cognitive dissonance on Jewish power

on 101 Comments

This is funny. Oliver Stone recently disparaged Jewish domination of the media and the Israel lobby’s effect on foreign policy, and was compelled to apologize. Compelled? 

Well here, in the LA Times, are Ari Emanuel and Haim Saban putting pressure on Showtime to blacklist Oliver Stone because of his comments. Here’s neocon wildman Ron Radosh‘s summary:  

[Abe] Foxman was at first not satisfied with Stone’s apology. “Oliver Stone’s apology stops short and is therefore insufficient,” he said. Of course, Foxman was correct. Then, the ante was upped. Most important, the wealthy media mogul Haim Saban, chair of the Saban Capital Group, remarked that his “apology is sooooo transparently fake.” He then contacted CBS chief Leslie Moonves, whose network owns Showtime, urging him to not air the program. Stone, Saban said, “has been consistent in his anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks,” and should join “Mel Gibson into the land of retirement.” Following his example, the powerful agent Ari Emanuel called CBS to second Saban’s request to cancel the documentary.

Moonves is Jewish by the way. Ari Emanuel is of course the brother of Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to Obama. Haim Saban is one of the largest givers to the Democratic Party.

Oh and yes: Jews are outsiders in American life. My parents explained that to me a long time ago.

101 Responses

  1. annie
    July 30, 2010, 8:49 am

    i loved the tongue and cheek tone to stone’s apology.

  2. potsherd
    July 30, 2010, 8:51 am

    Stone’s crime was telling the truth. The reaction confirmed it.

    • annie
      July 30, 2010, 9:03 am

      The reaction confirmed it

      as we speak. we’ll find out soon enough if showtime folds. something tells me we’re not the only one noticing the paradox of proving stone wrong by flexing the muscle they deny having.

      • lysias
        July 30, 2010, 9:51 am

        The reaction confirmed it

        One of the things you can’t say on Daily Kos. You’ll be troll rated (and hidden from most of the readers) at best, and you might even be banned.

        Kind of stifles discussion.

      • Psychopathic god
        July 30, 2010, 10:43 am

        DKos’s own resident Rahab has never written a diary and has posted nearly 2 times as many comments that consist of snooping out or accusing of infractions of the weird DKos form of political correctness, than of substantive contribution to the forum.

      • potsherd
        July 30, 2010, 11:40 am

        Being banned from Daily Kos is a natural progressive rite of passage. A badge of honor, in fact.

      • Stellaa
        July 30, 2010, 1:37 pm

        I love it, now can you make me a t-shirt?

      • hayate
        July 30, 2010, 2:00 pm

        “Being banned from Daily Kos is a natural progressive rite of passage. A badge of honor, in fact.”

        So is getting banned from the guardian’s talkboard or their cif section.


      • Psychopathic god
        July 30, 2010, 3:40 pm


        DailyKos has served some important functions:
        InAntalya has devoted several diaries to his/her personal interviews of Furkan Dogan’s father, in Turkey. You haven’t seen that in MSM.

        and today, DKos diaryed that Richard Silverstein’s blog had been hacked, shortly after Tikun Olam posted the name of the IDF agent who, in 2004, sodomized a Lebanese kidnap victim.

        Alleged Arab torturer Doron Zahavi aka ‘Captain George’ (Haaretz)

        Yesterday, I reported here on a Haaretz story about the notorious “Captain George,” an IDF military intelligence interrogator accused in 2004 of sodomizing a Lebanese kidnap victim in order to secure information about the location of IDF officer, Ron Arad. Among the things I wrote was my complaint that Haaretz was protecting the real identity of George even though he no longer served in military intelligence.

        With the help of a diligent Israeli researcher, I can now expose George’s real identity. He is Doron Zahavi, currently the Arab affairs liaison for the Jerusalem police. His job, as I noted yesterday, is to direct community relations and liaison efforts between the police and Jerusalem’s Arab residents.

        interesting that Ron Arad was in the middle of this.
        In “Secret War with Iran,” Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman devotes many pages to discussion of Israeli acts targeting Iran and Iranians, with the goal of retrieving Arad. Israel’s dirty deeds include killing at least four Iranian diplomats.

        But hey, this is Israel. It’s not a crime to assassinate somebody if Israel does it.

      • potsherd
        July 30, 2010, 3:45 pm

        Many individuals have posted valuable articles at Daily Kos, but this is more in spite of than because of the administration’s wishes.

      • hayate
        July 30, 2010, 8:49 pm

        The guardian also comes up with good material from time to time, but most of what one finds there is pure toss and the management is essentially neo-con lite, as is that of the scott trust which owns the guardian conglomerate. This operational model seems to be basically true of many sites considered liberal in the west. They do a good piece every once in a while, for reputation, but the daily stuff is the usual running on remote control rubbish promoting the standard zionist/corporate propaganda. If the guest commenting on a site has a pro-zionist, you can bet it represents what management there thinks and that pro-zionist propaganda is at least part of their reason for being in business.

      • Bumblebye
        July 30, 2010, 9:04 pm

        Seth Freedman.
        $%^&*”&!!!! Twit.

    • Chu
      July 30, 2010, 9:34 am

      abe foxman says the about 12-14% [40 million] of the population is infected with anti-semitism. and he’s sure there’s another 14% who believe that Jews are too powerful and christ killers.
      foxman on antisemitic infections and anti-masking law
      Also, he goes on to say that the internet is masking peoples identity and compares it to the anti-masking law from the 1950’s in Georgia, US. Claiming the internet allows for a superhighway of bigotry.
      I can see where this is going…

      • yourstruly
        July 30, 2010, 10:07 am

        Since Zionism is not Judaism, Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitic. Zionism is what’s anti-Semitic, being that its false claim that it speaks for all Jews puts Jews at risk everywhere. Not to forget, either, the collaberation of international Zionist leaders with Hitler’s henchmen. What happened was that an offer from Nazi Germany to allow tens of thousands of Eastern Europeans to immigrate to Western nations was nixed by said Zionist leaders. Get thee to Palestine or let the gas chamber take you was how much they cared about Jews back then. Still is, based upon the vehemence of their attacks upon anti-Zionists today, many of whom, it should be noted, are Jewish.

      • Psychopathic god
        July 30, 2010, 11:05 am

        antisemitism is a non- issue. Americans should refuse to be put on the defensive.

        In the United States, one should not be required to pledge allegiance to the flag or brand or values of Israel or of any minority group in the US. Rather, to the extent that a foreign entity or minority group in the US harms, abuses, or exploits American interests or values, that group should be called to account.
        If we’re going to have McCarthyism, at least let’s have McCarthyism in defense of Americanism. That’s where my taxes go.

      • Chu
        July 30, 2010, 3:23 pm

        where is his data for his conclusions. how do you assert that up to 80 million are infected with antisemitism in this country . Was this a hunch or he took a poll across the US? This is like looking for a sea monster and claiming it’s fifty meters tall. It’s disinfo at best.

    • Citizen
      July 30, 2010, 4:52 pm

      Essentially Stone merely said Hitler did not arise in a vacuum. As an example of what he was driving at (and aprops his film project The Secret History Of The US), Stone said most Americans do not have a clue that
      WW2 was in many key ways the result of WW1. I assume Hitler, a WW1 private who earned the Iron Cross, thought so too as he insisted on having the French surrender in the same railroad car Germany was forced to sit in to sign it’s doom after WW1. Stone also said Hitler was a psycho. What’s so horrible about looking at the world through the eyes of Hitler, Mao, Stalin? Did they not bleed when they were cut? Don’t medical experts study the lives of serial killers? Does that mean those experts are secret serial killers themselves? Hitler never in fact had cancer. To dismiss him as Cancer itself, the God Of Evil, is, in the long run, not a way to prevent or cure cancer or evil.

      • American
        July 31, 2010, 12:11 am

        Actually Stone is right. One has to read ‘real” historians….and lay off the Hollywood movies, to understand what was going on in Germany after WWI and before the outbreak of WWII.
        It’s complicated and I don’t want to be long winded and my mind is rusty anyway. But a few points regarding why the Jews were focused on in Germany.
        A lot of people want to pretend Hitler was just a mad man who personally hated Jews…when actually his hatred was more political than personal…and influenced somewhat by the Russian experience with what was called Jewish Bolshevism, Judeo-Bolshevism, Judeo-Communism. Hardly ever mentioned in discussions like these is the fact that Germany and the Soviet Union had signed a non-aggression pact (1939, I think) between the two countries and pledged neutrality by either party if the other were attacked by a third party which remained in effect till Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
        How does this relate to Hitler and the Jews?…Hitler paid attention to the Russian experience with the Jews and Bolshevism and not only the Jews , but any others involved in it becuase large numbers of Russian Jews left Russia for Germany after WWI and were one of the political groups agitating in Germany. Hitler also paid attention to how Stalin was cleaning out the Russian gov of any strains of Bolshevism and particularly the Jews who figured in it.
        Then there was also popular dislike of Jews in general by the Germans because of the few Jewish financiers who seemed to have prospered during WWI when no one else did and were suspected of double dealing and war profiteering with the enemy.
        Hitler used that common feeling among the populace to gain support .
        He made some kind of comment, I can’t remember exactly, to the Russians that the Jews would not repeat in Germany what they did in Russia and had played their final act on the ‘world stage’..or words to that effect.
        So the tales of his personal dislike of Jews probably had less if anything to do with the Jews than his political views of them as enemies of the state.
        Then when the World Jewish Congress started stomping around and declared economic war on Germany and it was splashed on headlines around the world the already economically devestated German public and Hitler upped the anty on the Jews and away it went.
        Of course there were a lot of other political plays being made in Germany in competition with Hitler but it’s way too long to go into here.

      • Citizen
        July 31, 2010, 7:33 am

        Yeah, just go to Philip Roth’s what-if novel about that nasty antisemite Lindberg, the Plot Against America, and you get the real scoop.

      • silencenolonger
        August 2, 2010, 6:16 pm

        Its worth reading Evan’s book “The Rise of The Third Reich”. What most people in this country don’t recognize is that WW2 was a battle between State Sponsored Totalitarian systems. This was to be the future, Democracy had failed. On the right you has Nationalist State Totalitarianism of the Nationalists, Brownshirts, Steel Helmets and the Nazis, as the answer to a communist take over. Why would the Germans turn to Hitler, how about 30 million murdered by Stalin.
        Who had put the Communist in power Marxism written by a Jew, promoted by another Trotsky, financed by Jacob Schiff, the Kuhn Loeb Bank and the Rothchilds all Jews. The head of the Socialist Parties in Germany were Jews. In 1919, a Bolshovik paid for coupd’etat in Munich was led by Jews. Put down by nationalists, whom Hitler joined and became their spokesperson. Then, there are the reparations that were pushed, as Lloyd George, the PM of England mentioned, by Bankers at the Treaty of Versailles (“there were more bankers than diplomats”)
        Only now are historians (because of the opening of the Soviet Archives) filling in the blanks, and the lessons need to learned, especially in light of the recent Financial collapse

  3. annie
    July 30, 2010, 8:59 am

    it’s pretty lame….. to ignore the fact that the U.S. is a natural ally for Israel on its own merits, since it’s the only true democracy in the Middle East.

    i guess it’s fair to assume the latimes doesn’t agree w/chas freeman nor recognize israel as an apartheid state.

  4. Rowan
    July 30, 2010, 9:11 am

    I think it’s a tactical error to call Stone et al ‘anti-American’. It reminds people of McCarthyism. Incidentally, Stone’s dad was jewish. His mother was french.

    • demize
      July 30, 2010, 11:20 am

      He also joined the Army during Viet Nam and earned a Combat Service Badge and a Bronze Star.

      • RoHa
        July 31, 2010, 12:45 am

        But what has he done for Israel lately?

  5. Leper Colonialist
    July 30, 2010, 9:11 am

    You know, it’s always struck me that so few people [openly] question the centrality of the importance The Holocaust in the life of the USA. It’s amazing that something which did not occur in the USA, and which the USA was instrumental in helping to bring to an end [though this was never an objective the US in WW II] could resonant so deeply and for so long.

    I mean, the genocide against the indigenous/aboriginal Native American population and several centuries of African-American enslavement get no where near his treatment and obsessive concern. Odd, ain’t it, as those tragedies occurred in this country, descendants of persons who profitted from those crimes live and work among us, and in some sense every living American is a legatee [negatively] of the consequences of those criminal policies. Yet, hand-wringing and breast-beating over either of those tragedies takes a backseat to a crime, admittedly enormous in scale, which happened in Europe during the world’s most destructive war.

    Well, I think the Native Americans and the African-American community had best step up their game re “guilt-tripping” the rest of us.

  6. braciole
    July 30, 2010, 9:15 am

    Saban said, “has been consistent in his anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks,”

    Call me cynical but soon being anti-American will be equated with being anti-Semitic. I suppose it makes sense as the United States seems to be a colony of Israel.

    • Bumblebye
      July 30, 2010, 9:32 am

      That card was put into play a few times, shortly after 9/11 in the UK, when several prominent neo-cons appeared on political talk shows & were dismayed to be challenged over US policy in the Middle East. It was both laughable & shocking at the same time.

    • rmokhtar
      July 30, 2010, 9:40 am

      It is the United States of Israel, after all.

  7. Rowan
    July 30, 2010, 9:18 am

    Did I draw your attention to ultra-right crackpot Larry Greenfield on Stone? Yes I did. Let’s do it again; this is quite funny:
    link to

  8. yourstruly
    July 30, 2010, 9:40 am

    As General David Petreaus, Vice-President Joe Biden & Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told us a couple of months ago, Israel’s intransigence vis a vis a peace settlement with the Palestinians puts U.S. troops at risk in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet our government continues with its unconditional support of the Zionist state. Since patriotism is supporting one’s country all the time but one’s government only when it’s deserving of support (Mark Twain), hands down, Oliver Stones the patriot here.

  9. wondering jew
    July 30, 2010, 9:49 am

    Oliver Stone’s mediocre analysis.

    This blog views itself as a corrective: No need to mention Gilad Shalit when the rest of the world knows his name and ignores the Palestinian prisoners and thus also: No need to criticize Oliver Stone, when so many others criticize him.

    The question that Oliver Stone was dealing with in his hard hearted statement was: why the emphasis on the murder of six million Jews when more Russians than Jews were killed. The answer that soft hearted Oliver offered was that Jews control Hollywood. The effect of his answer was to denigrate the Jewish dead and not emphasize the Russian dead.

    In fact there are other better answers that reflect history and storytelling rather than the power of Hollywood’s Jews.

    First: history: The Nazis’ cruelty towards the nations to their east: including the Poles and the Russians is well documented history, if not represented adequately in American cinema. The Nazi hierarchy consisted of Aryans on top, Slavs as slaves and Jews as vermin to be exterminated. If once lacks the historical sense to differentiate between the attitude towards the Slavs and the Jews, then one might become a filmmaker rather than a historian.

    Second: storytelling: The single mindedness of Hitler and the Nazis towards the Jews is well documented and does not deprive those killed by the Nazis in the course of their conquest of their attention because of special treatment by historians or fiction writers, it is because war as destruction (kill every human in our path) has one storytelling value (meaning value as a story device) and killing as selection: find the Jew and kill him has a greater storytelling value. A tank rolling through a town and crushing everything in its path is different than a knock on the door and a request for “Any Jews here for us to kill?” True both people end up dead and killing is killing and a person is a person, but fictionally there is a different weight to the intentional gathering of the Jew rather than the indiscriminate destruction of a killing machine.

    There are many more films about the deaths of the Jews in concentration and extermination camps than there are films about the deaths of Jews to einsatzgruppen, shooting squads. This disproportion does not reflect the fact that the Jews in Hollywood have a special attachment to those killed in camps rather than those killed by shooting squads. Again it is the narrative value of the process involved in the death camps rather than the lack of narrative of the process involved in the killing squads. The Holocaust, particularly the knock on the door, “Are there any Jews here?”, the train ride, the selection, the camp with its workers next to the chimney expelling the ashes of millions has a storytelling quality that the killing of the death squads and the deaths of the Russians does not possess.

    But it is much easier to blame it on the power of the Jews in Hollywood than to attempt to dissect either the history or the intrinsic story values of the history.

    • Chaos4700
      July 30, 2010, 9:58 am

      What is this? Witty’s on vacation so now you have to take over heaping abuse on Weiss and his blog?

      And juuuust so people don’t forget what WJ is really about…
      link to

    • Rowan
      July 30, 2010, 10:00 am

      ‘Wondering Jew’, I think you have isolated one line of Stone’s ramblings so that you can emote about the holocaust. The other lines of Stone’s ramblings are in fact more relevant; the holocaust is not relevant at all. This is what you cannot bring yourself to understand, because it is so advantageous to you to pose as history’s unique and archetypical absolute victim.

    • Chaos4700
      July 30, 2010, 10:02 am

      Why don’t you have anything to say about the extreme pressure Oliver Stone has been under from Hollywood’s Jewish establishment, incidentally? Did that escape your notice?

    • eljay
      July 30, 2010, 10:02 am

      >> The Holocaust … has a storytelling quality that the killing of the death squads and the deaths of the Russians does not possess.

      It really IS the “bestest genocide of the them all”! :-)

    • sherbrsi
      July 30, 2010, 10:04 am

      but fictionally there is a different weight to the intentional gathering of the Jew rather than the indiscriminate destruction of a killing machine.

      Does the same statement hold true if Jew is replaced with Communist, homosexual or Roma?

      If you answer yes, how do you explain the lack of movies detailing their experiences in the Holocaust?

      You offer nothing but more nonsensical glorification of Jewish victimhood over that of others, even though death, and the Holocaust, came to the victims of Nazism all the same. When the gypsy was slaughtered, he did not feel any less pain because his kind weren’t maligned as much in the Nazi hierarchy and propaganda as Jews were.

      Your tirade against the cinematic depiction of Jews holding more emotional weight is similarly vacuous and inane. Powerful film-making lies in the hands of powerful film-makers. Yes, the subject matter and material has the potential to be more emotionally resonant material, but ultimately if you give the script and screenplay of Schindler’s List to different directors in Hollywood, not everyone will come out with a strong film despite the strong subject. In fact most will produce unwatchable results. For you to say that the very incident of Jewish victim-hood intrinsically presents an avenue of more emotional suffering that transfers well to the Hollywood screen is not only self-serving and short-sighted, but also morally repugnant for it glorifies Jewish death to be on a higher pedestal than that of the gentiles, even if the circumstances are the same.

      • Citizen
        July 30, 2010, 10:19 am

        What were the Jehovah’s Witnesses, chopped liver? Well, yes they were.

      • lysias
        July 30, 2010, 10:44 am

        The Gestapo had an office on Jehovah’s Witnesses (Referat IV B3) that was parallel on the organizational charts to Eichmann’s office on Jewish affairs (Referat IV B4).

    • lysias
      July 30, 2010, 10:04 am

      Certainly Hitler and the Nazis were fixated on the Jews as they were not on any other people, except, in the opposite direction, the Germans. That is well documented in a new book I just finished reading, Joachim Riecker’s Hitlers 9. November: Wie der Erste Weltkrieg zum Holocaust führte.

      But that doesn’t explain why Hollywood is so fixated on the Holocaust 65 years or so after the event.

      We should remember, by the way, that not only the Jews, but also the Gypsies, were subjected to genocide by the Nazis.

      • Citizen
        July 30, 2010, 10:16 am

        The Gypsies were marked for extermination in the same way as the Jews were and suffered terribly. (link to questions/gypsies.shtml). The testimony of Otto Ohlendorf at Nuremberg on this is chilling:

        US prosecutor J. Heath: And what was the story with the Gypsies? I believe you have no idea how many Gypsies your commando killed?
        Ohlendorf: No, I don’t know.
        Ohlendorf:There was no difference between the Gypsies and the Jews. The same order applied to both of them.

      • Citizen
        July 30, 2010, 11:10 am

        More on the Gypst Holocaust:
        link to

        To my knowledge, only one film has the Porajmos as its setting; it was made in Poland: And The Violins Stopped Playing: A Story Of The Gypsy Holocaust

      • Citizen
        July 30, 2010, 10:25 am

        Lysias, yes, the Jews were always included as the mortal enemy to be
        destroyed, while the other mortal enemy groups were not always specified, sometimes just lumped together, as in “Jews and other undesirables.” If memory serves, Hitler’s last political will & testament only specified the Jews as the enemy. Still, this does not explain why no Hollywood movie ever focused on say, the Roma victims or the Jehovahs Witnesses.

    • Chu
      July 30, 2010, 10:09 am

      WJ, what is your answer to his question?
      “Why the emphasis on the murder of six million Jews when more Russians than Jews were killed. ”

      (I wasn’t focused on the holocaust comments as much as the comment “Israel has f-cked up United States foreign policy for years”.
      Also, I don’t think anyone has seen the interview. I’ve only seen a collection of his controversial statements taken out of context of the discussion. If you do have the full interview, please post it.)

      • jimby
        July 30, 2010, 12:46 pm

        “Israel has f-cked up United States foreign policy for years”.

        I was thinking of past deeds and suddenly I wondered if Israel had anything to do with the Iranian Revolution. Were they in cahoots with Ronnie Raygun in the “October Surprise”. We now know how much Jimmy Carter was loathed by M Begin. Just wondering………….

    • Psychopathic god
      July 30, 2010, 10:52 am

      wondering jew, I don’t give a flying fuck about Gilad Shalit. He is a soldier, he was engaged in aggressive action against innocent civilians. he got caught. don’t do shit and you won’t get caught.

      moreover, shalit is not an American; why should I spend one single breath worrying about his welfare, and why should my government?

      When YOU, mr wondering jew, express concern and pull all the strings that you are able to pull to achieve justice for



      The 34 sailors of the SS Liberty killed by Israel

      then maybe I’ll pay attention to your bleating.

      but not until then.

    • lysias
      July 30, 2010, 11:10 am

      Oliver Stone’s mediocre analysis.

      When I saw Stone’s JFK, I was skeptical about the extent of a government conspiracy that he was positing.

      In the past three years, I have read two new works that, in my opinion, prove the essentials of JFK‘s plot, that JFK was killed by the National Security State: (1) James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters; and (2) Douglas Horne’s five-volume Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK.

      Those works reach their conclusions largely on the basis of new evidence revealed over the past two decades, to a large extent by the Assassination Records Review Board on which Horne served as Chief Analyst of Military Records.

      Evidence to which Stone did not have access for JFK. That’s some “mediocre analysis”!

    • Donald
      July 30, 2010, 11:35 am

      WJ, I agree with some of what you say–there probably is something more dramatically appealing for Western middle class people about a movie with middle class people being arrested and taken away to death camps. So on that basis alone you’d expect middle class Jews to receive most of Hollywood’s attention. But I’m not sure that conflicts much with Stone’s comment. I’m fairly sure that Russian-made films about WWII focus mainly on their own tremendous losses, not on the Holocaust, and that’s natural. People focus on the suffering of people like themselves. I suppose if there were a country where there are a lot of Roma filmmakers they would churn out a lot of films about what the Nazis did to them. Apparently there aren’t a lot of Russian and Roma filmmakers in Hollywood.

      As for the relative moral weight put on the Holocaust vs., say Russian deaths, I’ve never sympathized with this notion that murdering completely innocent people for one set of reasons is somehow better than murdering them for another set. Five or six million Jews were murdered because Hitler hated Jews. Over ten million Russian civilians and a roughly equal number of soldiers (27 million total) were killed simply because Hitler wanted to conquer Russia. All those deaths are analogous to first degree murder. It’d be like robbing the local convenience store and killing the store clerk because he got in the way. Now maybe someone else kills someone because of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation–that would be called a “hate crime”. But I can’t personally see that the first murder is any more justified than the second.

      • lysias
        July 30, 2010, 12:53 pm

        You could just as well show middle-class Poles or Hungarians or Germans or Russians sent off to Communist prison camps. I guess some movies along those lines were made in the 1950’s, at the height of the Cold War.

        But I can’t remember one being made lately.

      • Donald
        July 30, 2010, 1:10 pm

        I would use a different example myself–there’s no shortage of anti-communist TV shows and movies and it’s not exactly a secret that communism was bad. There are middle class Latin Americans tortured and murdered by US-supported regimes, for instance, with very few if any American movies made about that. Admittedly, though, the majority of the victims there were probably poor and so not like the typical moviegoer. I’ve always thought the fate of East Timor with several successive US administrations siding with the murderous Indonesian military would have made a superb Oliver Stone movie–people subjected to genocide with virtually no news getting out during the worst of it and well fed self-satisfied Americans of both political parties with gallons of blood on their hands.

        Basically, I think movies are made about politically convenient villains–Nazis are a deserving target with no one except a few creeps sympathetic to them, middle class European Jews are a lot like middle class Americans or close enough, and of course there’s the Jewish connection and the fact that the US fought against them. Perfect, from a Hollywood viewpoint. Russians, from what little I’ve read, have made a lot of films and shows about WWII, but obviously they’re going to focus on their own suffering. Now and then someone will step outside the political comfort zone of their society, and those films are “controversial”. And it takes very little to make a movie “controversial”–apparently “Munich”, which I haven’t seen, really wasn’t fair to the Palestinians and romanticized the Israeli assassins, but it did let a smidgeon of the Palestinian case come through and that made it “controversial”.

    • American
      July 30, 2010, 2:39 pm

      Oh shut the fuck up.

      * 62 to 78 million total dead in WWII.

      * 40 to 52 million civilian deaths…..*Not counting Jews.

      * 13 to 20 million from war related disease and famine.

      * 20 to 25 million military dead.

      * 5 million POW dead.

      * Counties with highest civilian war related NON JEWISH deaths from Japanese war crimes- China 3,695,000, Indochina 457,000, Korea 378,000, Indonesia 375,000, Malaya-Singapore 283,000, Philippines 119,000, Burma 60,000 and Pacific Islands 57,000.

      * Non Jewish Nazis Camp deaths – 130,000 to 500,000 Gypsies , 150,000 to 200,000 handicapped persons, 2.6 to 3 million Soviet prisoners of war, 1.8 to 1.9 million NON JEWISH Poles , 4.5 to 8.2 million Soviet civilians , 10,000 Gay men, 1,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1,000 to 2,000 Roman Catholic clergy.

      The world is not responsible for the fact that the Jews numbered only around 11 million and therefore 5 million deaths reduced their population by 50%.
      WWII wasn’t about the Jews, it was about the fate of half of the free world and billions of people.
      You’re the only ones who have made a career out of whining about their losses and showing your ungrateful ass when you ought to be kissing the asses of the US and the Allies cause if Hitler had won there wouldn’t have been a single European Jew left alive.
      Everyone is tired of it

      • hayate
        July 30, 2010, 8:55 pm


        Well said.

  10. lysias
    July 30, 2010, 9:49 am

    If you refer to Jewish power over the media in this country on Daily Kos, you get troll rated, at best. The Israel Firsters on this thread about Stone, Oliver Stone takes a walk on the Mel Gibson Side write as though Stone’s comments about Jewish power are abhorrent and manifestly absurd.

    • potsherd
      July 30, 2010, 11:45 am

      As opposed to manifestly true.

      It is in fact their truth that creates this reaction. Because it is true, it is all the more threatening and must be covered up by all and any means.

      • Citizen
        July 30, 2010, 2:57 pm

        The truth will shut down your film career:

        link to

      • Chu
        July 30, 2010, 3:12 pm

        potshead says it well “Stone’s crime was telling the truth. The reaction confirmed it.”

        and atzmon’s point is: “Stone doesn’t refer to race. There is nothing anti Semitic in his remark whatsoever unless telling the truth is a form of anti Semitism. Moreover, Stone didn’t demonize Jews for being Jews, he described some actions committed by Jewish institutional lobbies”

      • Bumblebye
        July 30, 2010, 3:15 pm

        Which article in turn links to the New Yorker Saban interview:
        link to
        and his own formula for protecting Israel through influence –

        *make donations to political parties

        *establish think tanks

        *control media outlets

        All those things it’s “anti-semitic” to either claim or complain about.

      • potsherd
        July 30, 2010, 3:20 pm

        control media outlets

        He considered buying The New Republic, but decided it wasn’t for him. He also tried to buy Time and Newsweek, but neither was available. He and his private-equity partners acquired Univision in 2007, and he has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times.

        But if you dare say that pro-Israel Jews want to control media outlets, you get the antisemitism treatment.

        I suggest that Stone reply that he was merely quoting Saban.

      • Chu
        July 30, 2010, 3:30 pm

        it’s fine for one insider to brag about it, but if an outsider criticises it the establishment, well that’s just not kosher.

  11. Chu
    July 30, 2010, 9:53 am

    when Stone makes these types of comments, it scares Hollywood establishments and AIPAC together. They must sound the alarm, for any open discussion about Jewish power in the US, challenging to victim status, or candid discussions are verboten and must be quashed.
    Who gives the power to Haim Saban, to be the judge and jury, besides a vast network of contacts and capitol wealth?
    -answered my own question.

    I think it’s difficult to find the meat of Stones comments in any media publication in the US. I searched the other day and most of it is watered-down. But his statement has a lot of bite and is another nail in AIPAC’s coffin.

    “There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f-cked up United States foreign policy for years.”

    I think it coming down to two things, you can have your continued power in the US or you can have your apartheid state. You can’t have both, so you must choose.

    • Chaos4700
      July 30, 2010, 10:07 am

      The thing I dread is the Israeli lobby saying, “Well, if we can’t have the US government, no one can.”

    • lysias
      July 30, 2010, 10:07 am

      I think it coming down to two things, you can have your continued power in the US or you can have your apartheid state. You can’t have both, so you must choose.

      There is, of course, another choice: everything can be made to go down in flames if one doesn’t get his will. Endsieg oder Untergang.

      • Psychopathic god
        July 30, 2010, 1:55 pm

        lysias, in a way there is a false comfort in the thought, “EVERYTHING will go down in flames.” That’s a huge, huge event to contemplate, and it’s easy for the mind to rate the probability of its occurring as very low.

        but on an individual basis, on the ‘my life, my career, my family’ basis, zionists can and will do a great deal of harm. To speak out against zionism is to paint a target on your back and on the backs of your family. It takes a great deal of courage. Jews who do so are more protected than are non-jews.
        zionists are vicious.

    • sherbrsi
      July 30, 2010, 10:15 am

      Stone said what was the on the mind of many Americans. Whether it is true or false is up for discussion, but quite irrelevant in the end. When the Israel and Jewish lobby brings down its hammer to force Stone into “retirement” (as Saban is pushing for), his message will be reinforced far stronger than the weight carried by his original statements.

      • Citizen
        July 30, 2010, 10:53 am

        Back last January, Oliver Stone had already put his subsequent comments in context apropos his intent with his new documentary project:
        link to

        Perhaps he had to eat crow at the ADL’s feet because he’s worried someone will now kill his Showtime film. That mainly only leaves the History Channel for those who don’t read history and biography books.
        God forbid the PTB get deprived of their Pure Evil Icons. Hitler arose
        from the vapors, a new snake in the garden. Stalin too, yes?

      • potsherd
        July 30, 2010, 3:21 pm

        Haim Saban is pressuring Showtime to kill it.

        This, of course, would be additional proof of what Stone says.

  12. Miss Dee Mena
    July 30, 2010, 10:05 am

    How many people in Europe or America have ever heard of the first German holocaust in Namibia in Africa at the beginning of the 20th century? Perhaps Hollywood should do a film on that. Oh then again it was “only Africans” who were slaughtered.

    Between 1904 and 1907 October, the indigenous Nama took up arms against the Germans who had colonised Namibia …10,000 Nama (50% of the total Nama population) were killed. In total, between 24,000 and 65,000 Herero (estimated at 50% to 70% of the total Herero population) were killed. The genocide was characterised by widespread death by starvation and from consumption of well water which had been poisoned by the Germans in the Namib Desert.

  13. potsherd
    July 30, 2010, 12:06 pm

    WJ inadvertently hits on a great truth when he says The effect of [Stone’s] answer was to denigrate the Jewish dead.

    This is the point of the Holocaust fixation: to sanctify the Jewish dead as martyrs. And it is all about Zionism. Israel’s “legitimacy” is built on the bones of Jewish martyrs just as medieval cathedrals were built on the bones and relics of saints, without which they were not properly sanctified.

    The Jewish dead in the Holocaust have to be elevated above all other victimes, because their victimhood confers victimhood on all Jews. For this reason, the fate of the gypsies has to be minimized, because they can not be raised to the level of the Jews. For this reason, the Armenian genocide can not be recognized as such (although this may change now that Israel hates Turkey) because this would denigrate the genocide of the Jews. Nothing else can ever be allowed to equal or (god forbid) surpass the genocide, the suffering, the sacred martyrdom of the Jews.

    Here is likewise the reason that “Holocaust denial” has evolved into the most unspeakable crime: the Holocaust is the sanctifying act. Without the Holocaust, the status of Jews as sacred victims would be “denigrated.” They would become just like any other group of dead people. And those who did not die would not have the equally sacred status of Survivor.

    Essentially, this is a religion. Or, rather, an idolatry. The comparisons to Christianity are striking. The Holocaust as Crucifixtion. The transformational execution. Holocaust denial is the equivalent of denying that Jesus died on the Cross. And Zionism – Israel – is the salvation.

    Religion, as I’m sure people here recognize, is fundamentally irrational. This is what we are seeing in the irrational reactions to Stone’s statement. The believers see it as a threat to their faith.

    • Psychopathic god
      July 30, 2010, 2:00 pm

      For this reason, the Armenian genocide can not be recognized as such (although this may change now that Israel hates Turkey)

      and the hasbara machine will be deployed to erase the dominance of Jewish agents among the Turks who perpetrated the Armenian genocide, I presume.

      • Chaos4700
        July 30, 2010, 7:49 pm

        I suppose the Zionists we’ve had here rumbling about the ethnic cleansing of the Native American people (ironic, since undoubtedly there were European Jews among the population that expelled them) is prologue to the howling and lambasting we can expect when the United States (hopefully) turns its back on Israel, sooner or later.

    • Citizen
      July 30, 2010, 3:18 pm

      Yes, but there is a companion practical motive: unlike, say M & W, the professorial ivy league authors of The Israel Lobby, Oliver Stone is known to many Americans knee-deep in culture with political teeth; and his films are treasured by many thoughtful Americans in much the same way Rolling Stone magazine is. And he apparently does not drink excessively a la Mr Braveheart.

      • bookwoman
        July 30, 2010, 6:13 pm

        “Oliver Stone is known to many Americans knee-deep in culture with political teeth; and his films are treasured by many thoughtful Americans in much the same way Rolling Stone magazine is. ”

        Precisely for this reason I think Stone’s enforced groveling and public humiliation will shock these same average Americans who aren’t generally that aware of Zionist power in their country. It may serve as a consciousness-raiser, make them think a bit. The very opposite effect intended.

        What kind of people take pleasure in publicly grinding someone’s face in the dirt in this way, anyway?

    • MHughes976
      July 30, 2010, 3:43 pm

      I find the term ‘holocaust’, a biblical term for an acceptable sacrifice ascending to God, horrible and blasphemous in this context, giving the Nazis a kind of priestly status. The term seems to be part of a dark theology that makes terrible suffering and slaughter into a sacrifice accepted by God in return for the eventual restoration of an earthly kingdom.
      I haven’t entirely given up on religion, being a keen member of the Church of England. Indeed I’m wondering if I should seek election to the national Synod on a pro-Kairos Palestine platform, though I’m discouraged by the thought that I might get thoroughly swiftboated, not to say submerged and oblivionised. But it might be interesting to see how the opinion of the English person in the church pew is disposed these days.

      • potsherd
        July 30, 2010, 4:00 pm

        The more the Holocaust is perceived as a sacred rite, as a sanctifying sacrifice, the more the Nazis naturally occupy that role. This is the root of Hagee’s remark that God sent Hitler to redeem the Jews from the Diaspora. Not a sacrifice accepted by God but a sacrifice ordained by God.

        This is part of the Holocaust idolatry that has to see the event as a necessary or even a good thing. This is part of the hysteria that crops up over Holocaust denial- if the Holocaust never took place, then the Jewish sacrifice is “denigrated.” If someone somehow found the sacred six million alive somewhere, miraculously saved, there would be horrible outrage.

      • jonah
        July 30, 2010, 4:49 pm

        postherd displays in these comments on the Shoah the cynical and sick face of Jew-hatred disguised as anti-Zionism. This attitude is as deviant as so typical for the turbid waters in which the enemies of Israel and Jews are accustomed to move. But above all it shows a lack of historical depth and humanity of this sad phenomenon. A shame.

      • Psychopathic god
        July 30, 2010, 6:42 pm

        translating jonah:

        potsherd struck a nerve.

      • eljay
        July 30, 2010, 6:46 pm

        >> postherd displays in these comments on the Shoah the cynical and sick face of Jew-hatred disguised as anti-Zionism. This attitude is as deviant as so typical for the turbid waters in which the enemies of Israel and Jews are accustomed to move. But above all it shows a lack of historical depth and humanity of this sad phenomenon. A shame.

        “Turbid waters” – I like that. Very mysterious. But as far as “depth” goes, potsherd‘s observations demonstrate a far more profound “depth” than the typical “the Holocaust was the bestest genocide of them all!” assessment you get from the average person. And “humanity”? Seriously? What humanity comes from beating to death the Holocaust as a justification for every fucking disgusting crime Jews can concoct? Murder? “The Holocaust!” Occupation? “The Holocaust!” Destruction and theft? “The Holocaust!” Chick pissed off that the guy she fucked was Arab instead of Jewish? “The Holocaust!”

        “Humanity” – yeah, right.

        “Remember the Holocaust!”

      • eljay
        July 30, 2010, 6:49 pm

        >> What humanity comes from beating to death the Holocaust as a justification for every fucking disgusting crime Jews can concoct?

        Clarification: By “Jews” I’m referring strictly to Jews who concoct crimes and require some sort of justification for their dirty deeds. Those who don’t concoct crimes obviously don’t require any sort of justification.

      • potsherd
        July 30, 2010, 7:42 pm

        One-size-fits-all jonah: it comes down every time to Jew-hate.

        Now here’s an interesting thing about the Holocaust-obsession. Where are the Nazis? These guys were the real Jew-haters. But as Holocaust-worship increases, we hear less and less about the Nazis. Their presence is necessary, of course, in order to conduct the sacrifice, but they otherwise fade into the background.

        This was not originally the case. The original point of documenting the Holocaust wasn’t about the sacred Jewish victims, it was about the evil of the Nazis. The victims served as the proof of Nazi atrocity, and as such, it didn’t really matter how many millions were dead or who those millions were. Look into a pit full of bones and you can’t pick out the Jewish ones. The horror lies in the pit.

        This was the entire point of the original systematic exhibition of the horrors of the Nazi genocides at the Nurnberg trials – to demonstrate Nazi guilt. Not to sanctify the victims but to condemn the perpetrators.

        This is also the origin of the sin of Holocaust-denial, which was exculpation. If the crime never took place, then the perpetrators could not have been guilty. It was not about “denigrating” the sacred victims, it was about denying guilt. And this is the reason that in Germany, it has so long been a crime.

        To equate Holocaust denial with Jew-hate is really pretty perverse. On the surface, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Real Jew-hate would be: “I wish Hitler had got the rest of them.”

        What the real issue is, is privilege, the privilege of victimhood. It is no longer the question of the guilt or innocence of various Germans during WWII. It is about the halo of sanctity borne by the victims. Denying that the genocide took place is a way of denying the privilege of victimhood to those who died.

        But in fact, it is primarily the Jews who claim this privilege, and they claim it exclusively. This is why Holocaust denial has morphed from German exculpation to “Jew hate” because the Jews want to keep the privilege of victimhood as their own property. Thus they fiercely defend their privilege against other victimized groups and insist on the “uniqueness” of the Holocaust.

    • Bumblebye
      July 30, 2010, 4:30 pm

      Yoav Shamir’s film “Defamation” shows how Foxman denies the right of Ukraine to call their loss of 5 million people during the war a “holocaust”. Excellent review here:
      link to

      • potsherd
        July 30, 2010, 4:45 pm

        Oh, that’s revealing!

      • annie
        July 30, 2010, 8:06 pm

        i recommend this film, it is highly entertaining. he travels with a group of israeli kids and foxman to poland. the kids were not sufficiently emotional at the offset. you just have to see it to believe it.

        in one litttle short scene he visits these 2 kids in their dorm room in poland on a saturday night. they explain they’re not going outside because they’ve been informed everyone in poland is an anti semite and they might get killed. there’s also a scene in foxman’s office where they ask the person at the front desk to read off the calls they’ve gotten this week which is a rather funny scene. i can’t remember what it was but something like this lady calling about a parking ticket. just really nothing stuff. about 4 calls all week.

        it was the first time i’d ever heard of the holodomor. someone in a crowd of kids asks foxman in poland about it and he just said no were not talking about that.

    • hayate
      July 30, 2010, 9:15 pm

      potsherd July 30, 2010 at 12:06 pm

      Good post.

      • potsherd
        July 31, 2010, 12:05 am

        Glad you appreciate it.

        I hope jonah does, too.

  14. traintosiberia
    July 30, 2010, 12:30 pm

    Muslims in London did not have to get out on the street to demonstrate against salman Rushdie only if they had the power to force Barnes and Nobles,Amazon .Com ,and Hollywood to stay away from him by 100 feet pole.

    This also explains why he would remain silent on silencing of Oliver Stone.

  15. Taxi
    July 30, 2010, 12:50 pm

    Fuck saban.

    Fuck foxman.

    Fuck racism!

  16. Les
    July 30, 2010, 4:28 pm

    Our media’s borrowing of World War I era cartoon images of Eastern European Jews and redoing them with the men now dressed as Middle Eastern mullahs, is a reminder that antisemitism remains a form of racism. Are American Jewish publishers and editors comfortable about printing these updated racist images because they consider themselves to be white or is there another explanation?

  17. bookwoman
    July 30, 2010, 7:07 pm

    In my opinion the Holocaust Museum doesn’t belong on our National Mall in DC and never did. It isn’t part of our national history, except incidentally.

    If—no, WHEN—the day comes when I see

    1) that museum is removed from the Mall (send it to Germany; I know they already have one, but they are the ones originally responsible for that particular crime so they could probably use a second one);

    2) the Congress institutes a complete investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty and the associated cover-up,

    that’s when I’ll know that the decades-long Zionist occupation of our country is finally over. Probably then something else bad will take its place, but I’ll deal with that when I see it.

  18. hayate
    July 30, 2010, 9:04 pm

    While I think Stone does pull his punches too much in his political films, I think he his one of the very few american film makers who has any balls at all. The u.s. film industry is almost total limp willieville. It’s 99% rubbish and remakes of rubbish. This is almost totally thanks to zionist Jewish control of the american film industry, and american media in general.

    Oliver Stone is one of the very few who has risen above this ocean of excrement. And for that, he has my admiration.

  19. American
    July 31, 2010, 12:29 am

    Well the networks must not gotten the message in time cause I am right now looking at re run of Stone’s JFK on TV.

  20. RoHa
    July 31, 2010, 12:57 am

    Little quiz for everyone.

    During WW2, foreign armies fought back and forth through North Africa. Not merely in picturesque deserts (see Ice Cold In Alex – probably the best WW2 film ever made) but also through cities, farms, orchards and oases.

    How many times have you seen a suggestion, in books, films, TV shows, or anywhere else, that this might have occasioned a teensy bit of inconvenience for the locals?

    • potsherd
      July 31, 2010, 9:10 am

      The French are now belatedly expressing annoyance that their towns were bombed during WWII by the Allies, for whom their fate was not a prime consideration.

      • RoHa
        July 31, 2010, 11:26 pm

        But we do see films, books, etc., sympathising with the hard times of the French under occupation.

        (And far fewer mentioning that the Free French forces under deGaulle included an awful lot heavily shaded-in characters – including (gasp!) Arabs – from France’s various colonies.)

  21. Citizen
    July 31, 2010, 8:24 am

    Time to put this cognitive dissonance in context of the current US domestic economic situation, for example our huge debt in the trillions and our 17.5 % unemployment
    rate (including all those who have been unemployed for more than a year, written off the official unemployment books during the Clinton era). Israel’s unemployment rate is about 5% and Israel has national health insurance. Both the donkeys and the elephants agree we need to cut and/or cap some programs, e.g. Medicare. Why is nobody talking about cutting welfare checks to the foreign state that gets the largest dole and is the least grateful? Americans don’t need that money? For example, the WIC program concentrates on aiding the nutrition of our poor mothers and their babies (73% of black American moms are single mothers; 53% of Latino mothers; and 33% of white moms). This federal program costs American taxpayers 7.7 million per year. That’s also how much we give Israel to cover two year of (merely the direct) welfare to Israel. Further, we pay interest on that aid to Israel and their is no accounting of it. In contrast, every month WIC has to justify every penny it gets every month.
    According to federal government stats, we gave Israel 100 billion to Israel from 1949 to 2000. In the last decade all that money is earmarked for military aid to Israel. Current budget allocation by contract with Israel is 30 billion to 2018 to arm Israel, which is a 25% historical increase. During Shub’s regime, from 1/01 to 11/08, the weapons we paid for killed 2,000
    Palestinians who were not engaging in any hostile activities. How about Obama’s “change we can believe in?” During 3/09, two months after OP Cast Lead, Obama shipped 300 containers of weapons to Israel. The 2010 budget gives Israel 2,775 billion in military aid to Israel and, as already stated, the 2011 budget calls for 3 billion per year for 10 years. Why does it not matter that this dole is against existing US law? The Arms Export Control Act forbids arming an occupying power so engaged in war crimes.
    The Foreign Assistance Act forbids such aid because there is a gross pattern of human rights violations. And the Leahy Law, which is part of our federal budget process, forbids such aid to countries engaged in human rights violations. Can’t we use this money at home? You can go to and plug in your geographical local to find out what it’s percentage of taxpayer money could pay for if spent at home locally. An example, St Louis MO: That city’s portion of the 30 billion allocated to Israel for the next ten years would equal 78 million destined to pay for
    IDF weapons and gear. This sum would pay for 955 low income housing vouchers or to retrain the unemployed, or to support 23000 at risk students. The same sum would pay health care for 64000 who have no health insurance. link to

    • potsherd
      July 31, 2010, 9:08 am

      Foreign aid is the only sector that the majority of Americans agree should be cut.

  22. hayate
    July 31, 2010, 12:07 pm

    An example “cognitive dissonance on Jewish power” at work:

    Here are 2 articles on the zionist push for war against Iran. On can see the difference between the “chomsky” approach and that of someone less influenced by the zionist toxin.

    In the first:

    Lurching Toward War?
    Iran Under Siege


    link to

    Almost nothing is said about israeli or zionist influence behind the people pushing for war or tougher sanctions. It’s all american and the eu with the role of israel and zionists ignored completely. Reading this article, one would be lead to believe israel had no part in this push for war at all. It is all the usa’s and Europe’s doing.

    That is the chomsky approach, where the role of israel, and Jewish zionists is left out of the analysis and all discussion uses their puppets as the final decision makers without the strings noted. Without even noting the obvious anydimwit could see just from reading the zionist run western corporate media about israeli/zionist involvement. Every day one of these zionist elements is spouting off on the need to attack Iran.

    Now look at a more reasonable analysis:

    Neocon Nutballs Ramp Up Campaign
    Bomb Iran?


    link to

    He details the zionist/neocon/israeli players ramping up the attack Iran propaganda. Describes their connections to each other and israel. Describes the israeli lobby role and their role in having the u.s. congress declare it’s loyalty to israeli interests about Iran. What you get here is a much more realistic understanding of who is behind this warmongering and how they are going about laying the groundwork for public approval of the war.

    This is a huge difference from the crypto-zionist “chomsky” style of the dimaggio piece where the role of zionists and israel is cleverly hidden behind that of their puppet’s roles.

  23. Richard Witty
    August 1, 2010, 6:34 am

    A couple prominent individuals condemn an offensive comment and you interpret that as “cognitive dissonance on Jewish power”?

    How is that anything but an effort to establish ethnic quotas, official or just prejudicial?

Leave a Reply