to be almost $500 billion next year alone. Where do you think the gov gets all this money? They print it up through the mandrake mechanism, which is to say, they monetize debt in the Federal Reserve System. If we are not careful, we may indeed be headed towards Weimar Germany.

>- I'm sorry, Jim, but you're simply not well-informed enough about these issues to be making that statement. You clearly don't understand even the fundamentals of economics.

That's your opinion. Besides, economics really has little to do with the major issues of a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve. The major issues of a central bank revolve around the issue of whether fiat money, with its attendant legal tender laws, is proper for a nation that wants to maximize its assets and productivity.

>While the Fed certainly does need reform, massive deregulation Reagan-style plus is not the answer. The last time we tried it, we got a $250 billion S&L failure that we're still paying for now.

Nice segue to a totally different, if not irrelevant, subject Mitch. History shows that the nation did best at times when we didn't have central banks and the money supply, thus interest rates, were regulated by the free market, as the stock market is today.

James Jaeger

Re(12): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 22, 2005 at 02:35:31 PM by Mitchell Levine

No, there is legitimate controversy on both sides of the issue as to what the INTENTION of the Framers was when they wrote the Constitution. To clear this up, one should look at the temperament of the times and the attitude towards fiat money and the attitude was negative about fiat money and legal tender laws. This was the prevailing view held by the great number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Oliver Ellsworth, for instance, declared: "This is a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper (fiat) money. The mischief of the various experiments which have been made are now fresh in the public mind and have excited the disgust of all the respectable parts of America."
- The personal opinions of the framers are irrelevant, because they put nothing into the Constitution concerning the currency issue.

They simply delegated authority over money (and interstate commerce) to the Congress, and afforded it all powers "necessary and proper" to carry it out.

There's simply no constitutional issue, period. The authority was delegated with no discussion over any particular currency system. It was left up to Congress.

The fact that Article I states that no state shall "emit bills of credit" speaks directly to the matter of fiat money, for, after all, a Federal Reserve Note IS a "bill of credit" because the very word, "Note," means a debt instrument and a debt instrument is evidence of credit having been extended.
- Nice try, but the Federal Reserve isn't a state institution, and, being privately owned, isn't subject to any such restriction on the states anyhow.

First of all, you are only citing a relatively recent court opinion which, although technically correct, alters the intent of the Founders.
- Sorry, but the Founders didn't express any such intent in the charter - what they say outside the document is irrelevant - and what the Supreme Court rules most recently is the currently effective ruling.

The Constitution simply gives Congress authority over money, to with what they feel is necessary and proper. There's no matter of interpretation there.

I never said they WERE. I said FRN's are collatralized with government debt. In other words, debt is MONETIZED through the Federal Reserve. And the only way this gets done is because the debt is collateralized by the "full faith and credit" of the Unites States government. It all still comes down to printing up money out of thin air.
- It's STILL not collateralized purely on full faith and credit. It's backed up with actual securities

Are you talking about fractional reserves?! If so, this is such a bogus scheme it's laughable to those who understand how it fleeces customers. The banks are allowed to lend out about 10 times more money than what they keep "on reserve." THIS is the reserve you defend.
- False: the reserve banks have to keep a fraction of the reserve account funds on deposit, and can loan out on the rest.

They can't let out 10x the amount, or anything more than a fraction of the account funds, hence the name "fractional banking."

The IMF is the alter-ego of the Fed because so much of the money that gets into the IMF is Fed-generated fiat money.
- That's irrelevant: it's still not a regulatory institution.

Mitch, that's just it: you DON'T have any idea what I'm talking about.
- No, YOU do NOT have sufficient understanding of economics and monetary theory to be discussing the topic.

Duh. They aren't going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, they are going to keep the goose only alive enough to keep laying eggs while they go on to enjoy a privileged share of the fruits of all the labor represented by the money supply.
- What "privileged fruits" are you talking about?? The entire profits generated for the Fed's shareholders last year was $238 million total.

Divide that by the number of reserve banks holding shares, and compare that to the costs in real resources those banks had to expend to offer their regional member banks the services they do - check clearing, wire transfers, window loans, etc. - and you'll quickly see that they're not making out like bandits.

And to this I say a free market will do a better job.
- It never has and it never will, for the same reasons laisse faire regulation doesn't.

Unfortunately, as your limited understanding of the negative effects of a fiat-based money system and the actual protection built into the system demonstrates, I think it may be you that needs to revisit the basics.
- Sorry, but looking at the historical performance of commodity-based currencies vs. fiat currencies doesn't support that statement.

Fiat economies perform just as well or better, because they're subject to better regulation.

Do you deny this? Where do you THINK the government gets all this money: $300 billion and another $80 billion for war? Taxes? Dream on.
- False: they get it from two sources - taxes and the sale of government bonds.

The government has no regulatory control over the Fed - the FRB exists to keep control over monetary out of politicians hands - and Allen

Greenspan doesn't set policies simply to benefit the war effort.

That's your opinion. Besides, economics really has little to do with the major issues of a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve. The major issues of a central bank revolve around the issue of whether fiat money, with its attendant legal tender laws, is proper for a nation that wants to maximize its assets and productivity.
- No, you're right, Jim - that has nothing to do with economics!

Please - take a copy of Samuelson's Monetary Theory out of the library and read it.

Nice segue to a totally different, if not irrelevant, subject Mitch. History shows that the nation did best at times when we didn't have central banks and the money supply, thus interest rates, were regulated by the free market, as the stock market is today.
- Yes, you're right, Jim - if you think that the country's economic best times were the Great Depression.

Otherwise, it's the FRB and FDIC that keep bank runs from accumulating, as flawed and in need of reform as both institutions are.

The last time we had major deregulation was the 80's and 90's, which produced the S&L debacle.

True, part of the problem is that Congress didn't set proportionate insurance premiums by risk in portfolios, creating no obstacle to encouraging high-risk investment by savings bank.

But deregulation was what added gas to the fire.


My cite above from Oliver Ellsworth, again, not only a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but a man who later became the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court gives us the firm message that Article I, sections 8 & 10 are to be interpreted that fiat money is not okay for either the STATES or the FEDERAL government. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not spell out the word FEDERAL government and this has lead to the misinterpretations by people not well aquatinted with the temperament of the times and the attitudes of the Framers.

Re(13): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 22, 2005 at 06:21:48 PM by James Jaeger

>- The personal opinions of the framers are irrelevant, because they put nothing into the Constitution concerning the currency issue.

Simply not true. Where there is ambiguity, circumstantial evidence is NOT "irrelevant." And they certainly did put something into the Constitution regarding bills of credit. Plus you have to remember, at that time the major POWERS were the STATES, not the Federal government. This is the reason the focus was on the States. The Federal government had hardly been born yet. We were at that time called the united States, NOT the United States. Look at the capitalization on the very documents of the day.

>There's simply no constitutional issue, period. The authority was delegated with no discussion over any particular currency system. It was left up to Congress.

I disagree. Again the temperament of the times and the attitudes of the Framers make it clear that a fiat system was to be taboo. You are twisting the intentions of the Founders and you know it.

>- Nice try, but the Federal Reserve isn't a state institution, and, being privately owned, isn't subject to any such restriction on the states anyhow.

Yes it is. As I have said for the third time: it's a QUASI-private institution. It acts as an agent for the state and therefor is subject to the law that governs the states. Nice try yourself, Levin.

>- Sorry, but the Founders didn't express any such intent in the charter -

Sure they did. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

>-what they say outside the document is irrelevant

Not at all. It's circumstantial thus quite relevant.

>- and what the Supreme Court rules most recently is the currently effective ruling.

If a later Supreme Court misinterprets the Constitution or the ruling of an earlier Supreme Court, that doesn't automatically make the later ruling more valid. Look at how Everson v. the Board of Education has maligned the intent of the Establishment clause in the Constitution by attempting to assert that there should be some sort of "separation of church and state" as if religions were some sort of disease and the "purity" of the state was to be protected from it. What horse. It's about time activist judiciaries are being called on the carpet.


>-The Constitution simply gives Congress authority over money, to with what they feel is necessary and proper. There's no matter of interpretation there.

I disagree. The Constitution and arguments of the day clearly forbid the emission of bills of credit, and say money must be "COINED," not printed. Show me where the word PRINTED is written.

>- It's STILL not collateralized purely on full faith and credit. It's backed up with actual securities

But the SECURITIES are backed up by nothing more than the "full faith and credit" if the US gov, Pinhead!

>- False: the reserve banks have to keep a fraction of the reserve account funds on deposit, and can loan out on the rest.

No you have it wrong. The lend out MANY times more money than they actually have on "reserve." I know sounds so unbelievable even you can't get your head wrapped around it ... yet.

>They can't let out 10x the amount, or anything more than a fraction of the account funds, hence the name "fractional banking."

No. No. No. They operate on the same MO as the early assayers that became the first bankers: People who dropped off their gold were given a receipt for the gold. Eventually people started just trading the receipts instead of lugging gold all over. These receipts were thus used as the first paper "money." Pretty soon the bankers noticed that very few came back to redeem their receipts for the actual gold, so they started printing up EXTRA receipts which they then LENT to other customers and collected interest on. They, in effect, counterfeited money and lent it out –- EXACTLY what is happening today. They had more receipts outstanding than they had RESERVES of gold in the bank and they collected money on these bogus assets. THIS is the genus of the modern day, bogus practice of FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING as practiced by the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM you so defend. You should be ashamed of yourself Levine.

>- That's irrelevant: it's still not a regulatory institution.

Never said it was. But I will say this: the IMF wouldn't exist if the Federal Reserve didn't exist. So what does that make the relationship?

>- No, YOU do NOT have sufficient understanding of economics and monetary theory to be discussing the topic.

As I said before, an understanding of the Federal Reserve System has little to do with an understanding of economics. People like you USE economics to shroud the Federal Reserve System in a web of confusion so that, like the cry of anti-Semitism, the spot light can be shifted elsewhere.

>>Duh. They aren't going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, they are going to keep the goose only alive enough to keep laying eggs while they go on to enjoy a privileged share of the fruits of all the labor represented by the money supply.

>- What "privileged fruits" are you talking about?? The entire profits generated for the Fed's shareholders last year was $238 million total.

As I have said a number of times THIS is not where the banking industry makes its money. Duh! As I have established: the money supply comes from A) monetizing debt (i.e., the creation of fiat money out of thin air) and B) fractional reserve (i.e., the counterfeiting of money as an accounting entry and the collection of DEBT SERVICE on this bogus asset). ALL of the people that work in the banking industry, who collect interest and debt service are part of this privileged and criminal elite. The Congressmen who monetize debt in order to create money through the Federal Reserve System are also part of this privileged and criminal elite. The people who enjoy fees, wages and contracts granted by the Congress and paid with monetized debt are also parties to the crime and part of the privileged elite. Hey, Jose, it's more tan JUST the "owners" of the Fed and Alan GreenSPAM.

>>And to this I say a free market will do a better job.

>- It never has and it never will, for the same reasons laisse faire regulation doesn't.

Horse. Just prior to the formation of the Federal Reserve System there was so much private capital formation in the country the New York money-center banksters were terrified they would go out of existence. Thus they created the Fed to "out-compete" private capital formation and to provide a lender of last resort.

>- Sorry, but looking at the historical performance of commodity-based currencies vs. fiat currencies doesn't support that statement.

Horse. If your system of "regulated" fiat money were as good as you say, there would be no NEED for legal tender laws. Do you know what a legal tender law is? It's a law that FORCES the People to use the crappy fiat money whether they want to or not. Real money, money based upon free market equilibrium has NO NEED OF LEGAL TENDER LAWS. People aren't forced to use it because they WANT to use it. Because it's FAIR money, not bogus money created out of nothing by the privileged criminal elite. Most every time the country has had commodity-money, we have experienced prosperity. Most every time we have had fiat money, the inevitable result has been inflation and ruin.

>Fiat economies perform just as well or better, because they're subject to better regulation.

False. A billion individual transactions in a free market can better regulate the cost of money than a bunch of fat, criminal pigs in a back room.

>>Do you deny this? Where do you THINK the government gets all this money: $300 billion and another $80 billion for war? Taxes? Dream on.

>- False: they get it from two sources - taxes and the sale of government bonds.

Oh, brother. Taxes barely pay the debt service on the national debt each year Dude. And the "sale of government bonds" – what do you think this is? IT'S BORROWING MONEY THROUGH THE MANDRAK MECHANISM. Every time a Federal Reserve Notes comes into EXISTENCE it does so because the government has BORROWED by issuing government bonds (i.e., T-Bonds, T-Notes, T-Bills). Your problem is you have taken too many of those horseshit economic class in college. I used to take them too at Penn and Los Angeles City College. Econ 101 = all horseshit. They do nothing but teach students how to AVOID thinking in these classes. What horse!

>- No, you're right, Jim - that has nothing to do with economics!

That's right Mitch. The way econ 101, 10x teaches econ has little or nothing to do with the Fed ops. All it does is suck up to Keynes' crap. This is the idiot that got lucky once by saying gov spending is good for society so, ever since, all you would-be socialists have accepted this as society's panacea. That's what too much government-regulated higher education will do for you. Make you into a government-fed sycophant.

>Please - take a copy of Samuelson's Monetary Theory out of the library and read it.

I have swallowed all I want of Paul Samuleson and Milton Freidman's crap at two universities and a prep school. It's all crap when it comes to understanding the Fed.

>- Yes, you're right, Jim - if you think that the country's economic best times were the Great Depression. 1892 - 1933

Remember, the Great Depression came AFTER the Federal Reserve System was formed. The Coinage Act of 1792 defined the dollar as 371.25 grains of pure silver and reaffirmed this with the Coinage Act of 1849. During the period of time we had sound money, backed by silver, there was a continuous upsurge of prosperity. In fact the December 16, 1789 edition of the PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE stated: "Since the federal constitution has removed all danger of our having a paper tender, our trade is advanced fifty percent." Others, such as Louis Hacker describe the period as one "of unexampled business expansion, one of the greatest . . . " George Washington, ever heard of him Levin? George Washington stated: "We may one day become a great commercial and flourishing nation. But if in the pursuit of the means we should unfortunately stumble again on unfunded PAPER MONEY or ANY similar species of FRAUD, we shall assuredly give a fatal stab to our national credit in its infancy." (my EMPHASIS added)

James Jaeger

Re(11): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 09:48:49 PM by James Jaeger

Have you read THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND? You are still side-stepping the main issue of an elastic currency.

And if you don't think the Fed's monetizing of debt runs up inflation, dilutes the value of the dollar, creates debt and contributes to the trade deficit, you're the one that's totally nuts.

James Jaeger

Re(12): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 19, 2005 at 01:05:56 AM by Mitchell Levine

Have you read THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND? You are still side-stepping the main issue of an elastic currency.
- I wasn't discussing it, because you raised other issues about the Fed, and not that one.

And if you don't think the Fed's monetizing of debt runs up inflation, dillutes the value of the dollar, creates debt and contributes to the trade deficit, you're the one that's totally nuts.
- Answer: there are fiat systems that have much less inflation and lower debt liability than commodity-based ones.

For example, discovery of reserves of the commodity and demand fluctuations for that commodity - which happen constantly on the open market - will cause similar problems, unless you institute regulation procedures comparable to the Fed.

The real problem lies in fiscal policy, and even Allen Greenspan agrees on that, at least today.

Re(13): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 20, 2005 at 12:46:14 PM by the singularity

Are there private entities making money from it's operations? Yup. Shareholders of Federal Reserve Banks are domestic and foreign. That's well documented. No one can know what goes on behind every closed door--whether in Congress or the Federal Reserve Board. It's a wash.

The biggest problem I have with the Fed and what I think a movie should show is that it was an idea railroaded through Congress at the behest and manipulations of a few very powerful people and because of that, our country's citizens have paid dearly for it, not just in the form of dollars, but in the actual forms of taxation we have, social programs we are forced to fund and, above all, wars we have been forced to fight. Fiat money has financed nearly every war in the 20th century and created an arms race and 'conflicts' or 'occupations' that continue today. GWB wants another $80B for iraq. Lets use your scenario again, Mitch.

"Hi, Mr. average taxpayer on the street, we need to raise your taxes because we need another $80B for iraq, what do you say, can we do that?"

"No."

"OK, that's what we thought (winks at Allen Greenspan). "

A fiat money system is simply a credit card for those in power at the moment to do wahtever it is they think should be done. As technology makes the the world smaller (and more dangerous) and markets continue to become more efficient, fiat money seems more like a liability than a system to me. Whatever the case, I still think there is a movie in there somewhere, which is what my original point was.

Re(14): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 21, 2005 at 06:52:48 PM by Mitchell Levine

Are there private entities making money from it's operations?
- Not really, because the profits they're making are small compared to the real resources reserve banks expend on the services they provide for the member banks whose reserves they hold - check clearing, wire transfers, providing window loans for liquidity, etc.

The total sum of profits returned to shareholders last year was around $238,000,000, which, when divided up among the various shareholding banks, and compared to the amount of resource dollars a typical reserve bank spends on services rendered to regional members banks, is peanuts.

Reserve banks DO make profits on the funds they invest from member banks' reserve accounts, as they only have to keep a fraction of those accounts on hand, but that's NOT the same thing as profits from shares of the Fed itself.




Yup. Shareholders of Federal Reserve Banks are domestic and foreign. That's well documented. No one can know what goes on behind every closed door--whether in Congress or the Federal Reserve Board. It's a was
- Nope, it's very well documented that's false- the SEC publishes a complete list of all shareholders in the Fed, and none of them are foreign banks or any entities other than American commercial banks, as that's all that's allowed to purchase shares on the tightly controlled market for them by the Federal Reserve Act of 1933.

All reserve banks have to provide the services mentioned above to the member banks in their region, many of which are only possible for American banks to perform.

It IS possible for foreign individuals or banks to own shares in the actual reserve banks themselves, as opposed to shares in the Fed itself, but the SEC also has to report all of those as well.

As the SEC's reports prove, the only foreign investor that owns any substantial number of shares in any American bank that holds shares in the Fed is the aforementioned Saudi that has 8.1% of equity in Citicorp.

That HARDLY means he receives untold millions in profits, as he only gets 8.1% of Citicorop's share of the total profits (as in, for example, the total profits recieved by Fed shareholders last year, $238 million), MINUS the cost of the real resources Citicorp spent to perform banking services for member banks. That's probably not even a million dollars.

So either show us some indication from the SEC's shareholder filings that there are foreign banks that either hold shares in the Fed itself, or substantial shares in any of the reserve banks that do, or concede the point.

If foreign banks were able to siphon off hundreds of billions of dollars every year, we'd soon have extraordary inflation like Weimar Germany, leading to the collapse of our financial system, and instead, we've had measurable deflation in many years since the passage of the banking act in 1933.

A fiat money system is simply a credit card for those in power at the moment to do wahtever it is they think should be done.
- Once again, that's completely untrue, because: a) the politicians don't have direct control over the money supply - that's why the Federal Reserve Bank exists in the first place.

On many occasions, the Fed has lowered the money supply when Congress has wished to raise funds.

B) If the money supply is expanded beyond certain definite economic limits measured by the M1 and M3 indicators, inflation lowers the real value of the dollar, and the banks lose terribly on the loans they've extended, and other investment.

If I agree to pay back a bank $50,000 plus 11% interest, and the inflation causes the value of a dollar as computed by the Consumer Price Index drops by 50%, that's like I only have to pay back $25,000 plus 5.5% of the $50,000 I originally borrowed.

So stretching out the money supply irresponsibly is not in the interests of the shareholders of the Fed.

c) What the government spends is controlled by publically elected officials that would quickly find themselves out of office if they lowered the buying power of their constitutents' hard-earned dollars just to raise money for civic programs.

A fiat money system is simply a credit card for those in power at the moment to do wahtever it is they think should be done.
- No, as technology allows people to acquire new gold reserves more easily, find buyers for large gold supplies, and permits investors in the commodities markets to expand and liquidate their holdings more easily - all of which cause inflation and instability fin gold-backed currency systems without extensive, Fed-like regulations- fiat-based system are much more stable and practical.

Whatever the case, I still think there is a movie in there somewhere, which is what my original point was.
- No there's not, because a factual, accurate film would included none of the myths that your limited understanding of economics and federal regulation have allowed you to be deceived by.

Both the Fed and FDIC need reform, but circulating the ridiculous conspiracy theories you seem to be obsessed with would do nothing to help accomplish that.

Re(8): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 01:24:32 PM by Heebie Jeebie

Not only do they control the Fed, but they control the air supply with their large noses.

Re(9): Tell the People About the Fed
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 02:57:18 PM by Mitchell Levine

And they're the reason Air Supply got signed by Phantom Records, poisoning the world's music supply.

Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 16, 2005 at 10:52:19 PM by M the G

Here Spielberg migrates from his propagandistic "Poor Jews" film (Schindler's List) to a propagandist "Poor Israelis." But the root is the same: a socialization of people to Judeocentric/Israeli concerns.

Spielberg's Munich Olympics Film Set for Dec. 23,
by Gregg Kilday, Yahoo! News, February 16, 2005

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=598&u=/nm/20050216/film_nm/film_spielberg_dc&printer=1

"Steven Spielberg plans a summer start for his delayed movie about the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and a Dec. 23 release in theaters. The untitled project, a co-production between Universal Pictures and Spielberg's DreamWorks, had been set to go before the cameras last year. Casting was under way when Spielberg decided to have "Angels in America" playwright Tony Kushner do a rewrite on the project, on which writers Eric Roth ("Forrest Gump") and Charles Randolph ("The Interpreter") also had worked. With the project postponed, Spielberg moved quickly to begin filming his adaptation of H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds," starring Tom Cruise. Paramount will release it June 29. Details about the Olympics film have been carefully guarded. Universal will release it domestically. The studio's year-end lineup is potentially formidable because it also includes such films as Peter Jackson's "King Kong" (Dec. 14) and the screen version of the Mel Brooks musical "The Producers" (Dec. 21)."

Re(1): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 01:47:16 PM by Heebie Jeebie

The real news here is the upcoming screen version of Mel Brooks' "The Producers." I think we all ought to boycott it, because despite that catchy little number "Springtime for Hitler," it really portrays the Fuhrer in an unflattering light.

Re(2): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 00:15:27 AM by M the G

Brooks' film has a similar Judeocentric subject. Brooks' gig is comedy. And The Producers has been for Jews in the past "controversial."

The Holocaust, "Nazis," and now Israel seem to be high in the beloved Jewish themes. Keep "Nazis" in the public eye. Remind, remind, remind, remind everyone that the job of the dirty goyim is to protect Jews from danger: i.e., the consequences of their racist, ethnocentric, apartheid actions and ideology.

Re(3): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 05:46:48 AM by Heebie Jeebie

Little known fact: The making of "The Producers" was actually decreed in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Or maybe it was the Talmud. In any case, leave it up to those money-grubbing Capitalist Jews. I mean...uh...Communist Jews...Yeah, that's it...I know it's one of those two. In any case, the truth is pretty obvious.

And who do they think they're trying to fool? Did you know that Tony Curtis isn't even his real name? It's really Bernard Schwartz! The nerve of those people...Trying to "pass" as one of us. And there's others too!

The character of fine upstanding Gentile Italian-American George Costanza on the Zionist sitcom "Steinfeld" was actually played by Jason Alexander, a JEW! And that's not even his real name either: It's really Greenspan! You know what they say: Follow the money---and in this case it leads straight to the Fed. It's clear who really pulls the strings in Hollywood.

And Krusty the Klown? Get ready for this: He was born Herschel Krustofsky.

Re(4): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 06:49:17 PM by M the G

You forgot the head of Viacom, "Sumner Redstone!" Born: Murray Rothstein.

Actually, your sarcasm doesn't really fly because you bring to light a very important issue about Jewish Hollywood.

For decades Jews have been hiding their Jewish identity (and power in the motion picture realm) from the public. Jack Benny, Woody Allen, John Garfield, Kirk Douglas, etc. etc. are all fake WASP names, illusory fronts for hidden Jews. Jewish Hollywood created a system wherein Jewish predominance in the motion picture field was veiled -- certainly for those onstage and in front of the camera.

Jews are so powerful and arrogant now it doesn't matter that Seinfeld uses his real name.

Re(5): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 19, 2005 at 01:26:39 PM by Heebie Jeebie

>>>>>Woody Allen, John Garfield, Kirk Douglas, etc. etc. are all fake WASP names, illusory fronts for hidden Jews.


Say it isn't so! Woody Allen? Jewish???
He really had ME fooled!

Re(5): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 19, 2005 at 01:10:15 AM by Mitchell Levine

For decades Jews have been hiding their Jewish identity (and power in the motion picture realm) from the public. Jack Benny, Woody Allen, John Garfield, Kirk Douglas, etc. etc. are all fake WASP names, illusory fronts for hidden Jews. Jewish Hollywood created a system wherein Jewish predominance in the motion picture field was veiled -- certainly for those onstage and in front of the camera.
- Yes, you idiot, how dare they refuse to make it easy for you to subject them to discrimination?!

Who do they think they are???

Re(6): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 19, 2005 at 02:42:43 PM by HTC

>Who do they think they are???

Jews.

Re(2): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 17, 2005 at 02:58:42 PM by Mitchell Levine

Don't be stupid, be a shmartie, come and join the Nazi party!

Re(3): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 06:51:17 PM by M the G

Wow, Levine! I don't think I can compete with your level of insight, but I'll try:

How odd of god to choose the Jews,
such arrogance and shmaragance.

Re(4): Spielberg's new Israel movie
Posted on February 19, 2005 at 01:06:51 AM by Mitchell Levine

Good literary reference - totally moronic point.

Is Hollywood anti-evangelical?
Posted on February 18, 2005 at 05:35:09 PM by Saurturion

The original question was:

"I ask you the same question Mr. Levine but with a twist. Give as many examples as you can produced by Jewish controlled megablocks such as MGM, Uiversal, ...

If you could give 10 examples, I will loudly proclaim that Hollywood is not anti-evangelical Christian.

and while you're at it give 10 examples of bad Jewish characters (without accompaning good Jewish characters in the same movie)


If you could give 10 examples, I will loudly proclaim that Hollywood is not anti-evangelical Christian.

To which you replied:

- I can do that easily: (in no particular order, and concentrating on TV)

1) Reverend Camden and family on 7th Heaven.
2) Almost the whole cast on PAX's "Doc."
3)The Bonnie Hunt character on Life with Bonnie.
4) Much of the cast on Touched by an Angel.
5) Several of the characters on Promised Land.
6) The Sue Thomas character on Pax's Sue Thomas Private Eye.
7) Most of the characters in both of Michael Landon's hit shows Little House on the Prarie and Highway to Heaven.
8) The Odone family in Lorenzo's Oil
9) Rosa Lee, Tess Harper's character in Tender Mercies.
10) Pastor Dan Parker in Raising Helen.

There are many other examples, and these are just the first ones to come to mind, right off the top of my head.

Firstly, thanks for replying. You seem to get your info from http://www.parentstv.org

7th Heaven is NOT Evangelical. Evangelicals are not ecumenical and where is the distinctive evangelical theology portrayed? This is non-denominational. Camden, to the best of my memory, is the pastor of a ‘community’ church.

"Doc" – NOT HOLLYWOOD PRODUCED

Much of the cast on Touched by an Angel & Several of the characters on Promised Land.

Touched by An Angel and Promised Land also provide what is the sanitized churchianity. Nothing evangelical is shown. Promised Land proposes that aliens exist and had a ‘Native’ episode where Native American spirituality was affirmed rather than evangelically denied.

Touched by an Angel uses two Catholics as its main stars (why not two evangelicals?) Angels are not denominational or are you admitting that angels and by extension GOD, is an evangelical? Even if they were, they do not barter with God, goo goo about the joys of sipping java, try to get "wings" or get angry about racism. The devil does not inhabit the body of a KKKer and leave in a puff of smoke after you tell him to leave. The devil does not blow up a school, dress as a lawyer and frame people for it. This show teaches spirituality as "good works" which is exactly opposite to the evangelical "faith alone" doctrine. This is funny theology and not evangelical.

Producer Martha Williamson hopes her one-hour homilies are ecumenical. 'I've never believed that God was a specific denomination.' "

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1071.html

The Sue Thomas character on Pax's Sue Thomas Private Eye.

NOT HOLLYWOOD PRODUCED

Most of the characters in both of Michael Landon's hit shows Little House on the Prarie and Highway to Heaven.

quote: inspirational but nondenominational dramas, "Touched by an Angel" and "Highway to Heaven."

http://www.christianpost.com/article/culture/929/full/the.television.trend.faith-based.shows/1.htm

THE FAITH HEALER November 19, 1979 A faith healer comes to Walnut Grove, and people prefer him over Reverend Alden and Doc Baker. It turns out that he is fake, and as a result of this, a boy dies of a ruptured appendix because the father believed in the faith healer.

http://vvv.com/home/jenslegg/tvsix.htm

hmmm? Also, What uniquely evangelical theology did Alden proclaim?

The Odone family in Lorenzo's Oil

Did they go to an evangelical church and have the congregation pray for their child? Did they speak the word of God over his disease? NO!!

Why? Because they were Catholic

http://www.ransomfellowship.org/M_Lorenzo.html
Rosa Lee, Tess Harper's character in Tender Mercies
She is a Baptist but the film is not HOLLYWOOD produced unless Antron Media Production and EMI Films Ltd are subsidiaries of Universal (for example)
Pastor Dan Parker in Raising Helen.

He is a Lutheran pastor who wants to have a relationship with a promiscuous occasional Catholic. Very evangelical!

The Bonnie Hunt character on Life with Bonnie

Here you may have a winner. I don’t know about the character though. So that’s ONE possible example. And I’ll give you Little House on the Prairie. Now that’s TWO.

Your examples show that you assume good evangelicals to be doctrinally indistinct from non-evangelicals. Evangelicalism cannot be watered down and considered Evangelicalism. Where is the theologically distinct pastor and his family who are just like everyone else but they emphasize holiness, purity and righteousness?

You added that:

However, it should be mentioned that fundamentalists have been very hostile to Hollywood, and protested against shows from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the Teletubbies. Many simply refuse to watch anything other than specifically Christian programming.

Because of that, few productions that meet their specialized demands get made.

So let me get this straight. If I have a problem with a boring show of aliens (who I religiously consider demonic entities) and a vampire slayer who has sex with a vampire when he turns human for a day, I am hostile to Hollywood?

So Evangelicals made, Saved!, Elmer Gantry, Cape Fear, The Big Kahuna, The Night of the Hunter, The Scarlet Letter, Footloose, Dead Man Walking, Judge Dredd, Judging Amy, The West Wing and a host of other anti-Christian shows right?

You are wrong. Asian Americans have done no protesting or shown very little hostility to Hollywood and yet there are few Asian American male characters who are not de-sexualized. Witness Fu Manchu, what did Asians or Asian Americans do to have this portrayal? Why are there more Jewish male-Asian female couples shown and not Asian male ANY female couples (incl. ASIAN MALE ASIAN FEMALE) shown? I would say Jewish/European bias. It’s okay to have ethnic Jewish producers make racist shows but not have any made about them. Why not fund Passions but fund Saved!?

And where are the bad Jewish characters?

In Cape Fear, the Pentecostal fanatic says as he is about to rape a woman, "You ready to be born again, Mrs. Bowden? A few minutes with me, and you’ll be speaking in tongues." What if it were a Jewish fanatic who says, "You ready to be made clean, Gentile? A few minutes with me, and you’ll be speaking in Hebrew." Now that would never happen even though De Niro is Jewish!

Equality is not meted out to non-Jews it seems.

http://www.newpantagruel.com/issues/2.1/hollywoods_evangelicals_read_a.php

Re(1): Is Hollywood anti-evangelical?
Posted on February 19, 2005 at 02:28:34 AM by Mitchell Levine

Firstly, thanks for replying. You seem to get your info from http://www.parentstv.org
- No, I'm not aware of that site - I literally answered right off the top of my head. There are lots of better choices, I'm sure, but that's just what I thought of first.

PAX TV is one of the few broadcast stations you can get in NYC without cable because of midtown skyscrapers, so I'm very familiar with it.

I'm kind of surprised they're still talking about old shows like Highway to Heaven.

7th Heaven is NOT Evangelical. Evangelicals are not ecumenical and where is the distinctive evangelical theology portrayed? This is non-denominational. Camden, to the best of my memory, is the pastor of a ‘community’ church.
- Well, as a non-Christian (whose only exposure to the religion was in Catholic school as a kid), such distinctions aren't natural to me.

I've generally used "evangelical" as a synonym for "religious Christian," so I apologize if that's offensive to you.

Touched by An Angel and Promised Land also provide what is the sanitized churchianity. Nothing evangelical is shown. Promised Land proposes that aliens exist and had a ‘Native’ episode where Native American spirituality was affirmed rather than evangelically denied.
- I don't know if you were regular watcher of the show, but many episodes of the above shows dealt quite specifically with Christian themes and theological issues.

And if you're not aware of it, many "Jewish" shows HARDLY maintained strict Jewish theologies, and several have certainly dealt positively with different forms of spirituality.

Remember that the criteria was "presented positive portrayals of Christianity," and not "was absolutely strictly adherent to every element of sectarian theologies in infinite and particular detail without ever depicting anything non-Christian positively."

Many shows have portrayed Christians positively - whether those shows were like episodes of Davey and Goliath is an entirely different matter. Most shows that are considered "Jewish" didn't cover the Jewish religion deeply either. That hardly makes them "un-Jewish."

Touched by an Angel uses two Catholics as its main stars (why not two evangelicals?) Angels are not denominational or are you admitting that angels and by extension GOD, is an evangelical? Even if they were, they do not barter with God, goo goo about the joys of sipping java, try to get "wings" or get angry about racism. The devil does not inhabit the body of a KKKer and leave in a puff of smoke after you tell him to leave. The devil does not blow up a school, dress as a lawyer and frame people for it. This show teaches spirituality as "good works" which is exactly opposite to the evangelical "faith alone" doctrine. This is funny theology and not evangelical.
- You seem to think that people turn on prime TV for Sunday school lessons, instead of entertainment. They don't.

Specialized programming deals with divisive matters of religious doctrine, and mass media provides people with what they wish - feel good entertainment, and not theological conflict that divides Christians.

The reason why Highway to Heaven depicted its stars as Catholics is that Catholics also would like to get some positive media representation as well.

The Sue Thomas character on Pax's Sue Thomas Private Eye.

NOT HOLLYWOOD PRODUCED
- It wasn't "Hollywood produced," but it's soon going to be Hollywood distributed, now that it's been picked up by a major network for next season.

Many network shows are produced outside Hollywood by independents, so I'm not exactly sure what you're complaining about. They still choose what they pick up.

hmmm? Also, What uniquely evangelical theology did Alden proclaim?
- Hold on - does that necessarily imply that evangelical theology is false, or simply that the preacher in question is a fake?

In fact, in reality, many people in critical illness subjected to this kind of faith healing do die, and that's an issue that Christians that believe in it have to deal with (as my wife does right now, for instance).

I dont' think your assumption that this or the show was anti-evangelical is necessarily sound.

Did they go to an evangelical church and have the congregation pray for their child? Did they speak the word of God over his disease? NO!!

Why? Because they were Catholic
- Point well taken, and in fact, I saw this movie at a church function.

Since I'm not an expert in theologies of different Christian denominations, and the only presentation of the religious faith I've had was in Catholic school, I've badly botched this aspect of your point.

On the other hand, Jews in Hollywood aren't any more familiar with these doctrines, and probably would be less aware of the distinction then I am.

It's hard to see how that amounts to a "prejudice against evangelicals," since Hollywood management probably don't really know the difference.

If anything, I would think that it would be non-evangelical Christians in Hollywood that would have that bias, and not Jews, who most likely aren't conscious of any distinction and probably have no idea what makes an Baptist different from a Methodist, a Lutheran, a 7th Day Adventist, or a Presbyterian.

She is a Baptist but the film is not HOLLYWOOD produced unless Antron Media Production and EMI Films Ltd are subsidiaries of Universal (for example)
- I beg to differ - EMI partnered with MGM in many productions, and bought out the Warners share in ABPC, and the film was also distributed by Universal.

It, of course, won several Oscars, and was highly lauded by Hollywood's PR machine.

He is a Lutheran pastor who wants to have a relationship with a promiscuous occasional Catholic. Very evangelical!
- Granted. It was certainly a sympathetic portrayal of a religious Christian, howhever.

So let me get this straight. If I have a problem with a boring show of aliens (who I religiously consider demonic entities) and a vampire slayer who has sex with a vampire when he turns human for a day, I am hostile to Hollywood?
- Sure - you're certainly not going to be in the prime viewing audience for Fox, and you can hardly expect it to make programming that caters to your sensibilities.

The overwhelming majority of its viewership loves the show and would hardly want it to be altered or cancelled to meet the sectarian dogmas of fundamentalists.

In fact, the majority of shows that are overwhelmingly popular would probably be unacceptable to fundamentalists, and shows that meet their sensiblities would only be sporadically popular.

Actually, even if the network ran shows that were specified to them, they still probably wouldn't watch them because the other shows and commericals would still be running on Fox so they would still boycott it anyhow.

So it's not really surprising they don't reach out to them as a big demographic. The only way that would really change is if the majority of the viewing audience suddenly decided they wanted to see only fundamentalist-style programming, or fundamentalists decided they'd be willing to overlook the network's typically programming just to watch their show (s).

Personally, I don't think that's very realistic, so I'd expect continued sporadic appearances of fundamentalist-style programming.

Your examples show that you assume good evangelicals to be doctrinally indistinct from non-evangelicals. Evangelicalism cannot be watered down and considered Evangelicalism. Where is the theologically distinct pastor and his family who are just like everyone else but they emphasize holiness, purity and righteousness?
- For reason already mentioned, I think it would be suprising if those kinds of sectarian particulars would really be emphasized.

For example, you don't see many shows where the differences between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed Judaism are ever really dealt with. A Jewish family is just portrayed as a Jewish family, usually without discussing the particulars of whether they believe that the Mosiach will appear at the end of time.

So Evangelicals made, Saved!, Elmer Gantry, Cape Fear, The Big Kahuna, The Night of the Hunter, The Scarlet Letter, Footloose, Dead Man Walking, Judge Dredd, Judging Amy, The West Wing and a host of other anti-Christian shows right?
- It's just your opinion that those shows are "anti-Christian." Many Christians have enjoyed them, and don't find most of them "anti-Christian" at all.

Take Saved!, which reviewed on many Christians sites as simply showing some faults seen in many Christian congregations - and was written, produced and directed by people that consider themselves Christians.

www.imdb.com/title/tt0332375/board/nest/13161088

Footloose was also hardly "anti-Christian," and seemed more to be about how dancing and Christianity are compatible, which I would have to imagine they are.

Certainly many Christians enjoy the West Wing and Judging Amy, and it sounds like you just don't feel the actions of the characters always meet your doctrinal beliefs.

It's fine if you don't like them on that basis, but that doesn't really make them "anti-Christian," unless you think everything non-Christian is anti-Christian.

Some of the others, like Elmer Gantry, I could understand your criticism of, but are you sure that that film isn't anti-bigotry, and not anti-Christian?

You are wrong. Asian Americans have done no protesting or shown very little hostility to Hollywood and yet there are few Asian American male characters who are not de-sexualized.
- That's certainly untrue, and there are in fact many male Asians on television and film that are quite macho, like all of the martial arts stars, some (but not others) of B.D. Wong's characters, and Henry Cho.

Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Jet Li are hardly "de-sexualized," and seeing Asians in stereotypes like computer genius and Kung Fu fighters on television is still common, but I don't really see your point.

Ethnic stereotypes for Jews still circulate, even some negative ones like Jewish males as hyper-sexualized and effeminate.

Witness Fu Manchu, what did Asians or Asian Americans do to have this portrayal?
- In that case, it was the LACK of Asians around to complain - they still lived in highly segregated communties at that time - and the fact that America had been embroiled in a war with Japan that allowed white American audiences to accept them as the Other, as well as the simple truth that American society prior to the Civil Rights era in the 60s was MUCH more tolerant of ethnic bigotry.

And since the fact that it's possible for ethnic stereotypes to circulate in other ways doesn't in any way disprove the fact that fundamentalists don't like what Hollywood produces and complain every time it produces a show that conflicts with their dogmas despite its popularity with the rest of the world is a reason why Hollywood doesn't cater to fundamentalists.

You see, the idea that, because A can possibly be caused by C,D,E, and F, it therefore can't be caused by B is a logical fallacy.

And where are the bad Jewish characters?
- Apparently you havent' seen Die-Hard with its despicable media Jew Richard Thornberg or it's arrogant, materialistic Brad Silver, whose own cockiness over his ability to negotiate gets him killed while saying "boobie."

Or Batman Returns - a film obsessed with antisemitism - with its villian Max Shrek who tells the city he's stealing everything from "I'm just a schmoe who got lucky, sue me if I want to give something back" - and is named for the Jewish actor who played Nosferatu the vampire.

Not to mention a Penguin whose birth tells the story of Moses, and resembles Goebbels and Streicher's propaganda portraits of Jews.

Or Deep Cover or Family Business with their Jewish criminals - Jeff Goldblum as a Jewish drug dealer, and Matthew Broderick in a family of Jewish thieves.

Or They Live!, another antisemitic film that opens with anti-Jewish statements from the Book of John, and seems to posit Jews as media-wielding aliens trying to take over the world.

Or Red Dawn, a superficially anti-Japanese film whose conspiratorial murderer turns out to be the corporate suit, Allen Richman, at the very end.

Or Star Trek: the Next Generation with its race of evil, deceitful commodity-trading Ferengis - the "space Jews."

Antisemites still manage to spread their poison in the movie business.

In Cape Fear, the Pentecostal fanatic says as he is about to rape a woman, "You ready to be born again, Mrs. Bowden? A few minutes with me, and you’ll be speaking in tongues." What if it were a Jewish fanatic who says, "You ready to be made clean, Gentile? A few minutes with me, and you’ll be speaking in Hebrew." Now that would never happen even though De Niro is Jewish!
- You've never seen I Spit on Your Grave with its retarded Jewish rapist?

Why are there more Jewish male-Asian female couples shown and not Asian male ANY female couples (incl. ASIAN MALE ASIAN FEMALE) shown? I would say Jewish/European bias.
- Just to begin with, there are PLENTY of non-Jewish/Asian couples in films and TV, like Wesley Snipes has Ming Na and Tia Carrarre in both One Night Stand and Red Dawn, Richard Gere with Ling Bai in Red Corner, Ming Na with Mekhi Phipher in E.R., Chuck Norris with number of Asian actresses, even Sylvester Stallone with July Nickson in Rambo II.

As far as Asian couples go, there's always a few couples around - like Arnold and his wife on Happy Days, the couple in the Calgon spot, the Korean couple in Pacific Heights - but for a long time, it's been considered bigoted to ONLY show Asians in relationships with other Asians, so mixed couples became a symbol of social diffusion and diversity.

In fact, that was a big issue on Margaret Cho's show, All-American Girl, where other Koreans would always expect her to be a tradtional Korean submissive woman. Dating non-Koreans became her symbol of freedom.

Re(2): Is Hollywood anti-evangelical?
Posted on February 21, 2005 at 03:01:32 PM by saurturion

You are wrong. Asian Americans have done no protesting or shown very little hostility to Hollywood and yet there are few Asian American male characters who are not de-sexualized.
- That's certainly untrue, and there are in fact many male Asians on television and film that are quite macho, like all of the martial arts stars, some (but not others) of B.D. Wong's characters, and Henry Cho.

---Har, har, tell that to any Asian male and they should belly over in laughter. You should visit modelminority.com. A sexualized martial artist (many foreigners) is another of America’s Asian stereotypes. Where are the Asian men bedding Jewish women? Where’s the diversity?

Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Jet Li are hardly "de-sexualized," and seeing Asians in stereotypes like computer genius and Kung Fu fighters on television is still common, but I don't really see your point.

---Really, is that what Hollywood tells you? So if I am on an Asian island to beat up baddies with an Euro male and an Afro male, why is it that they have sex and I talk all night?

Jackie Chan, the comical (read not a danger to Euro masculinity) actor is masculine. Where? How?

Jet Li, the one who has a girlfriend who shared more romantic moments with her brother than with her lover?

Ethnic stereotypes for Jews still circulate, even some negative ones like Jewish males as hyper-sexualized and effeminate.

---Where?

Witness Fu Manchu, what did Asians or Asian Americans do to have this portrayal?
- In that case, it was the LACK of Asians around to complain - they still lived in highly segregated communties at that time - and the fact that America had been embroiled in a war with Japan that allowed white American audiences to accept them as the Other, as well as the simple truth that American society prior to the Civil Rights era in the 60s was MUCH more tolerant of ethnic bigotry.

--- Fu was an Eurasian, not Japanese. His father was English and Fu was a sado-masochist who was effeminate and homosexual-ish. He had sex with Euro women to show his dominance. He was a representation of the dangers of miscegenation with the yellow peril. Again, go to modelminority.com or do a simple google search for asian stereotypes. Asians lived in segregated communities because of racism not because they wanted to have secret opium dens and an air of mystery.

Speaking of which, where were the Jews crying racism against any Asian stereotypical character? By your own token then why are there more negative Asian characters on TV than negative Jewish ones if Jews are numerically less than Asians?

Would you prefer to be a Jew or an Asian in present day America?

And since the fact that it's possible for ethnic stereotypes to circulate in other ways doesn't in any way disprove the fact that fundamentalists don't like what Hollywood produces and complain every time it produces a show that conflicts with their dogmas despite its popularity with the rest of the world is a reason why Hollywood doesn't cater to fundamentalists.

You see, the idea that, because A can possibly be caused by C,D,E, and F, it therefore can't be caused by B is a logical fallacy.

--- so I must bow to the great all-powerful Hollywood execs because I want good representation?

Your math is problematic. If A can be caused by C, D, E and F CAN mean that IF B is a combination of any of the causes or equal to one or more of them A=>B

Why are there more Jewish male-Asian female couples shown and not Asian male ANY female couples (incl. ASIAN MALE ASIAN FEMALE) shown? I would say Jewish/European bias.
- Just to begin with, there are PLENTY of non-Jewish/Asian couples in films and TV, like Wesley Snipes has Ming Na and Tia Carrarre in both One Night Stand and Red Dawn, Richard Gere with Ling Bai in Red Corner, Ming Na with Mekhi Phipher in E.R., Chuck Norris with number of Asian actresses, even Sylvester Stallone with July Nickson in Rambo II.

---I know that and all Asian American males know that. They also know that they get the romantic shaft whereas Jews don’t.

As far as Asian couples go, there's always a few couples around - like Arnold and his wife on Happy Days, the couple in the Calgon spot, the Korean couple in Pacific Heights - but for a long time, it's been considered bigoted to ONLY show Asians in relationships with other Asians, so mixed couples became a symbol of social diffusion and diversity.

In fact, that was a big issue on Margaret Cho's show, All-American Girl, where other Koreans would always expect her to be a tradtional Korean submissive woman. Dating non-Koreans became her symbol of freedom.

--- This is exactly why Asian males are becoming increasingly anti-Jewish. If mixed couples are a sign of diversity, WHY ARE NO ASIAN MALES SHOWN WITH ANY FEMALES but Asian females are almost always with non-Asian men?

Go to www.asianmediawatch.net
Network executives initially suggested other names for the show, such as "East Meets West" and "Yok on the Wild Side." Her father and mother are romantic children who happened to bump into each other and produce children Their "love" scenes are more one of childish stupidity than romance. Comes complete with Asian male nerd and Margaret dating an Euro male in the pilot. How about the brother dating an Euro female?
And where are the bad Jewish characters?
- Apparently you havent' seen Die-Hard with its despicable media Jew Richard Thornberg or it's arrogant, materialistic Brad Silver, whose own cockiness over his ability to negotiate gets him killed while saying "boobie."

--- And the masculine hero is Jewish Bruce Willis

Or Batman Returns - a film obsessed with antisemitism - with its villian Max Shrek who tells the city he's stealing everything from "I'm just a schmoe who got lucky, sue me if I want to give something back" - and is named for the Jewish actor who played Nosferatu the vampire.

Not to mention a Penguin whose birth tells the story of Moses, and resembles Goebbels and Streicher's propaganda portraits of Jews.

---That’s your interpretation of it. In like manner, I can point out that many Jews saw the movie and did not come away with your impressions of this film.

Or Deep Cover or Family Business with their Jewish criminals - Jeff Goldblum as a Jewish drug dealer, and Matthew Broderick in a family of Jewish thieves.

--- So what! How many times must an Asian, Latino or African be a criminal? Wow, a whole two Jewish baddies! Did an Asian male come in and beat them all up and then sleep with their women (like Steven Seagal in Into The Sun and Belly of the Beast)?

Or They Live!, another antisemitic film that opens with anti-Jewish statements from the Book of John, and seems to posit Jews as media-wielding aliens trying to take over the world.

---So the Bible is anti-semitic? Where?

Or Red Dawn, a superficially anti-Japanese film whose conspiratorial murderer turns out to be the corporate suit, Allen Richman, at the very end.

---Witness "Rising Sun" with its Japanese yellow peril meme. So if there is one Jew who is bad, where is the Israel is trying to take over America films?

Or Star Trek: the Next Generation with its race of evil, deceitful commodity-trading Ferengis - the "space Jews."

---And Star Wars: The Phantom Menace with Fu Manchu and Ming the Merciless incarnate (Rune Haako and Nute Gunray)

Antisemites still manage to spread their poison in the movie business.

---Not as much as they do for others

In Cape Fear, the Pentecostal fanatic says as he is about to rape a woman, "You ready to be born again, Mrs. Bowden? A few minutes with me, and you’ll be speaking in tongues." What if it were a Jewish fanatic who says, "You ready to be made clean, Gentile? A few minutes with me, and you’ll be speaking in Hebrew." Now that would never happen even though De Niro is Jewish!
- You've never seen I Spit on Your Grave with its retarded Jewish rapist?

---No I haven’t. I don’t have cable so my viewing is limited. However, dod the Jewish rapist quote the Torah? Or was he just ethnically Jewish? And one Jewish rapist cannot outdo two Asian rapists in Into The Sun who get killed by Jewish saviour Steven Seagal.

So, I should at least say that there are some bad Jewish characters. But since Jews are a minority, where is the long list of anti-Jewish shows?

For the record, an Asian/Asian American stereotype database can be found at:

http://modelminority.com/gate.html?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&l_op=viewlink&cid=16

Other sites: www.asianmediawatchdog.com/home.html and www.asianmediawatch.net

Not so Mr. Levine 2

Re(3): Is Hollywood anti-evangelical?
Posted on February 21, 2005 at 07:41:43 PM by Heebie Jeebie

Jewish Brice Willis? DeNiro?? Don't forget Jewish Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Matt Damon while you're at it!

Them Jooooos, they're everywhere, I tell ya!

Re(2): Is Hollywood anti-evangelical?
Posted on February 21, 2005 at 03:00:21 PM by saurturion

I've generally used "evangelical" as a synonym for "religious Christian," so I apologize if that's offensive to you.

--- No. it isn’t offensive but let me reiterate: Evangelicalism cannot be watered down and considered Evangelicalism.

--- Yes many Jewish characters are non-religious or not practising Jews but this is somewhat different because a Jew may refer to a person and a religious belief system at the same time. Evangelicalism cannot.

I don't know if you were regular watcher of the show, but many episodes of the above shows dealt quite specifically with Christian themes and theological issues.

--- But evangelicals as a rule do not believe in aliens

Remember that the criteria was "presented positive portrayals of Christianity," and not "was absolutely strictly adherent to every element of sectarian theologies in infinite and particular detail without ever depicting anything non-Christian positively."

--- Not so, it was positive evangelical portrayals. A Catholic may be a mafia boss but he is nominally Catholic. A religious Catholic does not join the mafia and involve themselves in mafia activities. Similarly, an evangelical does not water down their doctrine and become a positive portrayal of Christianity.

Many shows have portrayed Christians positively - whether those shows were like episodes of Davey and Goliath is an entirely different matter. Most shows that are considered "Jewish" didn't cover the Jewish religion deeply either. That hardly makes them "un-Jewish."

--- Quite right, but showing the Gospel of John doesn’t make the show anti-Jewish. Richard Gere as David is both a good portrayal for Christianity and Judaism (Christianity does hinge on Judaic theology, doesn’t it?) and Gere is a Jew (so I have heard)

You seem to think that people turn on prime TV for Sunday school lessons, instead of entertainment. They don't.

--- Well many people will think that anti-Jewish movies would be entertainment so why not make such shows to fit this niche?

The reason why Highway to Heaven depicted its stars as Catholics is that Catholics also would like to get some positive media representation as well.

--- The stars ARE Catholic and Evangelical stars (if they exist) should have been used. Did Mel Gibson use an evangelical to portray Christ?

The Sue Thomas character on Pax's Sue Thomas Private Eye.

NOT HOLLYWOOD PRODUCED
- It wasn't "Hollywood produced," but it's soon going to be Hollywood distributed, now that it's been picked up by a major network for next season.

Many network shows are produced outside Hollywood by independents, so I'm not exactly sure what you're complaining about. They still choose what they pick up.

--- AGAIN, is Sue Thomas a distinctly evangelical character or a nominal good all-inclusive "Christian" character? (I don’t know so I am asking)

hmmm? Also, What uniquely evangelical theology did Alden proclaim?
- Hold on - does that necessarily imply that evangelical theology is false, or simply that the preacher in question is a fake?

--- You misunderstand. I mean that since I have not seen the show and that you have, is Alden uniquely evangelical or an arbitrary all-inclusive Christian character?

In fact, in reality, many people in critical illness subjected to this kind of faith healing do die, and that's an issue that Christians that believe in it have to deal with (as my wife does right now, for instance).

I dont' think your assumption that this or the show was anti-evangelical is necessarily sound.

--- Actually, I was going for a neutral representation with Alden.

On the other hand, Jews in Hollywood aren't any more familiar with these doctrines, and probably would be less aware of the distinction then I am.

--- Please, that’s a cop out. Jews in Hollywood know an evangelical character from a Catholic character. Even South Park knows it.

If anything, I would think that it would be non-evangelical Christians in Hollywood that would have that bias, and not Jews, who most likely aren't conscious of any distinction and probably have no idea what makes an Baptist different from a Methodist, a Lutheran, a 7th Day Adventist, or a Presbyterian.

--- Among others, yes….

She is a Baptist but the film is not HOLLYWOOD produced unless Antron Media Production and EMI Films Ltd are subsidiaries of Universal (for example)
- I beg to differ - EMI partnered with MGM in many productions, and bought out the Warners share in ABPC, and the film was also distributed by Universal.

It, of course, won several Oscars, and was highly lauded by Hollywood's PR machine.

--- But Universal did not make it directly, that was the original question

He is a Lutheran pastor who wants to have a relationship with a promiscuous occasional Catholic. Very evangelical!
- Granted. It was certainly a sympathetic portrayal of a religious Christian, however

---for once it was

The overwhelming majority of its viewership loves the show and would hardly want it to be altered or cancelled to meet the sectarian dogmas of fundamentalists.

--- Does the sectarian dogma of non-religious Hollywood Jews matter more than that of fundamentalists?

Actually, even if the network ran shows that were specified to them, they still probably wouldn't watch them because the other shows and commericals would still be running on Fox so they would still boycott it anyhow.

---You need to realize that evangelicals are not a monolith and their views widely differ (but then you are trumpeting Hollywood’s stereotype of fundies). Check barna.com

So it's not really surprising they don't reach out to them as a big demographic. The only way that would really change is if the majority of the viewing audience suddenly decided they wanted to see only fundamentalist-style programming, or fundamentalists decided they'd be willing to overlook the network's typically programming just to watch their show (s).

Personally, I don't think that's very realistic, so I'd expect continued sporadic appearances of fundamentalist-style programming.

---Right, so all the anti-Arab stereotypes dating from even silent black and white cartoons are examples of great anti-Arab prejudice in the American public? And that the Jews who controlled many of the media outlets for these films did not find racism problematic after the Holocaust?

For example, you don't see many shows where the differences between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed Judaism are ever really dealt with. A Jewish family is just portrayed as a Jewish family, usually without discussing the particulars of whether they believe that the Mosiach will appear at the end of time.

---Yes and that’s because as FIRM has already stated, Hollywood Jewry is not religious. Judaism in movies is a sham, window dressing of the accurate theology.

So Evangelicals made, Saved!, Elmer Gantry, Cape Fear, The Big Kahuna, The Night of the Hunter, The Scarlet Letter, Footloose, Dead Man Walking, Judge Dredd, Judging Amy, The West Wing and a host of other anti-Christian shows right?
- It's just your opinion that those shows are "anti-Christian." Many Christians have enjoyed them, and don't find most of them "anti-Christian" at all.

Take Saved!, which reviewed on many Christians sites as simply showing some faults seen in many Christian congregations - and was written, produced and directed by people that consider themselves Christians.

www.imdb.com/title/tt0332375/board/nest/13161088

Footloose was also hardly "anti-Christian," and seemed more to be about how dancing and Christianity are compatible, which I would have to imagine they are.

Certainly many Christians enjoy the West Wing and Judging Amy, and it sounds like you just don't feel the actions of the characters always meet your doctrinal beliefs.

It's fine if you don't like them on that basis, but that doesn't really make them "anti-Christian," unless you think everything non-Christian is anti-Christian.

Some of the others, like Elmer Gantry, I could understand your criticism of, but are you sure that that film isn't anti-bigotry, and not anti-Christian?

---You are mixing Christian and evangelical. Many people call themselves Christian and are not evangelicals.
The Saved! filmmaking staff consists of mostly homosexuals and homosexual-advocates.
Directed by homosexual-rights-advocate Brain Dannelly, Saved! is blatantly anti-Christian and pro-homosexual. It is designed to victimize the "innocent" homosexual and demonize the "hate-filled, judgmental" Christians. The reviews I have read and the trailers I have viewed are alarmingly irreverent and blasphemous. Dannelly’s only other movie as director was He Bop (2000), which combines both pro homosexuality and the occult. He Bop is about a sixteen year old boy whose dead grandmother’s spirit helps him accept his homosexuality.
Homosexual Saved! producer, Sandy Stern says, "Being gay is just a part of who I am." (The Advocate, Nov. 9, 1999)
Another Saved! producer is rock band REM singer Michael Stipe, who is openly homosexual that proudly describes himself as a "queer artist" (Time 15, 2001).
http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/savedmov.html

it may be vogue to be a "homosexual Christian" but this is not theologically evangelical or Christian.

Footloose portrayed a small town pastor as a bigot whose male congregants loved to fornicate (Kevin Bacon included). He then becomes enlightened and a good (read misguided) pastor. That’s bait and switch.

Of course many Christians watch West Wing and Judging Amy, so what. Even if they enjoy it, it is still negative evangelical portrayals.

The evangelical anti-semites was what? An accurate portrayal?

Bartlett says to the fundies: "Abbey told me to not drive while I was upset and she was right. She was right yesterday when she told me not to get on that damn bicycle while I was upset, but I did it anyway, and I guess I was just about as angry as I’ve ever been in my life. It seems my granddaughter, Annie, had given an interview in one of the teen magazines. And somewhere between movie stars and make-up tips, she talked about her feelings on a woman’s right to choose. Now Annie, all of 12, has always been precocious, but she’s got a good head on her shoulders and I like it when she uses it, so I couldn’t understand it when her mother called me in tears yesterday. I said, "Elizabeth, what’s wrong?" She said, "It’s Annie." Now I love my family and I’ve read my bible from cover to cover so I want you to tell me, from what part of the Holy Scripture do you suppose the Lambs of God drew their Divine inspiration when they sent my 12 year-old granddaughter a Raggedy Ann doll with a knife stuck through its throat? [pause] You’ll denounce these people, Al. You’ll do it publicly. And until you do, you can all get your fat asses out of my White House. [Everyone is frozen.] C.J., show these people out."

When you realise that there are two Jewish characters and two actual Jews in this movie (no recurring good evangelicals though), it makes you wonder. And then the producer is Sorkin, another Jew. What does that say to you?

Not so Mr. Levine

Hollywood needs an exorcism
Posted on February 19, 2005 at 07:37:30 PM by Eagle

http://www.catholicleague.org/05press_releases/quarter|01/050217_constantine.htm

February 17, 2005

HOLLYWOOD NEEDS AN EXORCISM

Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on the new Warner Brothers film, "Constantine," which opens tomorrow:

"Those who like Marilyn Manson and professional wrestling should be drawn to ‘Constantine.’ The movie is not only spiritual junk food for religious illiterates, it’s another example of the way Hollywood rips off Catholicism.

"The plot centers on a chain-smoking, bummed out, demon-hunting detective who’s been to hell and back. Constantine’s pursuit of demons is not, however, altruistically driven: because he once tried to kill himself, he thinks he’s doomed to go to hell unless he can earn enough chips to get into heaven. Lucky for him, he becomes adept at performing exorcisms. Along the way he meets a policewoman who’s determined to prove that her deceased Catholic sister didn’t commit suicide, and thus can be given a Christian burial. And, of course, he meets a priest, who just happens to be an Irish drunk.

"We hate to spoil the party, but the Catholic Church does not teach that everyone who commits suicide is destined to go to hell. Nor does it teach that those who do so must be denied a Christian burial. (It did at one time, on the grounds that suicide violated the Fifth Commandment.)

"So what does this tell us about Hollywood? First, the fact that the producers of this trash literally tried to induce evangelical Protestants to market this movie for them tells us volumes about the way these guys view Christians. Also telling is the answer that Francis Lawrence, the director, gave to the question of his own faith: ‘I’m a skeptic, myself. For all I know, you die and rot in a box and that’s it.’ Either that or you rot someplace else.

"It looks like Hollywood could use an exorcism of its own. Maybe they can find a sober Irish priest willing to do it."

Sandra Dee: Friend or property?
Posted on February 20, 2005 at 11:30:57 PM by Beal

In 1965, with her divorce from Darin dampening her teen appeal, Dee was dropped by Universal. "I thought they were my friends," she said in an interview that year with The Associated Press, referring to her former bosses. "But I found out on the last picture ('A Man Could Get Killed') that I was simply a piece of property to them. I begged them not to make me do the picture, but they insisted."

Who would have been the head of Universal in 1965? Lew Wasserman?

One online Dee fansite had the following info…

Who was managing you at Universal?

Dee : Abe Glassman was my manager.