PDA

View Full Version : Jewish Man Admits: "We Control Media. What of it?"


Ixtab
01-15-2006, 09:45 AM
_Do Jews Run Hollywood?: You Bet They Do -- And What of It?_


by Ben Stein


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


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?


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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, alsonot members of Temple
Israel. And on and on.


It is certainly true that there have always been goyim in Hollywood.
But there are more gentiles in the Industry now, and there has formed
a whole new route to Hollywood.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.
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.


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.


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.


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. 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.


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).


"From Poland to polo in one generation," some wag said about Darryl
Zanuck, and it makes the point. 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.


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.


Where does the idea come from that parents and children, as polarized
asthey 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.


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


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


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?


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." No one calls the
pharmaceutical industry sinister or attacks it as alien even though it
turns out a lot of pills that addict people.


As far as I can recall, Hollywood, and only Hollywood, gets the
treatment as being somehow sinister and alien.


Other industries are bad--like big tobacco--but only Hollywood is
un-American, even though its product kills a lot fewer Americans.
It's hard to resist the thought that there are only two explanations
for this:


--Envy. Life in Hollywood is thought to be fun, well-paid, glamorous
and sexy. Naturally, many people sitting in cheerless offices in D.C.
or elsewhere want to be in the seat where the mighty of Hollywood sit.
Because they have no idea of how to get there, they express envy and
criticism of the people who are there.


--Plain old primitive anti-Semitism. About two years ago, as I was
having lunch at the Spokane airport, an obviously somewhat off
waitress recognized me from my modest acting work and said she had
once seen "that Jewish woman with the big nose and the great voice"
and did I know her?


"Do you mean Barbra Streisand?" I asked


Without missing a beat, she asked, "Say, do the Japanese control
Hollywood, or do you people still run it?"


It's fear and racism at that level that motivates the issue of
Hollywood as sinister and alien. Maybe it's so basic when it comes
to Jews that it just will never go away. Or maybe it will take so long
to go away that Hollywood will be Korean by then.


For now, Hollywood, in many ways the most successful cultural
enterprise of all time and the most potent messenger of American
values of all time, is changing, but it is still largely Jewish. And
a very angry voice in my curly head makes me add, "What the hell of
it?"


==========

Felix the Cat
01-15-2006, 10:42 AM
Hollywood has been controlled by Jews from the start

Henry Ford was already complaining about it 80 years ago...

And even before movies existed they ran the American theatrical and music industries

il ragno
01-15-2006, 11:29 AM
Ben Stein, Jew. Wowwww.


Jews are a big part of my thoughts (as they are of every Jew's
thoughts).
Yeah, I'd noticed that.

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?
1. Complete and total domination of the industry.
2. They exercise virtually total control over the flow and content of mainstream information.
3. Control what people read, hear and watch and you'll control what they think, and how they act.
Does that help any, Ben?

Yes, of course, the Hollywood product is made mostly by Jews. But these Jews are in love with America. 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.
And that's the America 100 years of Jewish Hollywood has left us with - a shining decadent playpen for the affluent on a hill.

At titanic Disney, the CEO is Michael Eisner, the world's most assimilated Jew, who might as well be a Presbyterian.
When a Jew wishes to insult another Jew, he calls him a Christian. Why is that, d'you think?

Other industries are bad--like big tobacco--but only Hollywood is
un-American, even though its product kills a lot fewer Americans.
It's hard to resist the thought that there are only two explanations
for this:
--Envy.
--Plain old primitive anti-Semitism.
Envy and primitive Hebraic contempt for the goyim hasn't panned out too badly for you folks, as it's fuelled and guided you into becoming the 2% that gets served first at table while the 98% rest of us wait behind you, no matter where in the world it is you happen to constitute that 2%.

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.
A quote almost certainly coined by another Jew.

It took a Jew--Leslie Howard--to play Ashley Wilkes.....
A Jew who kept his Jewishness whisper-quiet, and incidentally who everyone universally derides as the single most miscast member of that movie's ensemble.

"From Poland to polo in one generation," some wag said about Darryl
Zanuck, and it makes the point.
The unkindest cut of all - Zanuck was the only goy among the old studio moguls!

Where does the idea that blacks can be funny and endearing as millionaires and not just as servants and wide-eyed fools fleeing ghosts?
No, wait, let me guess....from the same People of the Pushcart who once made certain they were only cast as servants and wide-eyed fools fleeing ghosts?

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.
No, boychik, that one's from the King James Bible....the parable of the prodigal son, to cite one example from among dozens. Norman Lear invented 'love', you ungrateful bastards - the least you can do is pony up for another Holocaust Museum!

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.....
...who were using their shapeshifting aptitude for relative good at that time, insofar as they scrupulously mimicked the prevailing manners and mores of their white hosts while writing these shows.

Jews boldly and obnoxiously proclaiming their Jewishness is wholly due to their no longer fearing pogroms and Kristallnacht-type reprisals from the gentile populations of the Western World....but that is a very recent phenomenon, and that's wholly due to their control over the machinery of media. American Jews in media during the 30s, 40s and 50s produced better and more wholesome, positive work- even when they repped for Uncle Joe on the side - because in their heart of hearts, they all knew that push too hard and it'll happen here, too. Unfortunately it never has, and now look at the fix we're in.

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... that the Jewish product of Jewish Hollywood would be somehow subversive in some way.
"Subversive", Supernintendo Chalmers?...that's unpossible!

Hollywood, in many ways the most successful cultural
enterprise of all time and the most potent messenger of American
values of all time, is changing, but it is still largely Jewish. And
a very angry voice in my curly head makes me add, "What the hell of
it?"
You think that's "angry", bubbelah? Oy...you should hear the voice in my head.

FranzJoseph
01-15-2006, 05:49 PM
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.

Actually he IS considered a Jew because of his mother's genetics and his shameless pro-Israeli bias. If he's a goy he's hid it well.


The standard route to Hollywood now is through Harvard and Yale... Many of the Harvard and Yale alums are, to be sure, Jews, but many are not.

Which is worse, and did everyone catch this "many are not" weasel here? No one gets through Harvard or Yale without semitized brain or a rack of terminal neurosis.


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.

Gentiles might not have made a "Hollywood".

American culture was local. With the patent laws in the early days of the movies it might have stayed that way. Jewish operators escaped the laws by fleeing west... where movies were made cheaper anyway.

The quesion is should there and would there have been "one true" movie capital in America if Gentiles had followed their instincts and kept the movies small and insignificant.

The answer is religious in nature and beyond the scope of this thread. It's also the great unstated theme behind all discussions on Hollywood: Should it exist at all?



Where does the idea come from of the perfect American family,<BLAH> Where does the idea come from that parents and <BLAH> Where does the idea that blacks<ETC>

Right: These ideas should come from peoples and communities themselves not from an mind scrambling assembly line. For proof:

...Many Americans get this message far more from Hollywood than from worship,

Yes indeedy do. :D

Hollywood, in many ways the most successful cultural
enterprise of all time and the most potent messenger of American
values of all time, is changing, but it is still largely Jewish.

Not a messenger; a shaper. Distorting America one brain at a time, removing humans from a human context, not changing one iota from the way it started as a renegade enterprise, far more culpable in community destruction from sea to shining sea than any other factor anyone can name.

Largely?

Starr
01-15-2006, 09:17 PM
She suggested the desired answer by noting that her researchers
had conclusively proven that Jews do not run Hollywood.

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

Only about 60 percent? And this proves Jews do not "run hollywood." that is so stupid I almost would think it is sarcastic. LOL. That would be a rather large percentage even if the Jews weren't such a small percentage of the population. I see they have quite a few geniuses involved with 60 minutes.

As far as I can recall, Hollywood, and only Hollywood, gets the
treatment as being somehow sinister and alien.

Other industries are bad--like big tobacco--but only Hollywood is
un-American, even though its product kills a lot fewer Americans.
It's hard to resist the thought that there are only two explanations
for this:

Is he actually trying to deny how powerful of an influence Hollywood has over how people think, act, and percieve things? Stein is not dumb, but he certainly must think we are.

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.

Ah, here we go, now why don't you give some of the examples of shit shows largely produced and written by your kike brothers? I love Lucy seemed to be one of the first portrayels of a mixed race couple to gain acceptance, done in a safe way with the mostly white looking Cuban male.

Leif
03-24-2006, 10:20 PM
It is indisputable that Jews control the media, when not directly by proxy.

I will assume that this has not always been so, so I must ask:

When did Jews take over the global mass media?

Daniel Shays
03-24-2006, 10:25 PM
It is indisputable that Jews control the media, when not directly by proxy.

I will assume that this has not always been so, so I must ask:

When did Jews take over the global mass media?
When CNN was launched.

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

Yeah Rupert Murdoch is "no one's idea of a Jew". :rofl:

Just two months ago Murdoch made the following statement while being honored at the Simon Wiesenthal Center's 21st annual tribute dinner hosted by the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel:

"It is very special," Murdoch said. "Our papers and television stations have always been great supporters of Israel and the Jewish cause."

http://pqarchiver.nypost.com/nypost/access/968127891.html?dids=968127891:968127891&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jan+12%2C+2006&author=&pub=New+York+Post&edition=&startpage=021&desc=JEWISH+GROUP+HONORS+MURDOCH

Fade the Butcher
03-24-2006, 10:30 PM
Hollywood, absolutely. Hollywood is only one sector of the media, though. The two most interesting sources I have found about the subject.

Who Owns The Media? Competition and Concentration in the Mass Media Industry (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805829369/qid=1143242818/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-5660100-8235357?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)
by Benjamin Compaine and Douglas Gomery

The Media Elite: America's New Powerbrokers (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0917561112/qid=1143242908/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-5660100-8235357?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)
by S. Robert Lichter

^^ The latter documents the overwhelming disproportionate influence of Jews in the mass media.

Sulla the Dictator
03-24-2006, 10:39 PM
Bring out the Jew for the Hate Moment. Spongebob Squarepants is stage one in their plan to destroy us all.

WFHermans
03-24-2006, 10:49 PM
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.
If a non-jew would point that truth out, he would be accused of "anti-semitism".

Leif
03-24-2006, 11:30 PM
Bring out the Jew for the Hate Moment. Spongebob Squarepants is stage one in their plan to destroy us all.

Does it not seem nefarious that a quarter of the world's population owns 60% of the media?

Hollywood, absolutely. Hollywood is only one sector of the media, though. The two most interesting sources I have found about the subject.

Are you certain it began with Hollywood, and not before?

I have a hypothesis that this pattern of ownership occurred in the 19th century, and not the 20th. My reason is that the most widely published socialists of the era were Jews. However, much of "Marxism" and "Anarchism" and other variants of socialism had completely non-Jewish origins- and were rather extensions of the tradition of Western civilization. (In fact a number of socialists were blatantly anti-semitic, such as Fourier, Toussenel, Proudhon, Pierre Leroux and Bakunin.)

But that hypothesis requires more concrete research.

Fade the Butcher
03-25-2006, 12:01 AM
Are you certain it began with Hollywood, and not before?

Hollywood has long been dominated by Jews. There are numerous books about this. I suggest you check them out. Jews are more influential in the entertainment media than the news media (although they are massively overrepresented in this sector too, especially amongst the media elite).

Dan Dare
03-25-2006, 06:12 AM
Old-timers might recall a piece that appeared twelve years ago in The Spectator by British journalist William Cash on the same subject, viz. Jewish domination of the US film industry.

The original articale has long since disappeared down the memory hole, but here are some extended extracts. These are followed by a couple of contemporary commentaries on Cash’s piece, highlighting once again that only Jews are permitted to make observations of this kind.


From The Spectator, 18 October 1994:….

WHEN Mr Mike Ovitz, or His Most Powerfulness (as he is also known), shows up at a press conference in Los Angeles and sits in the audience, you know something big is going on: in this case the founding of a new multi-billion-dollar Hollywood studio by Steven Spielberg, record mogul billionaire David Geffen and their "best friend", the recently dumped chief of Disney Studios, Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Although the Hollywood survival rate for studio start-up schemes has been poor - Francis Coppola's American Zoetrope Studios is the most notable recent casualty - this ambitious venture has been widely hailed as having more chance of success than any similar enterprise for 50 years. Since Katzenberg is to run the company, this may seem odd: as head of Disney he was personally responsible for a disturbing proportion of some of the dullest and crassest films (Aspen Extreme, Love Trouble) of the past five years. He once told a journalist (on the record): "Our movies are s---."

But in one respect at least this particular combination of talents, or"talent combo" in the local argot, will start out on the right foot. Like the old mogul founders of the early studios - and unlike most other failed build-your-own studio merchants - they are Jewish.

The significance of this cannot simply be met by the inevitable shrieks of"anti-Semitism". A rare glimpse of the feudal power structure of Hollywood at work was given by the Wall Street Journal's front-page report of the new studio launch. Before any contracts could be signed, a private "blessing" was required from 81-year-old Lew Wasserman - the long-time chairman of MCA (which owns Universal) and the last surviving Jewish founder-builder of a studio. To quote the Journal, he is treated in Hollywood "like a tribal chieftain".

Spielberg, Geffen, Katzenberg and Spielberg's 30-year personal mentor, the MCA president, Sidney Sheinberg, gathered at the house of the "Godfather of the Show" (as Time called Wasserman). After getting his rabbinical "blessing", they spoke in "hushed, reverential tones about the industry potentate", and how he "spun stories about the history of Hollywood and showed them artefacts". Geffen and Katzenberg, who have no formal connections with MCA or Wasserman, were reported as being "nervous" before the meeting. "The whole thing could have gone sour," said Katzenberg.

Turn now to pages 202-3 of last month's Vanity Fair and a curious "group portrait" will grin back at you. Sixteen middle-aged men are decked out in a mixture of nylon jogging anoraks, fluffy white socks, digital watches and faded jeans. You'd probably guess they were a bunch of Californian dentists.
They are, in fact, the magazine reliably informs us, the New Establishment, "the leaders of the computer, entertainment and communication industries, whose collective power has eclipsed that of Wall Street and Washington". In his "Editor's Letter", Graydon Carter confidently boasts that his 30-page"Special Report" redefines "the power centre of America ... as (it) has moved from its role as military/industrial giant to a new supremacy as the world's entertainment-information superpower".

There again, bottom left, is Hollywood super-agent Mike Ovitz, the chairman of the Creative Artists Agency (presumably he won't sign non-creative artists); in the middle is his buddy David Geffen (interests listed as "AIDS, Israel and other causes"); behind them is another close pal, Barry Diller, another AIDS activist and chairman of the home-shopping network QVC. In a"Warner Bros Fitness Centre" T-shirt is Gerald Levin, chairman of Time Warner Inc; in a denim shirt is Jeffrey Katzenberg. Banker Herbert A. Allen - their host for this "Sun Valley Conference of Corporate Leaders" - has on his running shoes. Steven Spielberg, snapped by Annie Leibovitz a few pages on, is gazing out to sea, his white sneakers and socks by his side.

Throughout the report, the magazine is repeatedly troubled by the question: "Is there anything that binds this group of men?" According to Walter Isaacson, Time Inc's media editor, the old White Anglo-Saxon Protestant hegemony was linked through shared educational (that is, class) bonds and beliefs: "What binds these guys is a sense of interlocking ventures and relationships. The Old Establishment was a club. The New Establishment is a network."

Up to a point. Again, there is something very obvious (apart from white socks) that does bind together most of the leading members of the so-called"New Establishment" - or the Titans of Tripe, as Auberon Waugh recently called them - only no magazine in America (especially a Conde Nast publication owned by Si Newhouse) would point it out: they are predominantly Jewish.

While part of the blame for the fall of the eastern Establishment is placed on its exclusive "good old-boy" network and elitist WASP mentality which excluded outsiders, a delicate question remains. Has the usurping of the white-shoe Establishment by the white-sock meritocracy anything to do with a similarly invidious and protective culture? Now that Jews govern the New Establishment (their official mouthpiece is The New York Times), does any sort of reverse form of class or racial discrimination operate against outsiders trying to get access to the entertainment highway - WASPs, blacks, Brits(there is only one Brit of any level of significance in all the major studios, and he is Jewish) and others not so favoured?

IT should first be said that there is nothing remotely surprising about all this. As Neal Gabler clearly demonstrated in his acclaimed book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood, the early Jewish movie pioneers such as Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg (Fitzgerald's model for The Last Tycoon) who founded the studios of today came to Hollywood because they felt barred from power in the east. Although fiercely competitive, the Hollywood Jews worked closely together to build a close-knit empire that shamelessly imitated the social hierarchy of the very East Coast society that they felt alienated and patronised them.

"If the Jews were proscribed from entering the real corridors of gentility and status in America, the movies offered an ingenious option," wrote Gabler. "Within the studios and on the screen, the Jews could simply create a new country - one where they would not only be admitted, but would govern as well."

And govern they always have. That every major studio head is Jewish today is no different from 60 years ago. "Of 85 names engaged in production, 53 are Jews," a 1936 survey noted. And the Jewish advantage holds in prestige as well as numbers. In a recent Premiere magazine "Special Power Issue" -ranking the 100 most powerful people in the "Industry" - the top 12 were Jewish. There were no black or British industry executives ranked. George Steiner once famously said that to be Jewish was to be a member of a club from which you could not resign.

As small-time professional incest it is probably no worse than, say, public schoolboys in the City in London (an analogy used by one senior Jewish executive to rebut the charge of Jewish favouritism in Hollywood). The"network" manifests itself in the Jewish country clubs - such as the Hillcrest, the one Groucho Marx refused to join - or tennis clubs (application forms always say "state religion"). Hollywood Jews are not notably religious -although the town closes down on Jewish holidays, business happily continues at poolside barbecues, the deli at the Brentwood Country Mart, endless bar mitzvahs and $500-a-plate Jewish causes.

Feeling a bit left out of the loop, some non-Jews have been taking extreme measures to get on. Bill Stadiem, a former Harvardeducated Wall Street lawyer who is now a screenwriter in LA, told me that he recently came across an old WASP friend in an LA restaurant who had been president of the Porcellian at Harvard - the most exclusive undergraduate dining-club. His friend - a would-be producer - was dressed in a black nylon tracksuit and had gold chains on his wrist; dangling around his neck was a chunky Star of David. Stadiem asked: "Why the hell are you dressed like that?" The WASP replied: "I'm trying to look Jewish."

Just as in the '80s people were known to fake being homosexual or bisexual as a way of getting on in the entertainment business (it is estimated that about 35 per cent of the film community is gay), it has long been a standing joke in LA that the way to get on is to convert to Judaism. Simon Kelton, an Eton- and Oxford-educated screenwriter friend with whom I used to share a house, and who was short-listed last year for the Samuel Goldwyn film-writing award, always stresses his Jewish "ancestry" whenever he gets a chance in LA, something few had ever heard about before.

The extent to which this adds up to any sort of Jewish cabal behind the building of the 21st Century Entertainment Superhighway, is difficult to assess. Jews, always compulsive storytellers and talented negotiators, are extremely compatible with the executive side of the movie business. They are good at it.

THE crucial fact that Vanity Fair seems to have blindly swerved past in its"challenge of redefining the power centre of America" is that the whole point of the "Establishment", as Henry Fairlie noted when coining the phrase in The Spectator back in 1955, is that its power is exercised socially. That the socially maladroit and culturally nihilist white-sock meritocracy is now anointed the Power Elite by a "smart" glossy magazine only serves to confirm how the divide between social and professional lives has become blurred to the point of irrelevance. The important thing about New Establishment power in America is that it is exercised corporately. …..

Here is the first media commentary, from Arthur J. Magida in the Baltimore Jewish Times 11/11/94:

Hollywood movie executives are "outraged" and "disgusted" about an article in the British magazine, The Spectator, that revives a stereotype from the early days of failmmaking that a "Jewish cabal" controls the entertainment industry.

The article by William Cash, a Hollywood correspondent for the British conservative newspaper The Daily Telegraph, describes Jews as "fiercely competitive," "clannish" "and compulsive storytellers and talented negotiators." The "invidious and protective culture" they have created in Hollywood denies employment to non-Jews, according to Mr. Cash, who answered in the positive this question that he posed:

"Now that Jews govern the New Establishment does any sort of reverse form of class or racial discrimination operate against outsiders trying to get access to the entertainment high-ways -- WASPS, blacks, Brits, and others not so favored?"

Neal Sandberg, former head of the western region of the American Jewish Committee and currently head of AJC's Pacific Rim Institute, said Mr. Cash's article was "overstated, even in terms of genteel anti- Semitism. It's a classic portrayal of Jews that goes back to an embellished image of Shylock."

Jews now function in Hollywood, he said, "not as an ethnic or cultural group, but as individuals answerable to banks and foreign and corporate sponsorship. These are business people, like anywhere else, trying to make a profit. They're not defending ethnic or cultural interests."

Mr. Cash's article appeared at the same time that an anonymous Sony executive in Tokyo was quoted in the Japanese business weekly Keizaikai as saying, "... The U.S. film business is almost completely controlled by Jews. This is true of what we are doing as well and our job is to use them in an efficient manner."

The Japanese magazine then concluded, "What this person is saying is that you cannot ignore Jews if you do business in the U.S."

And another from the ubiquitous Neal Gabler in the 11/13/94 Los Angeles Times:

…The article might be dismissed as an anti-Semitic bleat from a reactionary crackpot if it didn't have a respectable platform in the Spectator and didn't play to a pre-existing prejudice-that Jews control the U.S. media. But here the canard is given new impetus in an environment of anti-political correctness, where hostility often passes for honesty.

Cash realizes his discovery will trigger the "inevitable shrieks of anti-Semitism"-and it has-though he seems willing to brave these attacks in the interest of social science. This New Establishment is a "culturally maladroit and culturally nihilist (sic)" band, Titans of Tripe, Cash calls them after Auberon Waugh, who wear, "nylon jogging anoraks, fluffy white socks, digital watches and faded jeans." You call this a power structure!

Once upon a glorious time, Cash laments, power was in the hands (or the feet) of a white-shoe aristocracy. These were well-born, well-educated, well-dressed men (at least when wearing wingtips)-culturally adroit and not at all nihilistic. They looked and acted the part of the Establishment-in fact, very much like the British Establishment. Nothing arriviste here. They ruled seigneurially and sartorially.

But now the big feet of the New Establishment wear white socks-and sneakers. These power brokers-including Rupert Murdoch of Fox Film and Television, Bill Gates of Microsoft computer-operating systems, John C. Malone of the Tele-Communications cable empire, not to mention the Jews among them-have not only nudged aside the Old Establishment. Their cabal practices, in Cash's analysis, are a "reverse form of class or racial discrimination," denying access to "Wasps, blacks and Brits." French, too?

Can it be that the godfather of the Jewish cabal that excludes Wasps, blacks and Brits pays obeisance to a higher authority? It can, because the studios and telecommunications empires that Cash identifies as predominantly Jewish are owned and controlled by non-Jews: MCA by Mashushita, Columbia and Tri-Star by Sony, Fox by Murdoch, Time-Warner by stockholders and a corporate board.

Ignoring the facts to suit his myth of Jewish control, Cash is in a long tradition of anti-Semites who began smiting Jewish movie executives almost from the moment the Jews entered the film industry in the 1910s.

One reform group demanded that movies be liberated "from the hands of the devil and 500 un-Christian Jews." Another religious zealot blasted Hollywood Jews for the "seduction of hundreds of thoughtless girls every day," which he ascribed, euphemistically, to a general "Europeanization" of the country.

Henry Ford, in his Dearborn Independent, cited Jewish control of the film industry and said, "It is the genius of that race to create problems of a moral character in whatever business they achieve a majority."

The idea was that Jews were somehow different from the majority of Gentile Americans. Jews didn't subscribe to the same values. They had taken control of this powerful instrument of social control, but they couldn't use it responsibly.

Whether by design or sheer ignorance, they were said to be using the movies to subvert so-called traditional values, though anyone who studies film history knows, no group was more conscious of traditional values or more eagerly sought to purvey them than the Jewish movie pioneers-who regarded themselves as American first, Jewish second.

He obviously believes Hollywood and the world would be better places if the New Establishment and its nine Jews would hand culture back to the people who deserve it-people presumably like Cash. At the very least, they should share their power. He closes by citing the "white-sock mediocracy" as "another example of how driven Jews have always dealt with exclusion. Barred from one form of Establishment, they have ended up helping to create their own."

Similarly, an article like Cash's is another example of how powerless elitists have always dealt with exclusion. Barred from one form of Establishment, they end up spewing anti-Semitic bile.

Vindex
03-25-2006, 07:45 AM
I find it funny how jews freak when the obvious about them is pointed out.