The controversy over the Oscars joke that Jews run Hollywood

Below is video of the infamous “you want to work in this town?” joke about Jews running Hollywood, delivered by a teddy bear called “Ted” created by Seth MacFarlane, at the Academy Awards Sunday night. It’s getting a lot of attention. Note that the talking bear says it’s important to give money to Israel to work in Hollywood, and that Mark Wahlberg is hurt by being Catholic– before Wahlberg shuts him up.

The Wiesenthal Center is enraged. An Open Zion columnist calls it an “anti-Semitic canard.” The ADL also condemns age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes.

This is a slightly absurd conversation. The overwhelming Jewish numbers in Hollywood are no canard; and in a diverse society, people evidently want to talk about that, so they joke about it (as they joke that the Israel lobby runs Congress). JJ Goldberg at the Forward, who (while arguing defensively that the joke has the “power to kill. Right now, in today’s world, given the worldwide audience of the Oscars, it’s like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded planet”) concedes that “the strong presence of Jews in Hollywood surely has some sociological and cultural implications.”  

If anybody can genuinely be said to control Tinseltown, it’s probably the 25 people who run the 12 main film studios—that is, the chairman (in one case, two co-chairmen) and president of each. Of those 25, 21 are Jewish, or 84%. That’s simple math. You could define “control” differently—throw in the top agents and producers, leading directors, most bankable stars and so on—and the proportion of Jews would drop, but it probably wouldn’t get down anywhere near the 50% mark. There’s a reason why Nate & Al’s stays in business.

And when Brando was called on the carpet in 1996 for asserting on Larry King that Jews “own Hollywood,” 19 of 20 top studio execs were Jewish, Goldberg says. 

The issue in my mind is whether we’re all grownup enough to talk about these things without having pogroms, and I think we are. I’ve written here before that Jewish kinship networks are important professionally; most of my work in journalism has come from Jews with whom I share culture and language (very much the way Jodi Kantor got her job at the New York Times). People have a right to discuss these matters in a critical manner: in the ’60s sociologist E. Digby Baltzell, himself a WASP, helped break down Protestant discrimination against Jews in board rooms and back rooms with a book bewailing discrimination called The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America. Nick Lemann also ascribed a religious character to that former establishment when he called it “the Episcopacy” in his book on the meritocracy. So– what’s good for the goose… Lately Ron Unz, a Jewish meritocrat himself, published a study, The Myth of the American Meritocracy, saying that the Ivy Leagues, which he calls “the funnel” for the ruling elite, have student bodies that are 25 percent Jewish in some large part because Jews in the college admissions are looking for people like themselves. When he spoke at Yale in January, and a Southern Baptist in the audience questioned him, Unz established that there were two Southern Baptists in the audience, and said they ought to be better represented in the Ivy’s. He believes Jews are empowered and secure enough in a diverse liberal society to have this conversation. So do I.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 302 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Abdul-Rahman says:

    The most humorous thing about simply noting the disproportionate amount of Jewish people in positions of power in Hollywood being termed a supposed “canard”; is there are certain “triumphalist” Jewish figures who have BRAGGED about this to a large extent! So are they part of this same alleged “canard”??!

    link to en.wikipedia.org “An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood”

    link to youtube.com video of “An Empire of Their Own”

    • bilal a says:

      Travolta allegedly added another detail about Hollywood Networking:

      link to heebmagazine.com

      • okkkkay, well that’s interesting. i’ve heard this rumor for years (mostly from ex scientologists) but this is the most explicit.

        • W.Jones says:

          Annie,
          What do you think about Feldman’s claim about abuse:

          I thought Feldman was a pretty good actor with a good personality, by the way.

        • i think often, the same kind of personality attracted to power, is attracted to sexual power and that plays out in different forms. certainly pedophilia is one of them. lots of very powerful people are sick or they would not be where they are. personal power comes sometimes from genius, but often from pure drive. and drive is fueled by competition. to some people the luring of the innocent or the unscathed is the xenith of power, for some it is the forbidden. for those who seek both,the outcome is frequently pedophilia. hollywood is power. there is not a chance in hell pedophilia is not rampant there.

    • W.Jones says:

      Abdul,

      One of the problems is that there really is a fringe element among southern white protestants who focus only on their own cultural group and talk about Hollywood in a stereotypical way. What is the response or counterargument when real racists portray Hollywood in this way?

    • Marco says:

      Why is the word “canard” become almost exclusively reserved for describing supposedly anti-Semitic statements. When was the last time you heard someone use the word canard when it was not preceded by anti-Semitic?

      In this respect it has some similarity with the word denier, as in Holocaust denier. Nobody says Native American genocide denier or potato famine denier. Although climate change has now entered into the denier lexicon for some reason.

      When you see stock phrases like this, it’s a mark of lazy thinking. It’s a sign that a ritual is being performed: thou art a purveyor of canards.

  2. Phan Nguyen says:

    It’s interesting that the Israeli Consulate in New York thought it was funny and tweeted about it immediately after:

    Thank you Theodore Shapiro for your support! #oscars #ted

    link to twitter.com

  3. pabelmont says:

    All this “run by Jews” stuff is not important. Really. What is important is the degree to which this “run by Jews” fact (it is a fact) translates into cultural or political propaganda (because film is, inter alia, a propaganda medium).

    So it these Jews are Zionists, or act as if they were (which they might because, perhaps, they have Zionist friends they’d like to please and not offend), then they do propaganda work for Israel. The proof is in the pudding.

    Next year at the Oscars, the joke should not be about “Hollywood is run by Jews” but “Hollywood is run by Zionists”. (If it is.)

    • W.Jones says:

      Isn’t Phil making a good point that people in admissions are most likely to hire people like themselves, and then (ironically) intentionally pick 1 or 2 minorities for “diversity”?

      • hophmi says:

        “Isn’t Phil making a good point that people in admissions are most likely to hire people like themselves, and then (ironically) intentionally pick 1 or 2 minorities for “diversity”?”

        He makes that point all the time, but backs it up with zero evidence. It’s a stereotype Phil has of the Jewish community, and nothing more.

        I don’t mind people who argue that whites, including Jews, must take account of their own privilege in American society; I would say the same. But I think taking it to this level is absurd and wrong, particularly when it’s done without ever citing anything but personal anecdotes.

        • Philip Weiss says:

          Wait it’s a stereotype I have of the WASP establishment too. In 71 after considerable complaint Harvard Law School finally got a Jewish dean. Mandarins behave like mandarins

  4. tokyobk says:

    “Secret synagogue meeting…” MacFarlane is also poking fun at the Jews-run-hollywood idea too. I mean MacFarlane, whose career is in no danger, is hosting the most important show in Hollywood making this joke which claims unless one kowtows to Jews a career will end. Its not antisemitism and its no sign that that gates are now open to discuss a taboo. Its a joke.

    Jewish individuals do disproportionally run hollywood, but do The Jews run hollywood in a way that is somehow Jewish? Meaning the way Eddie Murphy once imagined how white people treated one another at banks and on the bus when no blacks were around. I don’t see that.

    • American says:

      “but do The Jews run hollywood in a way that is somehow Jewish?”…tokyobike

      I think so –in the sense that there are some or enough that are Jewish centric that they always ‘present” the Jewish story in a certain way. Nothing says Hollywood movies have to be historically accurate, but it’s noticeable all Bollywood movies promote Jewish or zionist myths instead of taking them on or making a controverisal film out of it as they do with many other topics. Ever seen a Jewish or Israeli villain or spy in a movie? I haven’t…..plenty of Arabs, Russians, Latin drug lords, white guys, white religious freaks, other various flavors and nationalities of bad guys, and corrupt politicians ….but never a Jewish or Israeli one.

      • tokyobk says:

        Do your own google but from “A Price Above Rubies” to Fagin in Oliver Twist to Bugsy Siegel, yes I have. I would say the Jews in Gibson’s Christ film were not such good guys either.

        And, sadly not fiction, two movies with Israeli as clearly the bad guys just got nominated for Academy Awards.

        • American says:

          tokyobk says:
          February 26, 2013 at 3:11 pm
          + Show content
          Do your own google but from “A Price Above Rubies” to Fagin in Oliver Twist to Bugsy Siegel, yes I have. I would say the Jews in Gibson’s Christ film were not such good guys either.>>>>>

          Well I guess I just don’t recongize a Jew when I see one in the movies….must remind myself to notice who are Jews from now on..LOL

          However I still maintain that Hollywood ‘for the most most part” sticks to presenting the Jewish story in a certain way….uncritically….the same way the US media has stayed away from anything critical or explosive about Israel.

      • goldmarx says:

        Have you seen every US movie ever made to make such a remark?

        In the first Dracula movie with Bela Lugosi, Dracula is wearing a large Star of David as he is entertaining Jonathan Harker.

        Bollywood? You mean movies made in India are promoting Israel? Who knew that the tiny Jewish community of Cochin had such influence!

      • Cristo, in Act of Valor, with a Muslim terrorist partner from some vague youthful connection, was a wealthy Ukrainian Jew engaged in international arms smuggling, including supplying terrorists, and who was looking to “retire south” (a reference to Israel) when the Seals nab him off his yacht, the main bad guy in the second most recent Seals movie.

        Better not to generalize.

        What percentage of Jews in power in Hollywood remain avid Zionists? versus those who’ve grown sick of the corruption that Israeli power and lies have wrought on their youthful idealism? That would be a more pertinent question. And my gut says the momentum is against Zionism. My California Senators who are both Jewish are both voting for Chuck Hagel. I don’t think they identify with Likud.

        • tokyobk says:

          The Jews of Hollywood are disproportionately gay, intermarried, self styled liberal, Democrat, and probably also sympathetic to Israel (in a J-Street not AIPAC way), that is liberal Zionist but prone to the underdog which is clearly becoming more so in the American mind the Palestinians.

        • i can’t imagine Democrats voting against their own presidential party platform.

      • Ecru says:

        I’m not sure how significant it is but the television series NCIS seems to portray Mossad as dodgy to say the least with even the Israeli character they have, Zeeva David (played by a Chilean), giving up her Israeli citizenship. It’s not much, but it’s a HUGE change from everything that’s gone before.

      • Elliot says:

        @American –
        This is the second time in the last few days that you are indulging in your sloppy prejudice against Jews.
        First on the MLK story you insinuate without a shred of evidence that Jews are a “fifth column” and dish out baseless accusations. You ran away from that thread to start this stuff over here.
        Now, you’re generalizing anti-Jewish sentiment about Hollywood.

        • Danaa says:

          Elliot, doing some “gatekeeping”?

          I’ve said much worse than American in times past but you won’t come after me, how come? what am I, chopped liver?

          I understand people worry about the “dual loyalty’ and “fifth column” business. But prey do tell, as an avid progressive (I surmise) with true liberal universalist instincts, just what do you call the neocon group that got the US embrolied in Iraq, effectively destroying that country and causing over 4000 US fatalities and 10′s of thousand wounded American soldiers? was it or wasn’t it a “fifth column”? did they or didn’t they help bring America down in the eyes of most around the world? did they or didn’t they compromise American interests? (yes, i know not every neocon is jewish – why, there was Cheney! and — who else, now? Lindsey Graham, you say? Glenn Beck?).

          And what of those current latter-day neocons – mostly jewish right wing + obamites (jewish and friends) – that have been rattling sabers about iran? who exactly decided Iran was a US enemy?

          And who are those now actively engaged in trying to destroy Syria? oh yes, I know it’s so humanitarian of them…..

          Do you honestly believe the likes of Krystol care a hoot about Americans except as a fig-leaf and a prop for Israel? just based on what the guy writes and says – patriotism much? for whom?

          I understand the sensitivity some people have. But what we have been seeing from Congress is a travesty of a democracy hijacked (37 standing ovations!). Is it all the jews’ fault? neh – of course not. But there’s a sizeable group of jewish Americans whose concern for America – or really for humanity as a whole – is suspect. And i say that not out of not because of prejudice but because of what these individuals – separately and in their own little groups (WINEP for example) say, advocate and do – quite publicly. No hidden cabal be they….

          To me the real problem is that we have a funny “fifth within a fifth column” made of monied oligarchs and friends, whose interests are not those of humanity as a whole. Many of these individuals – people like Krystol, Bolton, Dershowitcz, Addelson and Saban may not even care all that much about Israel, though it may seem like they do. To me that’s the story that needs to be told.

          Now, can you please put me in the accused corner as well? I don’t mind, really….I’ll have interesting company – not only the “likes’ of one “American” but probably some Viking descendants and a few Australians too. OK, a couple of israelis and one whose name can be spoken only in whispers (yes, it’s gilad*). We’ll just have our own little extra-prejudicial song and dance party.

          ___
          * oops, did I just say that name again?

        • American says:

          @ Elliot

          I am flattered that you hang on my every word—even if you get it wrong.
          BTW….I said ‘zionist’ are a fifth column, not Jews….but nice try.

        • hophmi says:

          “I said ‘zionist’ are a fifth column, not Jews….but nice try.”

          Says American in the 1960s: I said only those Blacks who were supporters of integration were a fifth column, not all of them, but nice try.

          Sound ok to you?

          Most Jews are Zionists. So, according to you, the vast majority of Jews in this country constitute a Fifth Column. We don’t allow people to play divide and conquer with us. We had enough of that experience with the medieval Catholic Church.

        • Does “Zionist” mean someone who supports Israel within its “1967″ borders? Or someone who supports further expansion, annexation, etc etc etc?

      • broadside says:

        If you’ve seen the film Lincoln you probably noticed at the end (hard not to) Lincoln’s seemingly entirely gratuitous comment about wanting to visit Jerusalem, walk where David walked… Line stood out like a bleached-blond Lincoln, I thought.

        Put me down as believing those types of messages, the subliminal marketing, occur throughout Hollywood films. In fact, there’s a terrific line in Malvern (malvernthenovel.com) which I’ll quote: the character (the book is composed entirely of emails) says to his friend, “Just caught some movie where some woman was putting an American flag on a bar mitzvah cake! (Greer Garson would never have stooped so low.) Then caught 10 seconds of an interview Diane Sawyer did with Amadhinejad and you’d swear the translator attended the Mel Blanc school of Arab translation.

        Can only assume snake wrestler on the nature channel was wearing a Brandeis T-shirt.”

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “If you’ve seen the film Lincoln you probably noticed at the end (hard not to) Lincoln’s seemingly entirely gratuitous comment about wanting to visit Jerusalem, walk where David walked… Line stood out like a bleached-blond Lincoln, I thought.”

          Why? Lincoln is purported to have expressed this desire on the day he was shot.

      • jonrich111 says:

        “Ever seen a Jewish or Israeli villain or spy in a movie?”

        Watch some Spike Lee films. Or what about the film “Lucky Number Sleven,” which features an evil Jewish mafia boss as the villain.

      • Scott says:

        Ever seen a Jewish or Israeli villain or spy in a movie?

        Once, in “An Education” an English movie, based on a memoir.

    • W.Jones says:

      Toky,

      On one hand, you make a good point that one group may not necessarily function essentially different than another group. People still want to make good movies. But on the other hand, haven’t we seen that the second biggest issue Hagel got grilled on was Iran, and that the movie that won the Oscar was also a jingoist movie on Iran?

      A claim occasionally made in Christian religious circles – although the claim is not based on Hollywood’s composition – is that Christianity is often disrespected. In this regard, one might take into account the movie “The Last Temptation” or Maher’s movie Religulous, which some on Mondoweiss have said do not treat the three Abrahamic faiths equally. Granted, Christianity was long an institutional religion in Europe and leftists have a long tradition of particularly focusing on Christian institutions. And granted, Mel Gibson made “The Passion”, but he also did it with his own company and after already well establishing himself as an actor. In any case, one may consider whether Hollywood disproportionately gives a negative image of certain religions over others.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        Well, I’ll ignore the notion that “Argo” was jingoistic. But anyone who would say that the Last Temptation of Christ was anti-Christian really has no business offering an opinion on either film or Christianity. In fact, though it was a flawed film, it was perhaps the only filmic depictions of Jesus which actually took seriously the religious notions of the dual nature of Christ’s identity.

        What these people are complaining about, in my opinion, is that Christianity is artistically examined.

        • W.Jones says:

          Dear Woody, my main point was not that Christian beliefs are criticized, but that some religions seem to be especially criticized. After all, there is a long history of philosophers criticizing religious institutions. At first glance Maher’s movie Religulous falls into that category. But wouldn’t you agree that he brings a certain bias into it? After portraying two of three religions as violent, he ends the movie by going to a place where he says a fanatical religious war would happen. However, the third religious group has military control of that location and a Sampson policy!

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Oh, I agree that that the degree of criticism is not even, even if I differ on some specifics.

          I think that Maher took it easy on Judaism in that movie because he did not want to upset his mother. I could be mistaken, but I believe there was an interview where he basically said this. (But my memory isn’t very sharp on this point, so I might be mistaken.)

      • tokyobk says:

        I agree that the Jewish story has been portrayed sympathetically and that it also safe in a way to bash Christians and WASPs in a way no one would bash others.

        I just don;t think, in fact I know, Jews in hollywood are not consciously promoting any particular Jewish agenda, not even Israel, and Mac Farlane was poking fun at people who think there is a secret synagogue for the elect.

      • goldmarx says:

        “The Passion” was clearly an anti-Semitic Gibson film. And Hollywood movies for decades disseminated stereotypes of Jewish women as whining, sexless and materialistic Jewish American Princesses. That needs to be added to the mix when considering that.

        • stereotypes of Jewish women as whining, sexless and materialistic Jewish American Princesses

          yeah, like scarlett johansson, jennifer aniston and natalie portman yuk!

        • W.Jones says:

          And Maggie Gyllenhaal.

        • W.Jones says:

          Goldmarx,

          Gibson’s movie serves as a “counterpoint” to the claim about Hollywood. But nonetheless, it is debateable how much the movie was “part of” Hollywood since he made it on its own.

          By the way, Norman Finkelstein disagreed with Hitchens’ claim that the movie was anti-Semitic. In the same interview, I think, Finkelstein also cast doubt on whether the Neocons were really concerned about anti-Semitism. He pointed out that his own parents were Holocaust survivors and yet the future politicians he grew up with in the 1950′s did not show his family particular sympathy.

        • looove her. she’s actually the first who came into my mind but since she isn’t the typical..hottie i didn’t mention her. but she’s awesome. i really adore her. her lil bro too.

        • goldmarx says:

          Jennifer Aniston is Greek-American. The others have not played any Jewish characters of note (unless I missed something).

        • The others have not played any Jewish characters of note

          you mean they have not played any stereotypes of Jewish women?

          most jewish women are not jewish stereotypes anyway, so in that sense they play characters that are as much jewish as anything other woman. i don’t think hollywood treats jewish actresses negatively for the most part, at all. but if this is an argument you want to win go ahead.

        • goldmarx says:

          I am not basing my assessment of “Passion” based on Finkelstein or Hitchens, but my own viewing. Gibson grew up in Hollywood and his film was distributed along the same channels as mainstream films even it was produced as a vanity project.

          Isn’t Finkelstein the one who claimed that the BDS movement is a cult?

        • goldmarx says:

          No, I meant these actresses have not played any Jewish cinema characters of note – I meant what I said.

          I’m not interested in ‘winning’ – I just want people in the BDS movement to make informed decisions, not ones based on ignorance or stereotypes.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “By the way, Norman Finkelstein disagreed with Hitchens’ claim that the movie was anti-Semitic.”

          I think that Finkelstein was right. I can see why Jews might not like it, but that is not, in my mind, mean it is antisemitic. It was a very Catholic film, though. It was a two-hours-long Stations of the Cross.

        • Citizen says:

          Jennifer Aniston’s father is Greek and a native of Crete, while her mother was born in New York City. One of her maternal great-grandfathers was an Italian immigrant, and her mother’s other ancestry is Scottish, Irish, and a small amount of Greek.

          Scarlett Johansson’s father, Karsten Johansson, is a Danish-born architect originally from Copenhagen, and her paternal grandfather, Ejner Johansson, was a screenwriter and director. Her mother, Melanie Sloan, a producer, comes from an Ashkenazi Jewish family from the Bronx. Melanie’s ancestors emigrated to New York from Minsk, Belarus.

          Maggi Gyllenhaal’s father was raised in the Swedenborgian religion, is of Swedish and English ancestry, and is a member of the Swedish noble Gyllenhaal family. Her last purely Swedish ancestor was her great-grandfather, a descendant of Leonard Gyllenhaal, a leading Swedenborgian who supported the printing and spreading of Swedenborg’s writings. Her mother is Jewish with both Russian and Lithuanian ancestry and is divorced from Eric Foner, a noted historian and history professor atColumbia University. Gyllenhaal has stated that she “grew up mostly Jewish, culturally”, though she did not attend Hebrew school.

          Natalie Portman was born in Jerusalem, “Israel.” She is the only child of Shelley (née Stevens), an American homemaker who works as Portman’s agent, and Avner Hershlag, an Israeli citizen who is a fertility specialist and gynecologist. Portman’s maternal ancestors were Jewish immigrants to the US, from Austria and Russia (her mother’s family had changed their surname from “Edelstein” to “Stevens”). Her paternal grandparents were Jews who moved to Israel from Poland and Romania. She’s a dual citizen, and says her “heart’s in Jerusalem.”

        • what does this have to do with bds? you said Hollywood movies for decades disseminated stereotypes of Jewish women as whining, sexless and materialistic Jewish American Princesses

          hollywood movies starring jewish actresses is what determines stereotypes for jewish women, the vast majority of those characachers are not denigrating (regardless of if they are playing ‘jewish’ roles). what are you kvetching about? the sexless and materialistic Jewish American Princesses roles we can count on one hand, the beautiful stars are in abundance.

        • goldmarx says:

          Connection to BDS? Because Mondoweiss is perceived as a platform for the BDS movement, so whatever is said here may be taken as a reflection of it. So yes, folks here need to careful not to say anything that will put a smile on the face of Alan Dershowitz.

          Hollywood movies that happen to have Jewish actresses do NOT determine stereotypes, it is the characters these actresses play. “Goodbye Columbus” and “The Heartbreak Kid” and “Dirty Dancing” depicted Jewish women as JAPs – I am referring to the CHARACTERS, not the ethnicity of the actresses who played those roles, OK? (Sheesh!)

          There are plenty of beautiful Jewish actresses in Hollywood, yes, but are they allowed to play CHARACTERS who are Jewish and sex positive, non-neurotic, and caring about others? That is the real test, and in the movies, Hollywood has flunked consistently (TV is a bit more liberal – Debra Messing in “Will & Grace”).

        • broadside says:

          Allow me a recommendation, please. Maggie Gyllenhaal. If I’m not mistaken her first film is Waterland, directed by her father. It is, I think, an effective and powerful film version of the sublime Graham Swift novel. (Even Ethan Hawke is good.) Jeremy Irons has never been better, neither has Sinead Cusack (real-life wife) or the late great Pete Postelthwaite. And John Heard does a great turn as the school principal. Superb soundtrack by Carter Burwell.

          And Annie, again: check out Malvern. Referenced above. malvernthenovel.com. A really wild ride, a very fast read, I think you’d like. A guy fights back, takes down the government. And Dick Cheney goes to jail.

        • I don’t think “The Passion” qualifies as Hollywood film. Gibson funded it himself and picked up all the profits when Hollywood backed away and attacked it, creating a huge buzz for the movie in the process.

          Are you suggesting that Hollywood is controlled not by Jews but rather by Jewish men

          Who have issues with their wives and mothers?

        • thanks for the recs broadside

        • i disagree. people learn thru other means than by the labels we put on things.

        • goldmarx says:

          Hollywood is not controlled by Jews at all – the studios are subsidiaries of mostly Gentile-chaired transnational corporations like Sony and Fox. The studio heads who make the creative decisions are their flunkies.

          The studios were founded last century by Jewish immigrants who were desperate to assimilate and not offend the powers that be. For more info, see Neil Gabler’s, “An Empire of Their Own”

    • Kathleen says:

      Vanessa Redgrave was run out of Hollywood

      • Citizen says:

        @ Kathleen,
        It was a short speech, in which Redgrave thanked the Academy for standing up to intimidation to give her the award, and promised to continue to defend the rights of Jews around the world – but in doing so she referred to the actions of “a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums”.
        It’s clear now that she was referring to the extremists of the Jewish Defense League who had offered a bounty to have her killed. Yet in the context of her support for the PLO, this was a spectacularly ill-chosen phrase, one that made it possible for Redgrave’s detractors to imply that she meant the whole state of Israel, and thus damn her as an anti-Semite for years to come. Its immediate effect was to make her all but unemployable in Hollywood. link to telegraph.co.uk

        Any Hollywood celeb besides Mel Gibson know about this? 1978 was a long time ago. Canning Redgrave worked like a charm, except on Gibson when he was drunk? Then we have Jon Voight…. no wonder his daughter stays silent on the I-P issue. Ted Bear’s routine at the last Oscar Awards delivered the threatening message again through the mouth of a sock puppet, fittingly.

  5. FreddyV says:

    The one thing that I find amazing about Hollywood is the sheer number of blockbusters that have a plot line about minority or indigenous populations being forced to battle the larger Imperial / colonial power that intends to wipe them out.

    Does no one see the irony when watching these flicks?

    Off the top of my head:

    Star Wars
    Avatar
    Dances With Wolves
    Schindler’s List
    The Matrix

    Anyone want to add to these?

    • W.Jones says:

      What was that movie about the Belsky brothers fighting the Nazis?

    • piotr says:

      I would add “Spaceballs”, which is rife with self-deprecating Jewish jokes. One of the main characters is a “Druish princess” who “does not even look Druish” as she had a nose job. Kind of a borsch belt movie (which I would recommend).

    • MRW says:

      FreddyV,

      That’s because the writers write melodrama where it’s always a wholly good people or person who are done in by evil others. Constant melodramatic fare is a sign that a society or civilization is unsophisticated. (I’m good, they’re evil. I was sitting here minding my own business and they attacked me.)

      Only a mature and sophisticated society/civilization wants and writes tragedy, which always involves the people or person acknowledging the part they played that led to their demise or trouble. Tragedy involves self-realization. (e.g. Hamlet, the Greeks)

      I am not using the terms melodrama or tragedy as pejoratives here. They are distinct literary styles. Comedy is 99% melodrama.

  6. Scott says:

    It may be somewhat important–one can tire of movies which make fun of WASPs, which is a kind of a Hollywood default mode– but it’s hardly critical. Most movies aren’t political even in the above-mentioned way. I think the body of work analysed in “Reel Bad Arabs” also makes a difference also, but I’d be surprised if that hasn’t become somewhat softened in the last couple of decades. I think the bottom line is that while a country can only have one foreign policy, entertainment is by its nature diverse and open to various competing inflences. And my sense is that probably of the talented Jews in Hollywood are at least somewhat and often very open to different, non exclusive, and non-bigoted perspectives. Recall the discussion of that Larry David episode, how much people here enjoyed it. My guess is that a neocon like David Mamet feels fairly isolated in Hollywood, the way Bill Kristol does not at all in Washington.

    • W.Jones says:

      I remember when 91 happened. I was listening to Howard Stern in the morning, and basically had no knowledge of the IP conflict. Instead of the normal humor, he said he knew who did it. He said angrily it was those towel heads and they showed just all be driven out of there. I had a feeling he was talking about Palestinians. I was very surprised to hear him, a comedian, talk this way (driving a people out), and with such anger.

      So sometimes there can be a negative implication made, even in a show that is not political. For example, the “Palestinian alarm clock” in Family Guy. I read that a big proportion of Palestinian (or Arab?) actors end up playing parts depicting negative characters.

      At first glance it’s done not to make a show “political”, but as a “funny” moment where the audience is supposed to already be
      “in the know.” As in everyone already knows Palestinians are typically like this, just as Russians like vodka and Canadians like hockey.

      • Citizen says:

        Yeah, that “Palestinian alarm clock” in Family Guy. He says he doesn’t make fun of groups, only different characters. And he says a lot of the guys he churns up jokes with at the joke table our Jewish. There, we have the nerdie, ugly Jew family, and the Jew “good with money,” (a delayed episode that almost did not make it on the air) and the Jewish doctor, etc Peter himself of course is the lowbrow, drunken, stupid white working guy, Irish. And so on. The Palestinian alarm clock is a suicide bomber. Peter’s father is a cold, petty, devout and hugely intolerant rigid pious Catholic. Peter tries to turn his son into a Jew, for the same reason he prayed for a Jew. Peter’s wife has Jewish roots, but she’s open to all religions, very liberal, usually.

    • sardelapasti says:

      Scott – Oh sure, they can also be “liberal”. But warmongers and Zionists they are. Liberal murderers.

    • Krauss says:

      Scott, that’s pretty wimpy. The reason why there has been a ‘softening’ is because there is no longer any real counter-force.

      Does the ethnic/cultural/religious composition of the Hollywood elite matter? Does it matter a lot? Yes. To say anything otherwise would be foolish.

      I actually think that in the last decade, the anti-WASP undercurrent has been overshadowed by anti-Arab racism, often explicit, when Hollywood movies portray them as terrorists or worse.

      If Hollywood’s elite was more diverse, don’t you think that such racism would be more critically dissemniated? Also, notice that essentially all the winners at the recent Oscars are white. So while Jews do have a disproportinate representation, remember that 20 to 25% of Jews in America are non-white. Are there any non-white Jews there? No.

      While it has gotten me in trouble before, I have said and continue to claim that many white Jews would prefer to intermarry with a white WASP(to their liking of course) rather than with a black Jew. That isn’t the case for progressive Jews, generally, but actual progressive Jews are a minority, the vast liberal mainstream is more conservative on such matters. While most of the winners weren’t Jews, almost all, if not all of them, were white.

      So it isn’t just a cultural/religious issue. It’s also a racial issue. It’s basically all Ashkenazi Jews when you look at the Jews who are there.

  7. Cliff says:

    Great article.

    I liken the defensive response (on the surface at least) from the ADL and Open Zion and generally the Zionist Right to the inquisition inflicted on Senator Hagel.

    Abrams was right. Even though Hagel is in, he’s weakened substantially.

    So the inquisition by the Israel Lobby (represented by the ADL in these situations) has value in and of itself.

    They don’t necessarily need to win in their campaign to get a political opponent ousted/disqualified/marginalized.

    The public relations fiasco they cause is enough to stigmatize the targeted person – and it also marks Israeli/Zionist territory. In other words, it’s a message to others. A show of force.

    The ADL is primarily concerned with control.

    The lack of nuance is intentional. The lack of context is intentional. It’s an end-less stream of gotcha-statements. (‘point-scoring’ rhetoric)

    Just the other day I was saying the same thing about Hollywood as an institution (just like Big Media/MSM). And to my surprise (not), hoppy said I was Pat Buchanan – which is simply saying, antisemite (from a Ziobot’s perspective).

    The more ethnocentric Jews in America push back against these kinds of public catharsis – the more credibility they lend to the argument being made.

    The entire canard is a straw-man inherently though.

    I think if you qualify your statement and apply filters and take into account the pressures within the industry – you come to a sociological conclusion.

    I mean, it’s like looking at poverty and mental illness. Statistics show that general anxiety disorder is most prevalent in low SES (socio-economic status), female, young (as opposed to ‘old’) African Americans.

    You could do the same to Hollywood – again with parameters.

    And I think you can say with high probability (not certainty/not absolutes) that Jews as an ethno-religious group – in Hollywood – are much more successful and in higher management positions than any other ethnic group.

    The Zionist response is a slippery slope, straw-man, etc. So they look past the data of anything that contradicts their victim-hood complex.

    We see it all the time with human rights reporting on the Israel-Palestine issue. Why wouldn’t it be the same with Hollywood and movies?

    What would the ADL react any differently? It’s characteristic of them to be pro-censorship and obsessive with controlling the narrative.

  8. bilal a says:

    The script, which was clearly planned and rehearsed, and approved by the academy beforehand, is obviously a satire, derision directed at those who believe 1) you have to be part Jewish to be a famous actor/actress, 2) those who think you have to be Jewish to ‘work in this town’, 3) those who claim Jewish ancestry for Hollywood networking careerism, 4) thos who claim financial support for Zionism -Israel is a career enhancer for Hollywood profeshionals, and 5) those who believe there are secret meetings where Jews discuss Hollywood career awards. Therefore the ADL could have written the script as saitre and ridicule of those claiming Israeli and Jewish networking exists in Hollywood. Note max Blumenthol has spoken of Israeli influence in Hollywood. Hence the content, and the immediate reaction of jewish organizations to the content, suggests it is an effort by Seth Mcfarlane and the Academy to ridicule and stigmatize, place beyond the pale, those who recognize disproportional Jewish and Zionist influence in Hollywood . Wahlberg in the script pronounces Ted an idiot for expressing these views, and states that he will not work with ted in the future , as a result. The net result of the satire is then a threat to Gentiles for even discussing the matter.

    Loose Transcript:

    Ted: Look at all this talent, all this talent in one spot. Theres ah, theres Daniel Day lewis, Theres Ellen Arkin..Theres Joachim Phoenix.

    And you know whats interesting, all those actors I just named are part jewish.

    Wahlberg: oh, Ok.

    Ted: What about you, you got a Berg, on the end of your name, Are you Jewish ?

    Wahlberg > No, Am I jewish, actually no, Im Catholic.

    Ted: Wrong answer, try again.

    Wahliberg : What?

    Ted: [whispering] Look, you wanna work in this town, or don’t you?

    [louder] I am Jewish.

    Wahlberg: No yourn not.

    Ted: I am. Iam, I am. I was born Theodore Shapiro and I would like to donate money to Israel and continue to work in Hollywood forever. Thank you I am Jewish.

    Wahlberg: Youre an idiot.

    Ted; Well, We’ll see who is the Idiot when they give me my private plane at the next secret synagogue meeting

    Wahlberg: Im not doing a sequel with you, Ok?

    • Citizen says:

      “The net result of the satire is then a threat to Gentiles for even discussing the matter.”

      Exactly.

      The ADL condemned the skit, it said, because rubes in the hinterlands around the world might actually believe the canard, although Hollywood insiders know better (i.e., the truth, which is that Jews don’t run Hollywood).

      While the ADL says the skit was anti-semitic, a threat to Jews, the skit was actually only directed at Gentiles, not Jews. And it was a threat wrapped in a cocky Teddy Bear.

      • citizen, that was the way i perceived it as an audience member.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “The ADL condemned the skit”

        that’s interesting that Fat Abe’s group is becoming very critical of comedy — the donkey fellatio skit, the Ted Oscar bit. Does anyone know if the ADL said anything about the DJesus Uncrossed skit that upset so many Christians?? Or did they not care when their own ox wasn’t being gored?

    • American says:

      bilal a says:

      The script, which was clearly planned and rehearsed, and approved by the academy beforehand, is obviously a satire,….”>>>

      I took it as satire too. And it does indicate a effort/agenda on someone’s part to defuse the perception the Hollywood has some Jewish nepotism or whatever going on.
      This is exactly what I meant when I said that some do use their positions to correct, present or protect Jewish related issues.

      Otherwise it wouldn’t have even been presented on the Oscar stage…there would have been ‘no point’ to it.

  9. biorabbi says:

    David Duke mirrors your desire to talk about Jewish control over Hollywood. Phil, don’t you realize this. Is it really needed? Phil, would you call it racist to talk about African American dominance in sprinting or basketball? What would you call a highly educated pundit who talks and questions in a serious manner the dominance of Africans and African Americans in sprinting and basketball? I believe you would call him a racist; and you would be right. What’s so different about Hollywood and Jews?

    The debate and question has history, dating back to Jews representation in ‘control’ over the economy, our higher education institutions, our government.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “David Duke mirrors your desire to talk about Jewish control over Hollywood. Phil, don’t you realize this.”

      Baloney. What Duke wants to discuss and what Phil wants to discuss are not merely mirror images, but on different planets. And even if you’re right: So what? Just because Duke might have an agenda does not mean that a discussion will play into that agenda.

      “Phil, would you call it racist to talk about African American dominance in sprinting or basketball? What would you call a highly educated pundit who talks and questions in a serious manner the dominance of Africans and African Americans in sprinting and basketball? I believe you would call him a racist; and you would be right.”

      Actually, you are wrong. There has been a lot of (non-racist) talk about the dominance of West Africans and people of West African descent in sprinting. It’s not racist to discuss it; it would be racist to draw a conclusion about a particular person from that discussion.

      “What’s so different about Hollywood and Jews?”

      It’s exactly the same. It’s not racist to discuss the topic. It would be racist to draw a particular conclusion about a person on account of that.

      “The debate and question has history, dating back to Jews representation in ‘control’ over the economy, our higher education institutions, our government.”

      This is nothing more than an excuse, and a rather lame and transparent one at that. You are comparing apples and oranges.

    • Bumblebye says:

      The difference being that Duke makes his presentation from his white supremacist viewpoint.
      And with regard to the sports issue, is there a ‘black kinship network’ operating to advance its own/act as gatekeeper letting thru only blacks?
      The power issue is the main issue here. This is an ethnic kinship netword that can exclude other minorities as well as better qualified/talented individuals in order to enhance its own representation (possibly leading to long term detrimental effect?) at everyone elses expense.

      • Citizen says:

        @Bumblee

        Professional sports careers and Olympic contests, sports generally, one’s success is mostly based on easily seen comparative merit. A successful career in Hollywood is not in the same league. Yes, apples and oranges.

    • libra says:

      biorabbi, I’m not sure why you’re getting so exercised about Hollywood. I’ve recently been hearing it very quietly being put about that Jews run Israel. Frankly, given the awful way Israel behaves towards the Palestinians I think you should concentrate on putting a stop to such clearly racist whispering before it gets out of hand.

    • W.Jones says:

      South Park did a good show on how college students (in fact predominantly black atheletes) are taken advantage of financially by the college sports system. Sports is one of the outlets blacks have to achieve in a system that discriminates against them. So the issue of blacks in sports and discrimination is a real one that can be discussed.

    • sardelapasti says:

      “David Duke mirrors your desire to talk about Jewish control over Hollywood.”

      We are talking Zionist control. These guys are the worlds’ most effective Zionist propaganda agency and provide billions to Zionists. In addition to deciding every single elected official in the US. Can’t Duke be right about, say, the multiplication table?

      “…who talks and questions in a serious manner the dominance of Africans and African Americans in sprinting and basketball? ”

      If it is a fact, it is a fact.

      Like 21/24 Zionist (and Jewish) owners of main Hollywood propaganda houses.

      • marc b. says:

        Can’t Duke be right about, say, the multiplication table?

        the answer of course is no, he can’t. once i learned that nazi rocket scientists took the curvature of the earth into consideration when calculating projectories, i firmly embraced a flat world in a sense of solidarity with victims of WWII. now i never travel beyond the horizon so i don’t fall off the edge of the earth. saves on gas too.

        • once i learned that nazi rocket scientists took the curvature of the earth into consideration when calculating projectories, i firmly embraced a flat world

          ha! perfect response,sard too. this duke allegation reminds me of the hysterical team shalom post over at dkos justifying banning all mention or links to mondowiess.

          it’s a point scoring technique called the false equivalence and they teach how to do it in the hasbara handbook. i think it’s on pg 32 but it’s been a long time since i looked it up.

        • lysias says:

          I don’t think they’ve modified their policy about Mondoweiss at Daily Kos yet, but, to judge by this thread, it looks like the long tyranny of Team Shalom over there may be over: Has there been a “regime change” at the Daily Kos?

        • omg lysias, that’s amazing if true. i still have not read the supporting links or the whole diary but the opening is a shocker.

        • lysias says:

          I found volleyboy’s GBCW bowout from dkos: Hey Shithead Bigots – You got your wish… GBCW (Feb. 5, 2013). Classy as ever in the title he chose.

          To judge by the diary, his exit was primarily motivated by disputes over the Hagel nomination.

      • Cliff says:

        Can’t Duke be right about, say, the multiplication table?

        LOL

    • Kathleen says:

      “would you call it racist to talk about African American dominance in sprinting or basketball?” But are Jews dominant in the upper tiers of Hollywood because of dominant skill sets or because of tribal protection? And are some issues shut down from being talked about made into films, documentaries etc because of the dominance of Jews in the upper tiers of Hollywood? And the dominance of Jews in Hollywood did make a huge difference when 37 years ago Vanessa Redgrave brought the issue of Palestinians and “Zionist thugs” up at an Oscar . She was basically run out of tinsel town. When the dominance of any ethnic, religious or cultural group shuts down human rights and justice discussions that is not acceptable…at all. Not ultimately healthy for anyone

      • hophmi says:

        ” And the dominance of Jews in Hollywood did make a huge difference when 37 years ago Vanessa Redgrave brought the issue of Palestinians and “Zionist thugs” up at an Oscar .”

        Oh please. Stop with this stupid myth that the Jews are the only ones in the country who support Israel. It has bipartisan support in Congress and in American society.

        • It has bipartisan support in Congress and in American society.

          they wouldn’t need a lobby if that was the case. why lobby senators if they’d vote 100-0 your way anyway?

        • Cliff says:

          Who supports Israel hoppy?

          What demographics. Go.

        • Kathleen says:

          Not a myth. Mearsheimer and Walt explain better than anyone has why some congressional members vote the way they do on Israel.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Hopfmi – “Stop with this stupid myth that the Jews are the only ones in the country who support Israel.”

          I can’t remember anyone on this site (except of course you and your uniformed Propaganda-Abteilung colleagues) ever saying such a retarded thing. Whose myth is this?

          No, Jews are not “the only ones in the country who support” Ishghaal. They are not even the only ones who run the US Government. The Zionists, though, do run the US Government, and it would be stupid (or Zionistic) not to admit that.

        • Citizen says:

          @ hophmi

          Are you denying that Vanessa Redgrave was run out of Hollywood for what she said in 1978 in her Oscar speech? Another article here recently pointed out the recent poll showing a majority of Americans want their government to treat Israelis and Palestinians the same. The current heavily unbalanced US policy is the result of big Zionist cash, of the pro-Israel Lobby.

    • David Duke mirrors your desire to talk about Jewish control over Hollywood.

      who moderated this comment? probably phil. lol, i certainly wouldn’t have let it thru. i call thread highjack!

      • kalithea says:

        I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I would call this more of an immature, emotional lack of judgment than an ad hominem. Besides if you censor it than you limit the perception that other bloggers have of the author of this comment. I’m delighted PW didn’t censor it because I want everyone to know what “biorabbi” is really about, so that the next time he pretends to care about the Palestinian cause or their rights; everyone is this much wiser and sees through his comments.

        • i called it as a thread jack, which it has been. no different than mlk and the mufti. it’s inflammatory and threatens to drive the conversation. to each his own.

    • Cliff says:

      bio says:

      David Duke mirrors your desire to talk about Jewish control over Hollywood. Phil, don’t you realize this. Is it really needed? Phil, would you call it racist to talk about African American dominance in sprinting or basketball? What would you call a highly educated pundit who talks and questions in a serious manner the dominance of Africans and African Americans in sprinting and basketball? I believe you would call him a racist; and you would be right.

      So what if David Duke talks about this?

      Tell us why it’s antisemitic. And African-Americans do outnumber other minorities and Whites in professional basketball. That would be an accurate observation.

      You haven’t said why they do though. And neither has your hypothetical sportscaster.

      Why is it racist to make an accurate observation? Context is everything.

      I don’t see many African-American lacrosse players.

      There are sociological (economy and culture) reasons for that.

      These are common discussions in any social inequality course on an American college campus. It’s only over-politicized by partisans like yourself.

      • JennieS says:

        There are also physical reasons for dominance in some sports. Ancestral physical environment influenced the lifestyle and hence genetic selection of those whose physical atributes were most successful. An example, from the other hemishere, is the preponderance of Polynesians and part Polynesians in rugby in rugby. Srange as it may seem Polynesians are heavily cold adapted because to colonise scatted islands they had to sail and it is always cold at night on the sea so without fur-bearing mammal skins for clothing people with lots of fast-twitch muscle fibres for effective shivering survived best.

        • gamal says:

          “with lots of fast-twitch muscle fibres for effective shivering survived best.”,

          as an ex-rugby player who has had the pleasure of competing against Polynesian players, also they are very big and heavily built, had always wondered why, cold adaptation? seems plausible, the Fijian Delasalle like Lomu was a giant who could do 100m in 10.8sec, whereas the legendary Waisalle Serevi, a master of sevens the Fiji metier, was a small guy, so nothing is 100%.

          i was always puzzled after visiting India that while Indians lived in droves on the streets of Delhi, whatever genes disposed them do so got shut off when they settled in the UK, where those living on the streets seemed to be 90% white and 0% Indian, a reverse of the situation that pertained in India. Genes are mainly concerned with the production of proteins, how higher order behaviors can be linked to them, whats the gene for dreaming? whats the gene for breathing? (never mind the one for episcopalianism) i dont see.

    • MRW says:

      biorabbi,

      Oh, how I wish I could stop posting David Duke

      Oh, how I wish I could stop posting David Duke (it gets me into no end of trouble).
      Trouble is, he just will not stop telling the truth.
      Come on David, give a Jew a break!

      link to pauleisen.blogspot.com

    • MRW says:

      Biorabbi,

      By your perverse logic, we shouldn’t talk about Navajos working on New York skyscrapers because of their genetic thing that makes them unafraid of heights.

      Nor should we talk about the disproportionate number of Irish winning Nobels for Literature given their small population (6 million now).

      Or, the Tarahumara Indians of Northern Mexico who can run 400 miles in 24 hours, renowned long-distance runners, and sometimes when they run for fun, they do it with a beer and cigarette in their hands. The other thing is they run in barefeet or flimsy sandals, or on tire parts.

      Look at it this way, you’ve arrived when people can joke about you, and you can joke about yourself. Lighten up.

    • Ecru says:

      African descended people DO dominate in certain sports, that’s just a fact and it has been discussed multiple times with explanations ranging from the importance of sport as a way to escape poverty to different levels in anaerobic work capacity. And guess what – nobody ever called the merely enquiring about these things as “racist.”

      Jewish people DO dominate in Hollywood, the numbers speak for themselves. But for some reason we’re allowed to ask about African American dominance in sport, Oriental talent for classical music, Indian talent in maths and even Jewish representation in medicine but not Jewish dominance in the entertainment industry? Sorry no, if I can question all these other things I can question Jewish dominance in one part of the entertainment industry too.

      You seem to have missed it but there was this thing called The Enlightenment. You know, “all men are created equal” and all that. Not “all men are created equal but Jews are more equal than others so get special privileges to police our enquiries into things” but “all men are…equal.” To put it in a more folksy way – “what’s sauce for the (gentile) goose is sauce for the (jewish) gander.” So live with it.

    • kalithea says:

      So exactly what’r you implying here: that Jews were born to rule media empires and what-not and therefore have a right to dominate the narrative from positions of power and influence government with powerful lobbies and can’t help reigning in control issues like everyone else ’cause power is in their nature like a gift and criticizing their overreach is criticizing their nature and that’s racist?

      Power corrupts whether you’re Jewish or not and anyone who tries to monopolize power for a selfish agenda is corrupt and SHOULD BE CRITICIZED AND CONDEMNED. Tough.

      “David Duke mirrors your desire to talk about Jewish control over Hollywood.”

      Let me play the devil’s advocate: keep talking.

      Aye. You make it easy. Your judgment is…never mind. Carry on.

  10. I think you are wrong; too many are not ready to have this conversation.

    In America, the Emperor still has no clothes. In the story written by Hans Christian Andersen, an obvious truth denied by the majority despite the evidence of their eyes is proclaimed by a small child; but the emperor carries on as if he had clothes; too much is invested in the lie.

    The teddy bear at the Oscars is just like the little boy in the Danish fairy tale, enunciating an obvious but unwelcome truth. Some very powerful people in America will continue to see themselves as persecuted victims, so much so that their overwhelmingly obvious power and influence can not be discussed.

    • tokyobk says:

      There were those who cheered Archie Bunker on as a brave truth teller too, and they also were not in on the joke. The straight man in the duo, Wahlberg, calls Ted an idiot.

      If you watch American Dad and Family Guy you know that 1) nothing is sacred and no one is spared and 2) MacFarlane lampoons anti-semites and conspiracies i.e. “Its a wonderful Day for Pie/Disney” segment.

      • tokyobk says:

        … and Ted as a character is, like Bunker, a parody of racism, sexism, antisemitism and other bigotries. If that is your truth teller, ok then, but I think most Americans are not bigots who believe Jews of hollywood get their own plane to go to meetings at the Secret Synagogue.

        Mark Wahlberg is one of the most successful stars in Hollywood and given by MacFarlane (another non Jew success) the voice of authority in this sketch.

      • Cliff says:

        MacFarlane has never lampooned the Lobby though. The closest thing is this Oscars joke and it was tepid and in the same vein as Southpark’s Jewish identity related jokes (with Cartman as Archie Bunker and Kyle as the reasonable/straight man counterpart). Mark Wahlberg says, after ‘Ted’ makes his comments about Israel, that he will not make the ‘Ted’ sequel now.

        I do recall MacFarlane’s Family Guy making a joke about the Palestinians specifically:

        If most of Family Guy’s writers are Jewish, as MacFarlane says, then what does this say about them?

        They are writing the jokes about Jews as well as Arabs and Muslims as well as African-Americans, etc. etc.

        I remember the joke about Jews on Family Guy that covered an entire episode. It was where Peter gets a Jewish accountant or something. A positive stereotype. I think the Jewish character is portrayed as normal. Peter is the one who seems crazy.

        I’d like to see the Zionist commentators produce examples of satire/jokes about Jews pertaining to Israel and Zionism.

        There are very few and the ones that are created endure heavy censorship or backlash from the Zionist gatekeepers in our society (ADL, duh).

        The joke about the Palestinian ‘alarm clock’ is dehumanizing because it’s abrupt and damning.

        The joke about the Jewish accountant is an episode long and portrays a positive stereotype without the other negative stereotypes (i.e., the Jewish character is altogether ‘normal’ and the ‘joke’ is how Peter reacts to him).

        • Citizen says:

          @ Cliff
          All the Jewish characters on Family Guy have been positive, normal, folks Peter admires and respects, except, perhaps, the ugly nerd family.

  11. tombishop says:

    While we are at it, shouldn’t we have an open discussion about six of the Justices on the Supreme Court being Catholic, and three are Jewish. None of them should be stereotyped, each are individuals with their own beliefs about their religion, but shouldn’t this be openly discussed when considering what goes into Supreme Court decisions?

    Can we depend on all of them to uphold the separation of church and state?

    • hophmi says:

      “While we are at it, shouldn’t we have an open discussion about six of the Justices on the Supreme Court being Catholic, and three are Jewish. None of them should be stereotyped, each are individuals with their own beliefs about their religion, but shouldn’t this be openly discussed when considering what goes into Supreme Court decisions?

      Can we depend on all of them to uphold the separation of church and state?”

      Did you ask this question when the Court had protestants? And what evidence do you have that any of these people make legal decisions based on their religious beliefs? I think the only two justices that might possibly fall into that category are Thomas and Scalia.

      • tombishop says:

        “Did you ask this question when the Court had protestants?”

        Since I am non-religious, yes I did. I have concerns about a Justice who is appointed and believes in the theocratic views of fundamentalist Protestants. I have concerns when the Catholic bishops tell Catholic politicians, as they did a few years ago, they must follow church teachings when they make law. (Fortunately, most ignored this.) There is a long tradition of belief in separation of church in the American Jewish community due to centuries of persecution for their faith…I just hope many rediscover it for Israel/Palestine.

        • kalithea says:

          “There is a long tradition of belief in separation of church in the American Jewish community due to centuries of persecution for their faith”.

          Oh please! EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ISRAEEEL.

          “…I just hope many rediscover it for Israel/Palestine.”

          You’re kidding right??? Israel is a state founded on “choseness” and religious birthright justifying land theft through terrorism, war and oppressive occupation all leading to the racist, apartheid aberration it is today. The only way they’ll “rediscover” it is BDS or worse!

          Quit dreaming. First there will be pain, lots of it, THEN maybe Zionists will finally wake up to what they created.

    • W.Jones says:

      Yeah there could be more protestants to reflect the national demographic, but there really aren’t enough official atheists to demand a quota or something. Anyway, it’s still an issue that you raise, especially if they were 90% of one religion.

    • lysias says:

      I’m a Catholic, and I’m disturbed by the fact that there are six Catholic justices. Imagine the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overruled by the vote of five Catholic justices (and at least three Catholic votes for that are assured), and then imagine the reaction to such a decision.

    • Kathleen says:

      “can we depend on all of them to uphold the separation of church and state” Hell no. And I grew up Catholic.

      Too many Catholics on the Supreme Court in my opinion. I am not sensitive or defensive or in denial about their thinking and how that may influence their decisions

    • tombishop says:

      Ex-priest claims several Supreme Court Justices are members of the fascistic Opus Die on Democracy Now!:
      link to democracynow.org

  12. Marco says:

    We can have this conversation, yes. But once the discussion is opened it will necessarily turn towards questions of social justice and civil rights. It was not enough to merely have a collegial tete-a-tete about Jewish quotas at American universities or a high-minded dialogue about limits on black membership to country clubs. No, these were burning issues of racial injustice.

    It’s time for leading Jewish intellectuals, men like Philip Weiss, to go from merely provocatively raising these issues to condemning the systematic policy of preferential employment and promotion of Jews in leading sectors of American society – including academia, finance, the legal profession, journalism, publishing, politics, the entertainment industry, real estate, non-profits, and the list goes on.

    It won’t do to pretend this is merely informal ethnic networking. This is not even like white prejudice against racial minorities which can take the form of sub-conscious bias. Let’s be real – to discriminate on behalf of your fellow Jew you have to be extremely conscious of particulars such as name, cultural background, accent, and place of origins. For the pattern of racial and ethnic preference that prevails in America’s elite to have become so pronounced it would need to have been pursued by individuals fully self-aware of their policy of exclusion.

    • hophmi says:

      ” condemning the systematic policy of preferential employment and promotion of Jews in leading sectors of American society – including academia, finance, the legal profession, journalism, publishing, politics, the entertainment industry, real estate, non-profits, and the list goes on.”

      Since there is zero evidence of this, why don’t we just condemn you instead?

    • goldmarx says:

      Yeah. Marco, like we’re really going to see condemnation of preferential employment and promotion of, say, Jewish porn stars.

      “Gentiles say we can get it up, too!”

    • Sin Nombre says:

      Marco wrote … *the* most acute comment possible concerning the issues raised by Phil’s post.

      The most acute comment *possible.*

      As Unz has now shown, this is not just about … the comedian-hiring record of the Catskill’s supper clubs. And if you are distracted to the point of talking only about Hollywood, you’re only being a trifle less blind.

    • bilal a says:

      Exactly, hence the need to ridicule and stigmatize the claim made by Ted when Wahlberg says hes Catholic, in a whisper : “Wrong answer. You wanna work in this town, dont you?”

      Seth McFarlane wants us to believe that ethno centric discrimination against Gentiles is a myth, despite Unz and others plain statistical evidence of illegal discrimination. It doesnt help when such discriminatory ethnocentrism is a core tenet of the underlying community’s belief system.

    • American says:

      ”This is not even like white prejudice against racial minorities which can take the form of sub-conscious bias. Let’s be real – to discriminate on behalf of your fellow Jew you have to be extremely conscious of particulars such as name, cultural background, accent, and place of origins. For the pattern of racial and ethnic preference that prevails in America’s elite to have become so pronounced it would need to have been pursued by individuals fully self-aware of their policy of exclusion.”…Marco

      What Jewish domination in whatever field boils down to is “tribal nepotism”….nothing complicated about that. WASP were always accused of that, Jews are even worse in that regard and have remained that way.

      • hophmi says:

        “What Jewish domination in whatever field boils down to is “tribal nepotism”….nothing complicated about that. WASP were always accused of that, Jews are even worse in that regard and have remained that way.”

        All prejudice without an iota of evidence. This is jewhating talk.

        • Citizen says:

          @ hophmi
          What are you saying, nobody has ever depicted WASP tribal nepotism? How is that “jewhating talk?”

        • hophmi says:

          To claim that Jews are worse than the WASPs, with zero evidence, is jewhating talk. Based on what? Based on nothing.

        • American says:

          hophmi says:
          February 28, 2013 at 2:42 pm

          To claim that Jews are worse than the WASPs, with zero evidence, is jewhating talk. Based on what? Based on nothing.”>>>>>

          There is plenty of evidence to illustrate the tribalness of lead Jews in several fields…..so I do think they are ‘more’ tribal than the WASP group.
          I could give you half a dozen examples off the top of my head, particulary among political Jews—like several bills Schumer (and others) has written for benefits ‘strictly for Jews”….one particulary smelly in which he had the pentagon do research to find Jews to give WWII military medals to—-but only Jews—-didnt’ include looking for any non Jews who might have deserved medals also…..not even any other minorities…like Japaneese Americans who might have served or black or native Americans or etc…..so yea, there is more tribalism and self promotion and exclusion of others among the Jews who are in a position to do it.

          You really shouldn’t ask for evidence…cause there is mountains of it….here’s just one prime example of the tribal aspects…..how many non Jewish entities do you see included in these funds Lautenberg, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, secured for New Jersey?

          Lautenberg Announces Security Funds for 20 New Jersey Nonprofits
          Lautenberg Press Office, 202-224-3224
          Friday, July 16, 2010ASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, today announced $1.45 million in federal homeland security funding for 20 New Jersey nonprofit organizations. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) resources can be used by the organizations to purchase and install security and screening equipment.

          “These federal resources will help to ensure New Jersey communities can gather together safely,” Sen. Lautenberg said. “Many organizations fear for the safety of their members, but lack sufficient funds to take additional security measures. This investment will allow nonprofits to secure their facilities and help to prevent an act of terrorism. As Chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I will continue working to ensure New Jersey receives the public safety resources it needs.”

          The following is a list of Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) awards:
          $75,000 for Beth Medrash Govoha of America
          $75,000 for B’nai Shalom Jewish Center
          $75,000 for Congregation Ahavas Achim
          $65,000 for Jewish Center of Teaneck
          $75,000 for Jewish Community Center on the Palisades
          $75,000 for Jewish Family Service, Inc.
          $75,000 for Lubavitch Center of Essex County
          $75,000 for Moriah School of Englewood
          $74,607 for Roxbury Reform Temple
          $75,000 for St. Peter’s Healthcare System
          $68,700 for Temple Beth El of Northern Valley
          $75,000 for Temple Emanu-El
          $56,500 for Temple Emanuel of Pascack Valley
          $68,119 for Temple Israel
          $75,000 for Temple Sholom
          $75,000 for Torah Academy of Bergen County
          $75,000 for UJA Federation of Northern New Jersey
          $75,000 for Yeshiva of North Jersey
          $75,000 for Yeshivat Noam
          $70,000 for YM-YWHA of Union County, Inc.

          This is what tribalism does and yes it is more extreme than WASP tribalism. If it weren’t more extreme than the WASP, the WASP wouldn’t let the Jews have anything, they’d direct it all to their own WASP.

        • hophmi says:

          “I could give you half a dozen examples off the top of my head, particulary among political Jews—like several bills Schumer (and others) has written for benefits ‘strictly for Jews””one particulary smelly in which he had the pentagon do research to find Jews to give WWII military medals to—-but only Jews—-didnt’ include looking for any non Jews who might have deserved medals also…..not even any other minorities…like Japaneese Americans who might have served or black or native Americans or etc…..so yea, there is more tribalism and self promotion and exclusion of others among the Jews who are in a position to do it.”

          What bill was this, exactly? You don’t cite it, so I have to assume you’re not telling the whole truth.

          Bu gosh, hmm, where is Schumer from? Oh yes, New York, where there are lots of Jews. Gosh, I never heard of Congressional grants going to Christian organizations in middle America for social programs and the like. Like, who are the biggest beneficiaries of the faith-based initiative? No, wait, don’t tell me…

          “You really shouldn’t ask for evidence…cause there is mountains of it”

          Which you do not present…

          “nonprofits to secure their facilities and help to prevent an act of terrorism. As Chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee”

          We’ve been through this nonsense before. The homeland security grant under which these appropriations were made is in no way reserved for the Jewish community and amounts to a tiny fraction of the budget to begin with. It happens that Jewish organizations have simply been the most proactive about filing the applications. Other religious groups have been given money under the same grant, and admit that Jewish organizations were simply more proactive about applying for the money than they were. So you’re travelling in canards here.

          “This is what tribalism does and yes it is more extreme than WASP tribalism. If it weren’t more extreme than the WASP, the WASP wouldn’t let the Jews have anything, they’d direct it all to their own WASP.”

          You’re just trafficking in antisemitic canards. You claim “mountains of evidence,” which consists of a competitive grant program that was not set up for the Jewish community that amounts to around $10 million dollars, and a supposed bill Charles Schumer, a Senator from the state with the largest Jewish population in the country (you don’t mention Gillibrand for the simple fact that Schumer is Jewish and Gillibrand is not), allowing medals to be given to Jewish servicepeople for which you provide no citation.

  13. Ironically, the movie “Ted” begins with Patrick Stewart narrating that Christmas time is the traditional time of year for beating up Jewish kids.

    A gratuitous swipe at Christmas and nonJews and playing to the Hollywood stereotypes bullies and their victims.

    Had the roles been reversed if it had been Jewish kids victimizing whites or another minority that script would have undergone a rewrite.

    • tokyobk says:

      Not ironic at all. Totally consistent with Mac Farlane’s humor as shown in his cartoons and on display here where he is lampooning the denial that Jews are predominant in Hollywood and at the same time the conspiracy mongers.

      • kalithea says:

        “where he is lampooning the denial that Jews are predominant in Hollywood and at the same time the conspiracy mongers.”

        Sure and bringing up Hollywood (Zionist moguls/entertainers) giving money to Israel as in (settlement Israel) into the Oscar forum in a context of ridicule is not controversial, because everyone knows it’s just not happening, riiiight, it’s just a “conspiracy theory”?

        How do you spell a moment of: collective d-i-s-c-o-m-f-o-r-t?

      • seafoid says:

        Jews are eternal victims even now at this very moment as some Israeli Jewish schmuck is torturing a Palestinian in Megiddo prison while a Jewish doctor signs off the whole process.

      • Citizen says:

        @ tokyobk

        Yeah, talk about cheap shots, I’m sure Ted and MacFarlane’s cartoons, which I always watch, is a beautiful thing to behold in the way he knows just how far he can go with his cultural digs.

    • Ecru says:

      It’s also wrong. Easter was the traditional time to beat up Jews. The first ever recorded anti-semitic attack took place in Toulouse Cathedral during the Easter celebrations in 1022.

      • W.Jones says:

        “Easter was the traditional time to beat up Jews. The first ever recorded anti-semitic attack took place in Toulouse Cathedral during the Easter celebrations in 1022.”
        Are you sure the victims weren’t the Cathars?
        link to sacred-destinations.com

        And wouldn’t the (unfortunate) holiday time be Passover, since the slander was connected to the use of Matzoh?
        link to jewishmag.com

        • Ecru says:

          No it was Jews at Easter. As I recall (I’ll try and find the ref but it’s in a pile of books so it might take a while) there’d developed a ritual at that time to “Smack a Jew for Jesus” and one French knight got a little carried away with that years Jews having his head caved in.

          As for the “blood libel” that didn’t actually start for another century. Mid 12th in the UK I think.

        • W.Jones says:

          Ecru,

          The source gives as an example the fact there was a kind of dispensation to use white wine at Passover, because the pogromist idea about the blood libel was that it was involved with the ritual. I don’t really get a logical connection between Easter and the pogromists beating people up, although pogromists were not so rational either. ;)

          Regards.

        • Ecru says:

          Well as I said, the Blood Libel came in 100 years later.

          People may have been vaguely aware that there were Jewish festivals but most activities would have been when Christians had free time, not Jews and that was on Christian feast days. Easter is by far the most important Christian feast and it was at this time that attacks on ghettoes and ritualised violence took place. Since Passover and Easter are linked this could I suppose cause confusion in the ritual space the attacks were taking place. I do recall that the Jews of Gerona were enjoined to remain in their houses during Easter which also tends to support the idea that it was this Christian festival that was particularly troublesome not Passover itself.

        • W.Jones says:

          Ecu,

          The quote I was responding to was the claim “Easter was the traditional time to beat up Jews.” In fact, the articles are saying that it was Passover because of the blood libel issue. You could be right that at one place and time there was an Easter thing, but this just doesn’t seem to be the most common in general.

          You could be right that blood libel became more common 100 years later, but on the internet you can read about claims or cases preceding the one you mentioned. Wikipedia claims the blood libel goes back to the ancient Greeks, who connected it with temple sacrifice (eg. Passover)
          link to en.wikipedia.org

          “most activities would have been when Christians had free time” Peasant work was typically seasonal, with nothing to do in the winter. But neither Passover nor Easter were then. Plus, Easter is at the end of a very long fasting period, so people are weaker then and also more focused on the happiness of the holiday (they can finally eat dairy)

          So, generally what I read connects it to Passover, and the reasoning is that it was connected with the blood libel about the holiday. And although there could have been incidents at Easter time too, it just doesn’t go with the logic of that holiday (although like I said, pogromists aren’t necessarily based on correct logic).

          Peace.

      • kalithea says:

        You’re memory’s that long, huh? And the Israelites massacred lots of “other” tribes and Native Indians are practically extinct and…and…and through the centuries one tribe massacred and picked on another.

        Careful you may be reincarnated as an elephant for holding that grudge close to a millenium.

        • Ecru says:

          Well I can remember things I read and I read that snippet years ago. So yeah, my long term memory seems OK. And I found the reference btw; “The Conversion of Europe” by Richard Fletcher. Good book.

          Israelites? Perpetrators of the first recorded genocide. Native AMERICANS (or are you talking about, well, INDIA)? Well the estimates tend to the 50 million mark within a century of Columbus’ landing though obviously later campaigns added to that number. Mainly through disease, though if you read “The Destruction of the Indies” by Bartolome de las Casas that also documents the cruelty and murderous intent of European invaders. And then of course just pick a history of the “Indian Wars” if you want to get nice and depressed.

          And exactly where do you get the idea of my holding a grudge for anything – the post was merely referencing the history and nothing else.

          Stop being silly!

  14. hophmi says:

    It’s funny. It’s not really a big deal. But, again, there is a difference between saying many of the studio bosses are Jewish and saying the Jews run Hollywood.

    So let’s have a thought experiment. If “the WASPS” ran Hollywood, how would it be different? How about “the Blacks”? How about “the Catholics?” Etc.

    • sardelapasti says:

      Hopfmi – It’s not funny. And it is a big deal.
      Because that thought experiment is interesting.
      With the US as it is today, if Wasps or blacks or even Catholics were to run Hollywood, it would be as Zionist as the Congress.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “If “the WASPS” ran Hollywood, how would it be different?”

      Fewer Holocaust movies and more movies in which people eat mayonaise and white bread non-ironically.

      “How about ‘the Catholics?’”

      Probably fewer movies where the Catholic Church is presented as a sinister, shadow entity. There might even be a movie or two where a person obtains spiritual succor from their Catholicism and feels no need to “challenge” the faith, even when they have disagreements with the Church. You know, like how they are in real life.

      • instead of judge judy we’d have a black and chicano judges browbeating whining jewish defendants thrice daily on national television.

        • MLE says:

          There are black and Hispanic judges on TV. Judge joe brown, judge Mathis, the people’s court judge is Puerto Rican, judge Alex…. Judge Judy is just the most popular

        • W.Jones says:

          I saw a judge Judy show recently where she told a late middle aged white lady that she was basically irresponsible and the lady basically said “This is ridiculous” and walked off the set.

        • oh i know MLE, i used to watch her show for years, loved it. but there’s more of a jerry springer quality about it now. i don’t have tv reception anymore but when i visit my mom’s we watch the afternoon show sometimes. she’s much more hostile than she used to be.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Judge Judy has the only TV show that ferrets out for all to see how our welfare net system is scammed daily.

        • Citizen says:

          @ W.Jones
          That old white lady was irresponsible.

      • bilal a says:

        We probably wouldnt have had Larry David pissing on a portrait of the Christian savior and ridiculing the stupid fat hicks that imagined his piss was miraculous tears.

        He he he. Jewish humor is sooooo funny.

      • Kathleen says:

        “Fewer Holocaust movies and more movies in which people eat mayonaise and white bread non-ironically.”

        Yep. So sad how many times 6 millions Jews who were brutally murdered are mentioned in Hollywood films and on US MSM and the millions of others who were brutally married are seldom mentioned. This has been going on for decades

        • W.Jones says:

          Google search for “gypped”: About 307,000 results

          Google search for “Porajmos”: About 88,200 results
          Do you even know what that means?

        • sardelapasti says:

          W. Jones – Trademarked genocide names are a Bad Idea. Look at that ridiculous name of “Holocaust”. An offering to the gods, huh.
          Not translating them from their original language when one writes in English (or other languages) is an Even Worse Idea.

        • Joe Ed says:

          If we were to add upall the Jews murdered in Hollywood Holocaust films, we would probably be approaching the six million figure.

          Maybe there should be a rule that once that six million number is surpassed, we get a ten year moratorium on any more Hollywood Holocaust movies?

  15. calm says:

    Some information on this topic:

    This is what Brando said on Larry King

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

    How Jewish is Hollywood?
    A poll finds more Americans disagree with the statement that ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ But here’s one Jew who doesn’t.
    “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.”
    By Joel Stein
    December 19, 2008
    link to latimes.com

    Jews DO control the media
    We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.
    Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?
    But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.
    By Manny Friedman
    July 01, 2012
    link to blogs.timesofisrael.com

    On My Mind; Wall Street Worries
    Fear of a particular backlash led to private meetings among some top Jewish figures in the industry, bankers, chief executive officers, heads of brokerages. The central topic was the fact that so many of the men caught cheating or about to be indicted were Jewish. There was concern that the backlash might carry a decided tinge of anti-Semitism. The anti-Jewish arbitrageur jokes are all around the street.
    Anybody with an ounce of sensitivity knows that anti-Semites do not need excuses to hate Jews. There is no need for Jews on Wall Street to feel called upon to explain the number of Jews involved any more than there is for the members of any race or religion to try to explain their evildoers.
    But anybody with an ounce of sensitivity also knows that this good advice will not prevail. Every minority group whose members are caught doing dirty worries anyway, even though it knows it should not have to.
    The religion of the crooks and near-crooks is not the issue. Anti-Semitism is not the issue either. The issue is that Wall Street every day practices what the people believe is just plain wrong. That is dangerous to Wall Street and to the rest of us.
    By A. M. Rosenthal
    January 31, 1987
    link to query.nytimes.com

    • marc b. says:

      “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.”
      By Joel Stein
      December 19, 2008

      thanks for your candor, joel, but i haven’t watched a sitcom in decades because they’re so wretched i become physically ill, the TV news is pablum and propaganda, and nickelodeon, MTV and the disney channel and turning children into perverts and retards. but, really, keep up the good work.

    • Kathleen says:

      Gentiles and some Jews have been discussing this fact for decades. And it is true.

  16. doug says:

    An aspect of the Jews as perpetual victims is the service it provides Zionists in support of Israel. Thus keeping the anti-Semitism timbers in place becomes even more critical as Israel descends into ugly, and more obvious, nationalism. What a mess.

  17. I think it is a very healthy thing, if the American people bear in mind that issues pertaining to Israel permeate decisions made all over the country.

  18. biorabbi – - Does anyone regard it as “racist” to notice the increasing domination of certain professional sports, by “blacks”? Why would it be “racist”?

    • goldmarx says:

      Observation is not racist. But if one concludes that such domination is due to genetics, that’s when the white sheets come out.

      • like this: link to en.wikipedia.org

        So, genes for cognitive traits such as verbal and mathematical talent, which make a person successful in the few fields where Jews could work, were favored

        • bilal a says:

          The traits we reward in a society dominated by entertainment, corrosive legalism, trading, and usury might be dysgenic in a real economy characterized by production , agriculture, and high culture. Hence the need to transform the society to one which rewards ones own competencies. This is the economic history of post war America.

          But its contra natura, it wone end well.

      • Surely the talent any professional athlete possesses, is due to large degree to “genetics”.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Canning – The specialists do not agree with you. The known determinants are mainly socioeconomic, while the proposed genetic components have until now either eluded scientific proof, or their significance remains uncertain at best.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Surely the talent any professional athlete possesses, is due to large degree to ‘genetics’.”

          Surely not. The ability to develope whatever talent one may have is probably a larger factor. That ability depends on many things, but within and without the athlete’s control.

        • Woody. Wrong. Sports ability is inherent. Genetic.

        • Sardelapasti – - Go to Kenya, or Ethiopia. Many long-distance runners. No “training” needed. Genetics.

        • gamal says:

          sorry, so you are saying that there are people who are genetically disposed to run long distances fast, but that they dont do so, until international sporting competition requires them to, the growth of african running from Kip Keino and Abbe Bakila (?) was coincidental with the arrival of irish and other international running coaches, eastern europeans etc, …so if they are genetically disposed to run long distances fast they must once in while do so, and that i would tentatively suggest is “training” if you are saying that it is possible to run 10k in say 30 minutes without any training or from a completely sedentary life because of a genetic predisposition,, you cant be serious surely, if they dont run now how did the “genes” arise, chasing game on the primordial savanahs? but all our ancestors ran and jumped didnt they? dinosaurs ate the slow ones.

    • gamal says:

      “Does anyone regard it as “racist” to notice the increasing domination of certain professional sports, by “blacks”?”

      Because racists often confuse non-racism with colour blindness which would of course is to spectacularly miss the point, when i was young and in the west the highest compliment many people felt they could offer me was to tell me that i was quite unlike an Arab, one of most difficult things for racists to accept is that persons of the designated “wrong” identity dont mind it, we like the food, enjoy the music and are not sure what anyone thinks we are missing, we may be having half tolerable even quite ok lives, under the radar so to speak.
      In my extended family we take a dog breeder like interest in the bewildering variety of complexions, skin, eye and hair colour etc that we exhibit, some of us dont even look like the same species never mind same family.

  19. biorabbi says:

    How can you have a discussion concerning an ethnic groups predominance in an industry and then stop? I didn’t realize that is how history works. I thought that usually talk leads to action.

    Using the k word, the n word, talking about reverse discrimination, lambasting arabs, gays… whatever… obviously there is a freedom to discuss these issues if you have the stomach to do so, but isn’t there also a responsibility to be aware of the historical context? If you talk to a black person about why they shouldn’t have any type of affirmative action, and you ignore the history of slavery or persecution as historical precursors for why there might be a need for such a law, what does that say about your humanity.

    To protest the actions of Israel is one thing. To protest for Palestinian rights is another thing. To bemoan the influence of Jews in Hollywood seems to be quite another thing entirely. Sadly, haters simply conflate all three issues into one.

    • Cliff says:

      huh?

      bio says:

      If you talk to a black person about why they shouldn’t have any type of affirmative action, and you ignore the history of slavery or persecution as historical precursors for why there might be a need for such a law, what does that say about your humanity.

      What does this have to do with the Hollywood and Jewish group mobility?

      Are you saying Mondoweiss or it’s regular commentators are against AA and/or “ignore the history” of slavery?

      Why don’t you use your own historical examples (Jewish history). Stop using other minority groups to simplify this discussion.

      Tell us why it is antisemitic.

      Should all social inequality courses in America be removed because they offend Jewish American Zionists like yourself (who promptly bring up other minority groups related identity issues to make it seem as if there is a groundswell of support for your partisanship)?

    • MRW says:

      Biorabbi,

      To protest the actions of Israel is one thing. To protest for Palestinian rights is another thing. To bemoan the influence of Jews in Hollywood seems to be quite another thing entirely. Sadly, haters simply conflate all three issues into one.

      Bullshit. Israel, Palestine, Vietnam, USA, whatever, those are policy and human rights issues, and have life or death consequences. Those are issues of responsible citizenry. Joking about mexicans, blacks, texas rednecks, polish (polacks), blonds, appalachians, chinese, japs (ethnic and princess), wasps and the christian right are an American tradition because we’re a melting pot. It’s like the pea joking about the smelly leek and the big meat in the same pot. But there’s no guarantee it will be kind. So now it’s jews’ turn to be included. And you’re going to be subjected to the same razzing as everybody else. It’s how we roll in this country. ["Nigger" is not collectively funny yet, or acceptable--but it will be in few decades--because blacks were still 3/5 citizens and persecuted in regions of this country 17 years after Ben Gurion became Prime Minister. Too soon. Ditto no one can joke about JFK fully yet either.]

      But that cat is now out of the bag. SNL. The Oscars. You watch, there’s going to be someone soon (under 30) who does the jewish equivalent of Sarah Silverman’s I Would kill Jesus Again joke. Welcome to the big club you don’t (and can’t) control. All fatcats get the razz; it’s the price you pay; you know that. :-)

      Would you rather Jews be cowering in the corner fearing persecution?

    • biorabbi says:

      Annie, why would you censor the simple question of how Phil’s post differs from David Duke? How are their arguments different? Yes, one uses better grammar and one used to wear white sheets, but both seem to worry about excessive Jewish influence in American life. Both appear to be hyper sensitive to any possible objection to the projectile vomit discourse of how the Jews control the world meme.

      • Citizen says:

        @ biorabbi
        Why don’t you show us something by David Duke, something pointing out the same facts, logic, and conclusions, but written in bad grammar?
        And, btw, does PW advocate a separate white nation? Does Duke want a Wall here as Israel has there? Hollywood films don’t touch that do they? But it’s always a plus for your career in Hollywood if you donate, praise Israel, is it not?

    • Ecru says:

      And you can’t separate them.

      Jewish people dominate Hollywood. Let’s take that as a given. How then does that impact, if at all, Hollywood’s presentation of Arabs and Muslims given the overwhelming support American Jews give Israel and Israel’s antagonism towards Muslims? How does it effect Hollywood portrayals of Brits for that matter given Zionists dislike of the UK? Do the Jews working in Hollywood act as a conscious community, a collective, sub-groups within a larger group identity or merely as ethnically linked individual actors?

      These questions aren’t bemoaning things, they are asking perfectly valid questions. If you can’t see that then all I can say is you’re being blinded by your ethnicity.

    • bilal a says:

      It might be nice for Hispanics, African Americans, and Christians to have control over their own cultural multimedia productions outside of the control of Hollywood and new York. I doubt we’d only have George Lopez, Whoopi Goldberg, and Bill Mahr as the nation;s cultural backbone.

      IM so tired of recycled Borsch Belt kitsch being equated with American culture.

      • hophmi says:

        “IM so tired of recycled Borsch Belt kitsch being equated with American culture.”

        Example?

        “Jewish people dominate Hollywood. Let’s take that as a given. How then does that impact, if at all, Hollywood’s presentation of Arabs and Muslims given the overwhelming support American Jews give Israel and Israel’s antagonism towards Muslims?”

        It probably results in much better treatment and presentation of Muslims and Arabs then there would be if WASPs or Christian fundamentalists were predominant in Hollywood.

        ” How does it effect Hollywood portrayals of Brits for that matter given Zionists dislike of the UK? ”

        I think Brits come out pretty well in the movies.

        “Do the Jews working in Hollywood act as a conscious community, a collective, sub-groups within a larger group identity or merely as ethnically linked individual actors?”

        Since most of the Jews in Hollywood are secular people, and since there’s no evidence that they “coordinate”, I doubt they “coordinate” as Jews.

        “These questions aren’t bemoaning things, they are asking perfectly valid questions. ”

        Yeah, sure, they’re valid the same way asking about the President’s birth certificate is valid. You’re only raising questions, right?

        • Ecru says:

          Well I don’t agree with your “answers”. They read more like articles of faith.

          The idea that Arabs/Muslims come out better than if WASP’s ran Hollywood is laughable, frankly it would be difficult to see how they could be presented any worse than they are at present. Have you not seen any films for the past few decades? Muslims are almost universally presented as villains. Same with Brits, I’ve lost count of how many film baddies have had British accents (mainly English). Now is this due to Jews, in particular Jews sympathetic to Zionism and Israel running Hollywood, well in the case of the former I think it quite possible, in the case of the latter not so much there’s still plenty of historic ambivalence on both sides of the American/British relationship to account for that.

          Now coordinating. Since you base your conclusion on evidence. what evidence exactly have you seen? Come on now, don’t be shy or keep it to yourself. And since when does secularism have anything to do with being or not being Jewish? Most of the founders of the Zionist state were secular, didn’t stop them working together as Jews now did it.

          As for your last line, quite pathetic to be honest. Again you demand special treatment- the Old Boy network in the UK is questioned (what you’d call WASPS btw), the present influence of Opus Dei, the role of Freemasonry has been questioned ad nauseum, etc. etc. all sources of “networking.” Even the Cambridge Footlights have been examined for its role in British entertainment. So what makes Jews so special that their role in Hollywood must never be investigated?

    • kalithea says:

      First question we should ask and put behind us in this discussion: Are Jews safe in the diaspora? IMO, they’re as safe as everyone else considering that unfortunately the mindset today is that security comes with possessing more weapons and the U.S. and Israel are two of the most heavily armed countries and without a doubt the most HYPOCRITICAL. That being said, most of us have moved on from the 16th Century and the 1930s but unfortunately Zionists are still milking that era and playing the victim card for all its worth.

      I don’t care who owns what but I care who monopolizes what. Monopolies, no matter which group rules them, are never good. They tend to behave in a fascist manner, monopolizing the narrative, mass perception and trying to selfishly control everything and everyone. Nothing good ever comes from like-minded powerful groups controlling the dumb, unsuspecting masses for SELFISH GAIN.

      Diversity is the only way to ensure checks and balances in society. Let’s face it, THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE WITNESSING IN HOLLYWOOD, POLITICS OR THE MEDIA and we all know it. Ted didn’t have to point it out. Jews, more likely Zionist Jews have no right to bitch about blow-back, and paint criticism with the Anti-Semitic brush if they behave irresponsibly, monopolizing the message with BIAS, pushing for wars with Iraq, Syria, and Iran, demonizing Muslims, sustaining good and evil RACIST stereotypes, and creating an impenetrable wall of injustice against, say, the Palestinian people.

      If you don’t want to set yourself up for a fall, LET GO, lose the control issues and behave responsibly towards all. It’s totally immature to begin with to want to control everything in one’s favor. Power comes with responsibility; they go hand in hand.

      It’s obvious to everyone that Jews have significant influence in Hollywood, Washington and the media and it shouldn’t be considered a crime to state the TRUTH! More importantly if they refuse to use their influence responsibly then they better not cry foul when the inevitable consequences come calling.

      So there’s a message in that skit. It’s good to laugh about it but better to THINK and ask: Are we using our power responsibly? If our power is the object of ridicule or is this obvious, could it be because we’re abusing it? Are we hurting “others” with our BIAS? Are we imposing one viewpoint to the exclusion of others to benefit us exclusively and suffocating the TRUTH? Are we using this power to persecute one group, exclude or SILENCE them? And finally, why do we need to monopolize in a diverse society anyway IN THE 21ST CENTURY?

      Zionists, Wiesenthal and the ADL have 16th century CONTROL ISSUES. And they do more damage than this skit which is in fact GOOD because it opens the door to discuss how monopolizing the message to persecute others and come out on top is totally immoral.

    • kalithea says:

      “To protest the actions of Israel is one thing. To protest for Palestinian rights is another thing. To bemoan the influence of Jews in Hollywood seems to be quite another thing entirely.”

      When that influence is used IRRESPONSIBLY, when it serves to CONTROL, or DENY THE TRUTH or spread BIAS you bet we have every right to question it or the NEED for that influence!!! Never again, also means never shut up again when you see a group monopolizing the message for their selfish purpose or gain.

      We wouldn’t have a problem if that influence were used WISELY. Quit painting this discussion with your one-track mind and Anti-Semitic brush and allow us to discuss the MORAL CONFLICT and issues that arise in having one like-minded group MONOPOLIZE THE NARRATIVE.

  20. biorabbi says:

    If the late Rabbi Kahane called for the expulsion or extermination of Palestinians, how is he different from Hitler? One is Jewish. One hates Jews. Is it wrong to call such a person a nazi because he is a Jew. I’m not comparing Phil Weiss to David Duke. I am comparing his post to many youtube posts on Jewish control of Hollywood. Does Phil get a special break from having his posts compared to David Duke because a “liberal” cannot possible be a hater?

    • sardelapasti says:

      biorabbi – “late Rabbi Kahane”
      wow, won’t you also follow his Name by a PUBH?
      “called for the expulsion or extermination of Palestinians, how is he different from Hitler? One is Jewish. One hates Jews. Is it wrong to call such a person a nazi because he is a Jew”
      Well, your Kahane turd was a Nazi, and how. Hos is that wrong? I am deeply sorry he died in bed.

      “… many youtube posts on Jewish control of Hollywood. ”
      Don’t pretend to be retarded. You’re not! And the only alternative is that you are now malignantly performing propaganda functions.
      It. Is. Not. About. Their. Being. Jews.
      It’s about their being Zionists. So that in fact the 4/25 Goy movie company owners may be even more Zionistic than the 21/25 Jewish ones. Want to investigate which ones have given how much to Zionism and which ones have influenced, and how far, US policy? Let’s look, Propaganda-Rabbish.

    • kalithea says:

      Real twisted logic you got there.

    • W.Jones says:

      Dear Biorabbi,

      Can you please tell me what is the counterargument to the claim made in the article and in the comment section that mentions statistics. Would you say the statistics are wrong? We are basically taught to value diversity and having a strong variety of groups represented across a range of fields (like student admissions). I understand that some of the people who make this claim are intolerant, so I would like to ask what a response might be to the claim.

      Peace.

    • kalithea says:

      Notice how you state “if the late[]Kahane…blah-blah” IF, IF…IS THERE ANY DOUBT??? Why do you leave room for doubt? Why not start the sentence with a statement, as in “The Rabbi K…(almost takes your breath away addressing him as such, knowing what he was, doesn’t it?)” And why do you go on to describe the racist (…can’t you even call him a racist?) Kahane as “One is Jewish” and omit actually stating HE’S A HATER, or omit stating he’s “One who hated Palestinians”. Come on I dare ya…call him a Palestinian hater and a nazi racist!

      “Is it wrong to call such a person a nazi because he is a Jew.”

      Of course not! So why don’t you actually do it??? Come on…let’s have it. It’s easy, repeat after me: Rabbi Kahane was a hater who incited violence, called for the extermination of Palestinians, and he’s as nazi as they come…say it! Or are you that disingenuous?

      As far as the last sentence you wrote: Totally baseless, case dismissed.

      And one more thing, if I were a judge I would shut you down immediately for opening your comment with a grossly prejudicial analogy just to get in a swipe at the end. You’re not comparing my A…s!

    • Ecru says:

      Hitler also asked questions about “what is a Jew.” Presently there are hundreds of Jewish academics asking the same question.

      Does a hater asking a question make that question unaskable by anyone else ever? Don’t be so blumming ridiculous!

      • lysias says:

        The excuse currently offered on dkos for forbidding references to Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People is that Stormfront also believes in the Khazar theory.

        • lysias, my take on it was the team thru such a massive fit at the mention of the book it just became completely off limits. the title for the american translation is very inflammatory in concept as opposed to the hebrew title, it implies jews were invented, which is not really the meaning as opposed to the idea of peoplehood or ‘as a nation’, although i have not read the book.

          anyway, it just became a shouting match which is so immature. it’s a scholarly book by a respected professor and one should be able to ctitique the book without the theatrics. but noooo… crazy.

        • hophmi says:

          “. it’s a scholarly book by a respected professor and one should be able to ctitique the book without the theatrics.”

          Except it really isn’t. It’s a political book written by a scholar with a long history of radical politics who is not at all an expert in the subject he wrote about purporting a theory that was discredited a long time ago by the scholars actually in the field. The reviews have similarly been political; the warm reviews are virtually all from writers on the far-left and do little actual analysis of the scholarly claims, and most of the rest have panned the book as a polemic.

          Predictably, it was embraced here because of its political value, not because of its scholarship, and if you’re honest, you’ll admit that much.

        • lysias says:

          I have read the book (although not with complete understanding, since I read the French translation before the English appeared,) and you accurately characterize its meaning.

        • lysias says:

          Hophi, have you read any pans by people who were not committed supporters of Zionism? I have not.

          As for the theory being discredited, have you read this in Ha’aretz: The Jewish people’s ultimate treasure hunt: In his search for Jewish ancestry, Eran Elhaik says he has discovered that some Ashkenazis originated in the Khazar empire, not the kingdom of Judah. (Dec. 28, 2012):

          After conducting numerous analyses utilizing various techniques, some of which have never been employed before, the researcher [Dr. Eran Elhaik of the School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University] discovered what he describes as the Khazar component of European Jewry. According to his findings, the dominant element in the genetic makeup of European Jews is Khazar. Among Central European and East European Jews, this component is the most dominant in their genome, accounting for 38 and 30 percent, respectively.

        • Some people want to suppress Shlomo Sand’s book?

        • lysias says:

          It’s a political book written by a scholar with a long history of radical politics who is not at all an expert in the subject he wrote about purporting a theory that was discredited a long time ago by the scholars actually in the field.

          My Ph.D. is in the field of ancient history. In my opinion, Sand is quite right to characterize Judaism in the Greco-Roman period as a proselytizing religion.

          I also have read a lot about the intellectual history of Germany in the 19th century. (I was a German linguist in the military, and my graduate studies in the ancient world forced me to read a lot of German, including accounts of German intellectual history.) In my opinion, Sand’s account of how Jewish national history sprang out of German Romantic nationalism rings true.

        • Ecru says:

          Unfortunately Zionists seem to have developed a very strong aversion to facts that don’t fit their viewpoint. Look at how many still cite that deplorable “Time Immemorial” rubbish! Still insisting, even now, that the Palestinians are recent immigrants when the genetic, archaeological and historical records all point to the Palestinians being the descendants of local populations that converted and acculturated over time.

          As for the Khazar hypothesis these are interesting new findings, and I have to admit they surprised me since I had pretty much discounted it (the prior picture has been the conversion of only the elite, not the mass population). However saying all that, I don’t always trust the the lab coats first off, they seem to change their minds an awful lot. (Added to which reading genetics papers makes my head hurt!)

          But beyond the immediate impact on questions of Jewish identity though, what would be interesting is to see how this paper effects their funding in the future.

        • Palestinians descend from Jews who did not exit the area after Jerusalem was destroyed, and they obviously also descend from numerous different groups that were in the area at various times. A really interesting genetic mix.
          .
          Perhaps more archaeological evidence will emerge re: conversion of Khazars.

      • Good point. Is an Anglican (Episcopalian) a “Jew”? Not in my view. Even if that person had a “Jewish” father.

    • Citizen says:

      @ biorabbi
      ” One is Jewish. One hates Jews.”
      No, one hates non-Jews. One hates Jews.

      ” Is it wrong to call such a person a nazi because he is a Jew.”
      No, he’s called a nazi because he’s an ethnic supremacist intent on getting rid of “the other.”

      Some self-styled or categorized liberals are in fact haters.

  21. biorabbi says:

    Phil began his conversion due to neoconservative dominance of our foreign policy establishment vis-a-vis WMD and Iraq. Now, it’s the Jews running Hollywood. The only difference I can find here between David Duke’s ‘evolution’ and phil’s is one makes a increasingly tenuous distinction between Jews and Zionists, one(Duke)makes no distinction.

    Annie, I’m honestly shocked to see you calling for censoring my point of view? Because it is an alien point of view, does not mean it should not be heard.

    • kalithea says:

      Ooof! Why bother…?

    • sardelapasti says:

      Biorabbi – Not beause of the alien viewpoint, but because you are practicing –consummately– the art of deviating the discussion. A discussion to which, as a Zionist, you are not really invited because it is about how to do things that Zionists oppose anyway, let me remind you. So why can’t you stop whimpering all over the place?
      PS. Are you by chance a citizen of the Zionist entity?

  22. “The issue in my mind is whether we’re all grownup enough to talk about these things without having pogroms, and I think we are.”

    Yes, we in America are mature enough to discuss these things without having pogroms. But in the rest of the world, this is not quite as clear. America never had pogroms, eastern Europe had pogroms, Iraq had a pogrom in 1941, anti Jewish agitation in other Arab locations also occurred at various times.

    Eastern Europe is not in a pogrom mood right now, particularly because they are more mature than they were way back when, but also because they are dependent on world trade and America which for whatever reasons (controlled by the Jews and maybe other reasons) doesn’t really like pogroms, and add to the fact that many countries in Eastern Europe were relieved of their Jewish problem by one A. Hitler and the SS, the likelihood of pogroms has been reduced with the Jewish population problem.

    As far as pogroms in Arab countries, first there are no Jews left in Arab countries (slight exaggeration, but only slight) and face it, Mondoweiss would approve of such pogroms as comeuppance deserved by the Jews for supporting Israel. (Okay many of the commenters would approve, but the editors would not “approve”, but hem and haw about the appropriateness of violence against Jews who support Israel.)

    And another point about pogroms, when they come they hit Jewish neighborhoods and not upstate New York.

    • Krauss says:

      We don’t live in 1941, although some people are perpetually stuck in that era, hence why the conversation is so halting when it comes to these issues.

      Talking openly and critically about the power elite should be no different when that elite is Jewish, in the case of Hollywood, than when it used to be WASPish, when it was old Ivy League.

      But there is a difference. Say what you will, but there has been no self-critical book from a prominent Jewish intellectual about Jewish power in the same way that, say, Digby paved the way with his monumental ‘Protestant Establishment’.

      That does suggest a lack of introspection among Jewish intellectual elites overall, and a narcissism. Those who want to talk about it, like Philip, are cast aside and branded traitors. Despite the fact that I’m Jewish myself and move in progressive circles, these topics are still somewhat taboo. Not in a general sense, if you just broach the topic, but if you seriously want to debate it, people become angry and defensive. There’s not a lot of genuine introspection.

      • hophmi says:

        “Say what you will, but there has been no self-critical book from a prominent Jewish intellectual about Jewish power”

        There have been several. For instance, “Jewish Power” by J. J. Goldberg.

        “Those who want to talk about it, like Philip, are cast aside and branded traitors.”

        No, people are branded as traitors when it becomes clear that they’re not real interested in the Jewish community so much as condemning the religion and casting aspersions on virtually every Jewish leader. People are branded as traitors when they try and blame the Jewish community for a war that had the support of the majority of the American public. People are branded as traitors when they say they’re just interested in having a discussion about Jewish power and then post long jeremiads against circumcision. People are branded as traitors when their blogs become repositories for raving antisemites who traffic in crude and pernicious stereotypes about the predominance of Jews in finance and the media.

    • Ecru says:

      So we shouldn’t ask any questions about the role of Jews in Hollywood because somewhere, possibly, if the stars are right, and the moon’s in opposition to Jupiter, and somebody’s cows given birth to a chicken, asking these questions could in some vague undefined way possibly lead to a pogrom? And yet we can ask those same questions of any other group on the planet? Nope not buying sorry.

      Oh and last I heard the most recent pogroms have been picking on Africans and Israeli-Palestinians in Israel. Funny that.

    • Avi_G. says:

      Iraq had a pogrom in 1941,

      False. And I answered your Hasbara brethren about that bit. And you chose to ignore my response because the facts don’t agree with your “Stalinist” smear propaganda.

      See if you can find some integrity in yourself before you comment here. It will make a difference.

  23. Keith says:

    PHIL- “…Unz established that there were two Southern Baptists in the audience, and said they ought to be better represented in the Ivy’s. He believes Jews are empowered and secure enough in a diverse liberal society to have this conversation. So do I.”

    I applaud your efforts to discuss the issue of Jewish kinship and Jewish power, the distribution of power a key to understanding political economy. However, it does seem as if you are overly focused on the demographics of the elites, the number of Baptists at Yale, the acceptance of Black elites among white elites, as if a certain symbolic diversity among elites signifies a ‘post racial’ or post ethnic society. I think you need to broaden your vision to include the rest of us non-elites. Any honest look at American society will reveal ongoing patterns of discrimination and abuse. Some increased diversity among the elites does not offset the disproportionate lack of educational opportunities, low incomes and prison incarceration of these same minorities. Current policies of de-funding education and shredding the safety net are going to further disempower the majority of Americans. The reality is that power currently is wildly over-concentrated among the wealthy and the corporations, Jewish elites prominent. Hardly what I would describe as “a diverse liberal society.”

    As for Hollywood, the conspicuous lack of diversity among the Hollywood decision makers means that filmmaking inevitably suffers from a certain ethnic bias. Additionally, it should also be obvious that these fat-cats have economic and imperial biases as well. Add in the needs of empire to manufacture consent and the entire operation becomes one of misinformation and disinformation. Hollywood’s current emphasis is on normalizing extreme violence as befits a permanent warfare state.

    • lysias says:

      If I understood Unz’s article in The American Conservative correctly, Jews now amount to a majority of the white students at Ivy League colleges. That means all non-Jewish whites (not just Evangelicals, but also WASPS!) are severely underrepresented.

  24. RE: “The overwhelming Jewish numbers in Hollywood are no canard; and in a diverse society, people evidently want to talk about that, so they joke about it (as they joke that the Israel lobby runs Congress).” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: And, they aren’t all entirely joking! ! !

    SEE: “The Riddle of the Israel Lobby”, by Uri Avnery, Antiwar.com, 2/25/13
    Don’t expect a second term peace initiative from Obama

    [EXCERPTS] . . . Why, for God’s sake, did the Americans not do what logic dictated? Why didn’t they put pressure on our government? Why didn’t they make an offer that our leaders couldn’t refuse? In short, why no effective peace initiative?
    It could not be in the American national interest to follow a policy that made it a hate-object of the masses throughout the entire Arab and most of the Muslim world. Didn’t the Americans understand that they were undermining their clients in every Arab country – as these rulers never tired of telling them at every meeting?
    The most obvious reason was the growing power of the pro-Israel lobby, from the early 50s on. AIPAC alone has now more than 200 employees in seven offices throughout the US. Almost everyone in Washington DC lives in deadly fear of it. The Lobby can dethrone any senator or congressman who arouses its anger. Look at what is happening right now to Chuck Hagel, who dared to say the unthinkable: “I am an American senator, not an Israeli senator!”
    The two professors, Mearsheimer and Walt, dared to say it: the pro-Israeli lobby controls American policy.
    But this theory is not completely satisfying. What about the spying affair around Jonathan Pollard, who stays in prison for life in spite of immense Israeli pressure to release him?
    Can a world power really be induced by a small foreign country and a powerful domestic lobby to act for decades against its basic national interest?
    Another factor often mentioned is the power of the arms industry. . .
    . . . The US supplies us with huge quantities of the most sophisticated weapons. True, a lot of these come to us as a gift – but that doesn’t change the picture. The arms producers are paid by the US government as a kind of New Deal public works project supported enthusiastically even (and especially) by the Republicans. . .
    . . . Then there is the “Common History” thing. The US and Israel are so much alike, aren’t they? They have both displaced another people, and live on denial. . .
    . . . Neither Goldman nor I found a satisfactory answer to this riddle.
    Eight months before his death, I received from him, quite unexpectedly, a surprising letter. Written in German (which we never spoke) on his stationery, it was a kind of apology: I had been right all along, no American peace initiative was to be expected, the rationale remained inexplicable. . .
    . . . The letter was a response to an article I had written some days before in the magazine I edited, Haolam Hazeh, in which I asked: “Do the Americans really want peace?”
    Goldmann wrote: “I, too, have already sometimes asked myself this question. Though one should not underestimate the lack of statesmanlike wisdom of American foreign policy makers …
    I could write a whole book proving that America seriously wants peace, and another book showing that they do not want peace.”
    He mentioned America’s fear of Soviet penetration of the Middle East, and their belief that peace is impossible without Russian participation. He also disclosed that a Russian diplomat had told him that there had been an American-Russian agreement to convene a peace conference in Geneva, but that Moshe Dayan had called upon the American Jews to sabotage it. The Russians were very angry.
    Sprinkling names along the way, he summed up: “Without being quite sure, I would say at the moment that there is a combination of American diplomatic incompetence on one hand, a fear of Russian involvement in a peace on the other hand, added to the domestic fear of the pro-Israeli lobby, (which includes) not only the Jews but also (non-Jews) like Senator (Henry “Scoop”) Jackson and others. (All these) seem to be the reasons for the complete lack of understanding and results of the American Middle East policy, for which Israel will pay heavily in the future.”
    Except FOR the decline of Russian influence, every word is valid today, 31 years later, on the eve of the Obama visit. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to original.antiwar.com

    • Keith says:

      DICKERSON- I would exercise caution in taking Uri Avnery too literally in regards to the Lobby (an amorphous entity whose definition varies considerably depending on the bias of the author). Like all Israelis, Avnery is subjected to Israeli media propaganda which tends to overemphasize the power of “the Lobby” in order to reassure their readers/viewers that the empire won’t abandon them. Israelis have no first hand knowledge of either the Lobby or imperial designs, hence, tend to believe what they are told. First, a quote from Henry Kissinger, after which I’ll pick up the discussion.

      “Israel is dependent on the United States as no other country is on a friendly power…. Israel sees in intransigence the sole hope for preserving its dignity in a one-sided relationship. It feels instinctively that one admission of weakness, one concession granted without a struggle, will lead to an endless catalogue of demands…. And yet Israel’s obstinacy, maddening as it can be, serves the purpose of both our countries best. A subservient client would soon face an accumulation of ever-growing pressures. It would tempt Israel’s neighbors to escalate their demands. It would saddle us with the opprobrium for every deadlock.” (Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Straight Power Concepts in the Middle East” by Gregory Harms)

      The center of Zionist power is the US, not Israel. American Jewish Zionists control Israel more than Israel controls the US power structure. And by power structure, I am not referring to Congress. This is a business run warfare state, and military aid to Israel suits them just fine. And, yeah, there are a lot of American Zionist Jews with economic power, however, if Israel ever causes a significant reduction in corporate profitability or tries to usurp Uncle Sam’s Middle East control of oil, the you-know-what is going to hit the fan. The day that Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon kiss Netanyahu’s you-know-what is the day I believe that Israel and the Lobby are calling the shots.

      Finally, I can’t emphasize enough that all of these opinions that the US would be better served by peace than by war totally miss the reality that the US is a warfare state, warfare drives the US economy! Uncle Sam hates peace and loves war, which is why we are always at war with some poor defenseless Third World country.

  25. Danaa says:

    Phil:

    The issue in my mind is whether we’re all grownup enough to talk about these things without having pogroms, and I think we are.

    But this conversation can only be had up to a point, right? the point being when non-Jews join in – that’s pretty much the red line. As long as it’s just Jewish people are having this little “talk” among themselves, well, why not. Such “talks’ have been taking place for quite a while, though not as much in the open as these days, when the “networking secrets’ are out on the inter-nets.

    No better proof of it than on the comment sections of this very blog, which in all its maturity, felt obliged to draw certain lines in the sand. Lines that would specifically bar ethnically-incorrect prurient souls (and their ethnically correct provocateurs) from going too far in the past, or range too far afield.

    An unrelated example: not long ago, Sean McBride, dared to mention “core beliefs” in Judaism. Now, with a name like McBride, his inner tribalism was suspect and no sooner have such innocuous words been uttered that the fury of the guards descended. Sure, the fact that Jewish people of all shapes and places have been arguing those very “core beliefs” from time immemorial, does not give a permission to an ostensible “non-jew’ to raise such alarming fighting words. To wit, let’s ask for a moment – does Judaism contain “messianism” as a ‘core belief’? well, get 5 rabbis in a room and you’ll get 8-20 opinions. Add some non-rabbis with at least one tribal triumphalist and fist fight ensues. But get in a single, meek, non-jewish personage, who mentions something they “read” on the MW blog, and the daggers are out – “Gevalt!”, they all scream, in sudden unison – “Holocausts happened for much less than that!”.

    So I exaggerate. So what? (must burnish my own tribal credentials – don’t like daggers much). More importantly, it’s true. Phil can have conversations with anyone – that much I believe. Alas, that ain’t true for many lesser Jewish souls. The fear they have is not from having “talks” amongst themselves – they have been doing that for how long now? it’s from the ‘the talk” getting out there, insufficiently circumscribed, among the barely – or just incorrectly – circumcized.

    When that prohibition is finally lifted then I will believe that enlightenment is near. IOW, so can I talk again about one Gilad Atzmon? I really want to! maybe if I promise to keep it a secret from individuals with suspect handles? (like “american”, “citizen”, “mcbride”, “america first”, “america last”, “the last tudor””a real mooser’**).

    ___
    ** OK, I know the last three are still waiting to be taken. But you can take them – it’s free! so can I now talk about Gilad? I really have something to say!

  26. joer says:

    This is a very destructive post. With friends like this, the Palestinians don’t need enemies. First of all, implicit in the essay is that Jews in the entertainment industry are a problem. And that leads to the question: Exactly what do you have in mind to solve this problem? And the conversation is no longer about Palestine.
    In addition, the issue is equality versus racism, military rule versus democracy, etc. which many groups have found themselves on one side and then another in the course of their history. When it is looked at primarily as Jew versus Arab, we are drawn back into the tired old fiction of them fighting for centuries so you should pick a side that is most like you.
    And this really irks me: that if there are 18 studio owners who are Jewish, then “the Jews” control Hollywood. Those executives have nothing to do with me. I get nothing from their power, which is the case for most Jews, except for some podiatrist somewhere to feel some vicarious pride.
    This is the point that a lot of people miss who don’t like what the media puts out: They are giving the public exactly what they want. No one is forcing people to watch stupid movies. The public(or the overwhelming majority) wants tits and ass, exciting car chases and shoot outs, easy to understand plots where you know who the good guys and bad guys are, and they do not want to think too hard or have their beliefs challenged. If you want to change the way society is entertained, you really have to change society, not just pick one segment out and blame everything on them.
    Then there is the…irony…of a Jew who makes his living in the media partially from complaining about Jews in the media. The obvious retort to that would be Phil could solve help solve this problem by shutting down his blog and becoming a stevedore.
    The bit was just a naughty joke-not really funny in my opinion-like the ones about Indians who run 7-11s or Pakastani cab drivers.

    • This is the point that a lot of people miss who don’t like what the media puts out: They are giving the public exactly what they want. No one is forcing people to watch stupid movies. The public(or the overwhelming majority) wants tits and ass, exciting car chases and shoot outs, easy to understand plots where you know who the good guys and bad guys are, and they do not want to think too hard or have their beliefs challenged.

      i’m not sure if this is true. there’s too much gratuitous violence in film, is that because we’ve grown accustomed to it and addicted to it? like tarantino’s new film, i won’t go see it. i also do not see this as a jewish issue anymore than i think the violence in video gamers is a jewish issue. but it’s there and our society is becoming more violent because we’re raising our children in a more violence-accepting society.

      another thing, the drug companies..i was watching tv at my mother’s house with her the other night and this penile dysfunction commercial came on and we both looked at each other, like jeez..it’s dinner hour. nothing like that was on tv when i was a kid. and i recall watching this kids cartoon a few years back and the characters were using the word hate over and over. i hate this and i hate that, gross. people become accustomed to things,and then other things become passe and boring. but who leads? the advertising, the media, the people who make exciting cartoons on the outside of sugary kids cereal. a two year old will grab for that box in the store having no idea what’s inside, because of the advertising. i don’t watch tv anymore except when i visit my mom. we watch judge judy, who’s getting grumpier and grumpier. caustic too often, and i’ve been watching her for years, she’s worse. it makes me cringe the way there’s very little nuance.. but now i watch her out of habit.

      easy to understand plots where you know who the good guys and bad guys are

      that’s not true, i loved side effects, the new steven soderbergh film. audiences are being dumbed down. the male genre films are gross. the trailers in the previews freak me out. i won’t go see most of those movies.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Annie
        Very few people can afford to capitalize and market a movie or tv series. The formula entertainment we are bombarded with is there because business folk calculated for feasible profit. Only when fine art can be dumbed down, does it enter popular culture, and it won’t even get there if it threatens influential people.

      • joer says:

        Annie-One way to get an idea of what people are entertained by is to see what the most popular videos are on youtube:

        link to youtube.com

  27. kalithea says:

    Let’s face it, the issue isn’t Jewish power, as many who are itching to play that victim card, would lead you to believe. The issue is a known proven universal fact: too much power for too long in anyone’s hands corrupts absolutely, victim or not…without exceptionalism! Some Jews admit, rightfully so; there are quite a few Jews holding on to power in a lot of powerful places because it’s the TRUTH for God’s sakes! Anyone who hides the truth no matter for what reason is in denial and needs a victim card or some other excuse up his sleeve to delay the inevitable consequences of his irresponsible, insecure, controlling behavior. He KNOWS that he’s clinging to something inherently corrupt as a means to a “noble” end and stupidly thinks that denial and secrecy will protect his “sacred” agenda and this is why some Jews use the Anti-Semitic card to deny the obvious. And this vile tactic results in even more resentment! No excuse is a good excuse to cling to power or try to monopolize it…power is the real Pandora’s box.

    Power is not something easily relinquished or shared with “others”, and the tricky thing about power is that if you lust after it too much, if you hold onto to it too tightly you will certainly create imbalance, injustice and resentment with that power; you’ll make yourself a target and will get exactly the well-deserved trouble that’s coming. And that’s the nature of power. Power is meant for the wise, humble and pure of heart, because everyone else is eventually corrupted by it. The means for maintaining a monopoly on power are always unjust and immoral. Holding on to power is a destructive, self-destructive addiction in the hands of an individual or an exclusive group with selfish, exclusive and sometimes even “well-intentioned” agendas.

    So now that “Jews are empowered and secure enough in a diverse liberal society” let’s have a grown-up discussion about how Jewish power has been corrupted by the selfish not-so-noble agenda, Zionism, and how predictable the outcome is, or is there more to it than that?

    Probably…

  28. jon s says:

    I’ve always wondered about the field of comedy: The Marx Brothers, Sid Caesar, Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Mike Nichols, Lenny Bruce, Jerry Lewis, Jerry Seinfeld, Sarah Silverman…and more. One can scarcely imagine American comedy without the Jews.

    • i could imagine it, but why would i want to? and how could you forget gilda radner?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      You left the best one off of your list, the kings — the firm of Howard, Fine and Howard.

      You could, but there would simply be, in that reality, a different set of people who filled that niche (and, I guess, if, in that reality, it was, say, the Italians who took the comedy lead, we are living the rebuttal to an alternate version of you wondering about scarely imagining American comedy without the Italians…)

      My position is, unless someone is being shut out because of (among others) his or her ethnicity, I have no problem with the makeup of the galaxy of entertainment stars. I may disagree with someone’s position on this issue or that, and disagree with their artistic choices, but their race? Gender? ethnicity? No. Diversity is the spice of life.

    • Citizen says:

      I dunno, Jackie Gleason, Lucille Ball, George Carlin, Carol Burnett? Will Rogers….anybody else want to chime in–tons of comedians’ images in my head who are not Jewish, but right now I can’t remember their names… Personally, I don’t find Borscht Belt stuff funny at all.

      • robin williams, phyllis diller, eddie murphy, johnny carson, Jim Belushi, ellen degeneres,Tracey Ullman

        there are a few non jewish funny people.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Annie, you used four (4!) capitals. Experiencing conversion?

        • ;), so good of you to notice! actually i copy/pasted their names, and i don’t generally uncapitalize for consistency. wasn’t positive on the spelling of either name so i googled. (i am actually a horrible speller).

        • Citizen says:

          Yeah, here’s a few more: Jonathan Winters, Conan O’Brien, Frank Caliendo, Dat Phan, Jo Koy, Charlie Chaplin, Bill Murray, Ernie Kovacs, Steven Colbert, Adam Corolla, Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien, Ron White, Jeff Foxworthy, Steve Martin, Sam Kinison, Bob Newhart, Chevy Chase, Jane Curtain, Garrett Morris, Will Ferrell, David Spade, Mike Meyers, Chris Rock, Molly Shannon, Dana Carvey, Phil Hartmann,
          W.C. Fields
          Buster Keaton
          Jacques Tati
          Robert Dhery
          Laurel & Hardy
          Abbott & Costello

        • Citizen says:

          Louis CK, Anthony Jeselnik are two more, representing the cutting edge of non-Jewish comedians–here’s an article about the trend of current American comedians regarding Jews and Israel-Palestininians: Non-Jews Telling Jokes–it includes the observation that a Gentile telling jokes about Jews requires a lot of smarts since it requires both maintaining PC taboos on Jewish stereotypes and an astute knowledge of the limited knowledge most Gentiles have about Jews*: link to tabletmag.com

          * Doug Stanhope comes to mind; he definitely reflects the outer limits, don’t you think? Watch this: link to youtube.com

          One thing he jokes about in the video clipped routine, is Jews being annoying, especially when they insist on bringing their Jewish identity into everything (–reminds me of the recent Joan Rivers joke extolling the beauty of Heidi Klum’s German butt, which ends with a reminder Germans gassed Jews. When asked about it later, Ms Rivers said she always takes every every opportunity to remind people of the Holocaust because she has relatives [or in-laws, or both, I forget which] who died in it.)

        • Citizen says:

          Rivers made this quip at an Oscars party: “The last time a German looked this hot was when they were pushing Jews into the ovens,”

          Imagine an American Gentile making a similar joke about a hot Jewish top model & there’s an Israeli one here now in USA– regarding the Nakba or OP Cast Lead’s rain of white phosphorus on Palestinian children.

          link to nydailynews.com

        • citizen, stanhope lives in bisbee, a very small town. everyone parties/knows everyone. i lived there for many years. so yes, i can certainly testify he reflects the outer limits in many many ways.

        • marc b. says:

          outsiders almost always make the best comedians, and the privileged posing as outsiders almost always make the worst.

          the golden age of jewish comedians, if there was such a thing, is over. ‘black’ comedians have been the best during my life time, richard pryor, eddie murphy, dave chapelle.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          It is a shame that Joan Rivers has decided to deal with her issues by becoming a bigot.

        • Citizen says:

          @Annie Robbins
          So, did you watch the Stanhope video clip I hot linked to in my earlier comment here? Did you laugh? Anyone else here watch/listen to it?

  29. The comments section here (vis a vis Hollywood and Dov Hikind in particular) is turning into a cesspool of anti Jewish attitudes. Do you really think this helps the Palestinians?

    • sardelapasti says:

      friedman – “Do you really think this helps the Palestinians?”
      Says the guy who a moment ago was being frank and defending torture.
      link to mondoweiss.net

      Also a propaganda agent for invasion, spoliation and ethnic cleansing of the same Palestinians.
      And now he is worried about helping the Palestinians.

      • siardelapaisti- You are correct, sir. I do not pretend to worry about helping the Palestinians. I just wish to understand your (plural) point of view. Do you feel that anti Jewish statements help the Palestinians. I am trying to understand those of you (plural) who spout anti Jewish stuff, and wish to understand whether you feel this helps your cause. Strategy and motivations can be understood even by those who oppose your cause.

        And to clarify: I am still thinking through my position on torture. I think to torture someone because he belongs to a group (not an ethnic group but say PLO or some such, even though I am using anachronistic term, and today PFLP is a “bad” group and PLO is a “good” group) is wrong. There is no end to such justifications. I think the application of military rule to the West Bank is the given fact, but when that rule extends to torture on the basis of belonging to a “terrorist group” or some such, it is wrong and something needs to be done.

        In truth I haven’t given the torture question enough thought and would like to hear Gideon Levy, Yossi Gurvitz and Larry Derfner on the issue. I think the US penal code and constitution regarding innocent until proven guilty and punishments meted out by jury of one’s peers is certainly the direction we should aim for.

        But as I try to think my way to a position by writing here on Mondoweiss, it may sound like I am defending, whereas I am attempting to cogitate and formulate.

        (The ticking bomb exception, if it is to be made, must be strictly kept within bounds. That the penal system used to subjugate Palestinian prisoners includes torture is both a sign of the serious determination to defend “us” and of a serious deficit in regard to “the other”.)

    • kalithea says:

      So then you’re basically stating that exposing and checking a monopoly on power, in other words exposing the fact that there are GATEKEEPERS AT EVERY TURN, is not beneficial to Palestinians. How selfish to want sustain the cozy status quo at the expense of Palestinian freedom! Exactly how is sustaining GATEKEEPERS AT EVERY TURN beneficial to Palestinians. I’m waaaaaai ting…

      I can hear crickets already…

      • hophmi says:

        You’re not exposing anything, kalithea, except your own prejudice. That’s what you don’t get.

      • kalithea- You’re saying. Yes, it helps the palestinians to dish anti Jewish sentiment. Maybe. But don’t be surprised when others disagree and when proud Jews who feel equivocal towards Zionism feel unequivocal about you and your anti Jewish sentiments. I am against you and I’ll fight you every step of the way, dearest. Too bad that you never have anything to say except a bunch of cant. Some people combine anti Jewish sentiments with brains, as in citizen. You combine anti Jewish sentiments with a lack of brains.

    • MK_Ultra says:

      Oh, thank you, thank you master for not using the quintessential cry of “anti-semitism™”

    • Citizen says:

      @ yonah fredman

      Dov Hikind is a cesspool of bigotry all by his lonesome. So we should turn our other cheek?

      • Citizen- Sling whatever anti Jewish sentiments you want. But don’t pretend you’re slinging hash, when you’re slinging s***.

        • Citizen says:

          @ yonah fredman
          I defer to readers here; they can google “Dov Hikind” and what he does, says he stands for, advocates, and who, if anyone he demonizes, etc. They will learn whether or not he has a well-established reputation as a “cesspool of bigotry.” And, btw, yonah, I so spoke only of the individual, Dov Hikind, “all by himself.” So please explain to me and readers here how and why you jumped to accuse me of expressing “anti-Jewish sentiments.”

  30. Mayhem says:

    The insinuations are coming out that whenever there is a preponderance of Jews anywhere there should be vigilance because a lot of those Jews will have a predilection for Zionism. MW proponents are willing to show ‘leadership’ in this area, quick to slam a hasbara gag on anybody who speaks out too forthrightly in support of Israel.
    All the sour grapes over 5 Broken Cameras failing to bring home the bacon (sic) at the academy awards is being translated into anti-Hollywood sentiments.

    • kalithea says:

      One third of Jews live in Israel. At least 75% of Jews living in the Diaspora are Zionists (although I’m sure I’m understating it).

      …hmmm, that means that only 25% or less are not Zionists.

      That’s a whole lot of GATEKEEPERS contributing to Zionism and Israel and keeping Palestinians imprisoned under OPPRESSION AND OCCUPATION.

      And don’t blame 5 Broken Cameras for exposing the truth. Everyone knows what’s happening to Palestinians at the hands of Zionists. Blame the director of Gatekeepers, DM, for putting that incredibly appropriate term GATEKEEPERS ON THE MAP. Exposure is good.

      Sweet…I mean, the Truth.

      • hophmi says:

        “That’s a whole lot of GATEKEEPERS contributing to Zionism and Israel”

        It amounts, by your calculation, to about 12 million people.

        There are around 300 million Arabs in the Middle East. Polling suggests most of them believe killing Israeli children is not a form of terrorism.

        The truth. It sucks.

        • MK_Ultra says:

          Ironically, most jews also believe that killing Palestinian children (and women) is not a form of terrorism either. And the proof, is in the pudding.

        • Citizen says:

          @ hophmi
          Maybe, but America is not bankrolling those Arabs and covering them diplomatically at the expense of America’s once-admired image in the world. But we have killed a lot of Arabs, eh?

  31. hammersmith says:

    I am content with the make up of Hollywood moguls, lest the rest of us get blamed for that mess.

  32. Truthbug says:

    The Jewish Community has a lot at stake here. If people freely talk about the Jewish influence in Hollywood, then they will talk about how much of the media, government, and banking that is also influenced by Jews. Then of course, this passes to the existence or not of the Jewish Lobby, as a dominant part of the Israeli Lobby, and heavens, where will all this lead? Personally, I’m astonished at what Jews have accomplished: they have succeeded with tremendous degrees of influence and behavior in Western society, yet have made themselves invisible. And trivially, of course, we’re not talking about all Jews, but rather, emergent properties, considering a whole bunch of people.

    • hophmi says:

      “Personally, I’m astonished at what Jews have accomplished: they have succeeded with tremendous degrees of influence and behavior in Western society, yet have made themselves invisible. ”

      “Made themselves invisible”? How, pray tell? It’s the opposite. Most of the world thinks there are many more of us than there actually are.

    • hophmi says:

      “The Jewish Community has a lot at stake here. If people freely talk about the Jewish influence in Hollywood, then they will talk about how much of the media, government, and banking that is also influenced by Jews.”

      Perhaps they will traffic in these crude and pernicious stereotypes. This is why Jews are vigilant when it comes to antisemitism and why we reject the idea that we act “as Jews” or as “a Jewish community” in these roles, when in reality, we simply act as human beings, like everyone else.

  33. American says:

    The real question here isn’t what Jews control in Hollywood or anywhere else……the question is do some of them use their position to mislead and propagandize the US public on Jewish interest like Israel.
    Do some Jews in Hollywood do that?
    Do some Jews in the press do that?
    Do some Jews in the media do that?
    Do some Jews in politics do that?
    The obvious answer to those questions is yes some do.
    How much Hollywood does it I don’t think one can say accurately…it’s not that they are churning out propaganda stories about Israel –it’s that they avoid that subject. But we can say that film’s like Spielberg’s that portray Jews get Hollywood support and films like Gibson’s Christ don’t on the basis it might make Jews 2000 years ago look bad.
    If House of Cards had been a Hollywood produced series instead of an independent Netflix would the part about Israel and the ADL/lobby have been included as a DC power tool for political blackmailing? Hollywood has taken on every conceivable politically related story from Africa and blood diamonds, to Vietnam, to Cambodia killing fields, to SA apartheid, Jim Crow, slavery, you name it they’ve made a film out of it, based on moral outrage, victory, defeat, justice, espionage, oppression, freedom struggles, government corruption….except for Israel-Palestine conflict–they’ve avoided that one for 40 years.
    Maybe they’re wating for the end to write the script for that one.

  34. Danaa says:

    I wonder why no one else has mentioned the obvious: Hollywood has hardly turned out a decent movie in years. For the most part it has all but specialized in blood-and-gore action/horror silly movies, full of special effects, decorated by so-called “stars”, devoid of decent story lines, over-emoting and under-performing two -dimensional characters that look and feel like comic book creatures. Hollywood is the thing that can take a top actor/actress and make them look like they are acting in a high school drama show – a sophomoric concoction of light, sound and pretend-fury, signifying nothing. it regurgitates it’s own illustrious past and turns it into a circus, full of re-makes, un-makes and make-believe, made-up sessions with manequins.

    Hollywood is the Fructose version of ‘entertainment”, designed to give a momentary high, only to come crashing down in a vague state of dissatisfaction, unfulfilled expectation and hunger for more of the same.

    Once in a blue moon, a better product comes out, like “Lincoln”, but for the most part it’s become a spectacle-ville, clown shows for masses of teenagers who know that nothing will be so riveting that they won’t be able to text while they watch.

    For decent movies worth seeing, the only shows in town are the foreign movie circuits. There are good movies being made around the world, and typically, each and every nominee for best Foreign Movie could take any Hollywood made movie down in a breeze. I will note that for the most part, the excellent movies made in numerous countries around the world required no Hollywood moguls or giant-budget flops-looking-for-saviors.

    It is IMO is no accident that the creative juices of American film making seems to have run dry even as apt networking propelled certain ethnically-identified to the top. It is diversity that makes for variety and I think that the well has runneth dry partly because incestuous favoritism – which is what Hollywood is built on – has a way of killing the imagination. The fact that the vast majority of the studio executives and huge proportion of screen writers, agents and producers are jewish is surely not the only cause of artisitic dystopia known as “Hollywood” but it sure didn’t help.

    • Citizen says:

      @Danaa

      “… clown shows for masses of teenagers who know that nothing will be so riveting that they won’t be able to text while they watch.”

      Great comment Danaa.

    • American says:

      “For decent movies worth seeing, the only shows in town are the foreign movie circuits”…Danaa

      I totally agree…can’t remember when I last when to see an American film. I don’t live in big city with access to foreign films in theaters, but fortunately the local college here features foreign films monthly so that’s where we go.
      I think the same thing can be said for American novels–boring and trite and cookie cutter, almost all I read now are by European authors set in Europe and other foreign countries.
      And I frankly can’t stand what passes for American humor, it’s crude, rude, usually directed at tearing down or making fun of someone and not funny, give me the subtle British wit any time.

    • seafoid says:

      Caste systems always destroy creativity.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      That broad-brush claim is mostly nonsense and reeks of the kind of tired knee-jerk unthinking bigotry that is as tiresome as the most reactionary jingoism. “Hollywood” is a metanym for the US film industry, but they are not the same. Sure, if all you look at are the film product that are intended to be commerce as much as, or more so than anything else, then, yes, you will find products that are designed to appeal to the broadest audience possible. If you are unable to find American films with all the artistry and depth of the foreign films you are discussing, then you aren’t looking at all.

  35. Kathleen says:

    Prof Cole has an interesting take on the Argo win
    link to juancole.com

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      Cole’s take is very flawed, because he doesn’t understand filmmaking, so he doesn’t understand that Argo was telling the specific story it was telling. His criticism — while perfectly valid in a discussion about history — are worse than useless in a discussion of filmmaking.

      • lysias says:

        It’s no criticism of Herbert Selpin’s 1943 movie Titanic (in my opinion, by fat the best Titanic movie) that he played fast and loose with the real-life history of the Titanic, because it was in the service of achieving a higher purpose: creating a parable about the disaster into which the Nazi government was leading Germany at the same time that he was getting state support for what was ostensibly an anti-British propaganda movie.

        What higher purpose is served by Argo‘s mythologizing?

  36. MK_Ultra says:

    Quite ironically, here’s a take from Ha’aretz on the subject. And this piece is not even in reference to this broohahah but, rather, it was published a few years ago:

    Mad Men: Why Jews should dominate Hollywood

    Jewish creator of hit TV show Mad Men says common question asked since it aired three years ago has always been: Is Don Draper Jewish?

    During a week in which the so-called Jewish domination of the media was being bandied about thanks to Oliver Stone, I’m reminded of the following quip my editor Rob Eshman made three summers ago, the year “Mad Men” made its television debut:

    “When they say Jews control Hollywood, I always think to myself: Thank God.”

    link to haaretz.com

    • American says:

      ”Jewish creator of hit TV show Mad Men says common question asked since it aired three years ago has always been: Is Don Draper Jewish?”

      That is so ..whatever….I watched some episodes of Mad Men and it never occurred to me to ask if Don Draper is Jewish—-there was no reference to anything Jewish or his being Jewish in the segments I saw—–so who the hell would that question occur to?…….only two kinds…..a Jew fixated on Jewishness or a tin foil hat wearing anti Semite fixated on Jewishness.

  37. jonrich111 says:

    The problem with Phil Weiss’ analysis is that it focuses on only one side of the story: Jewish success. It ignores the inevitable trade-off that comes as a price for that success: the renunciation of Jewish identity. The price we pay to succeed in American society is the abandonment of our own culture. In order to “make it” in America, we have to give up our distinctive identities and traditions to assimilate into gentile culture. And this assimilation is a form of oppression that is unnamed and unaddressed by Phil Weiss.

    If Jews were the ones in power in Hollywood, why don’t we see more openly Jewish characters in films, or more depictions of Jewish holidays? We are bombarded with Christmas imagery during December, but how many Hanukkah movies have been made? How many films about Purim? Rosh Hashanah? Yom Kippur? I don’t remember seeing too many Havdalah cermonies in mainstream film.

    The Jewish people who work in Hollywood do not work AS JEWS. In other words, most Hollywood actors and producers are highly assimilated and do not specifically make films AS JEWS to put out Jewish ideals and values into the culture. Hollywood only depicts Jews on film who are Jewish in name only. They are not engaged in Jewish life; their Judaism only comes up when it is used as the butt of a joke. Jews are not portrayed as distinctive culturally, we are shown as being undifferentiated whites (until a joke about big noses or curly hair pops up).

    • The Jewish people who work in Hollywood do not work AS JEWS.

      i left my violin in the car, i’ll be right back..hold that thought.

    • sardelapasti says:

      111 – “It ignores the inevitable trade-off that comes as a price for that success: the renunciation of Jewish identity”

      It is high time to finally start to get rid of that undefinable, elusive, in one word * *inexistent* “Jewish identity” BS already! I wish.

      It is the opposite: These guys may have or not have that undefinable-inexistent “Jewish identity”, but their huge majority sure has the clearly definable and measurable, murderous Zionism. Their owners and a lot of the lower ones, too. If they do it as Jews is nobody’s problem, but the fact that they churn out Zionist propaganda and huge material support to the murderers is everyone’s problem.

      “Jews are not portrayed as distinctive culturally…”
      You know what? That’s because there is no such thing! If you were talking East Coast Ashkenazi it wouild be different. What if I defined Jewish cultural identity as the way of life of Falashas? Of Bukharis? You’d be so happy, natch. No problem, eh?
      What a bunch of false faces…

    • Shingo says:

      The price we pay to succeed in American society is the abandonment of our own culture.

      Oh my, you mean, success comes at a cost? Wow, I never knew that was a compromise unique to Jews.

      In order to “make it” in America, we have to give up our distinctive identities and traditions to assimilate into gentile culture.

      Do you think Muslims, Hindus and Buddists also have this problem? Has it occurred to you that for many who pursue success, this might now be a big price to pay, or does not even bear consideration?

      You have to be the first person I have ever heard suggest that success is a form of oppression.

      If Jews were the ones in power in Hollywood, why don’t we see more openly Jewish characters in films, or more depictions of Jewish holidays?

      The reason not every butcher is Kosher is because there is only a small demand. It’s doubtful even Jews would be interested in going to see such films.

      Seriously, yours would have to be the most absurd and delusional argument I have heard since, oh I dunno, Gilad’s post the other day when he tried to suggest that slavery is a form of sharing.

      • jonrich111 says:

        Shingo says: “You have to be the first person I have ever heard suggest that success is a form of oppression.”

        Then it seems you are unaware of the basic dynamics of anti-Semitism. Jews are systematically set up in intermediate positions between those with real power and those without. Jews appear to be in control and hence are a convenient locus of anger when the pain caused by the system is too much for the people at the bottom to bear. The anger becomes focused at Jews instead of the ruling classes, or the system itself. Then Jews become targets of popular attacks because “they have the money, they run the banks, they control Hollywood, they pull the strings on Congress, etc.” It is this precisely this hidden vulnerability that explains why “success” is the basis for Jewish oppression. We are scapegoated and targeted for our success.

    • Cliff says:

      Absolute nonsense.

      Jewish characters and Jewish culture is everywhere.

      Often subtle.

      Like Dwight Schrute saying some seafood joint in Tel Aviv is great. This was in 2009 after the Gaza massacre.

      For anyone who watches The Office, Dwight Schrute is the authoritarian buffoon of a side-kick to Michael Scott, the office manager – played by Steve Carell.

      Dwight is ethnically German and proud of it. He’s also more Amish and less urban.

      He’s weird, a ping pong enthusiast. He lives alone with his cousin Mose on a beet farm…

      His uncle is implied to be a Nazi, since he is hiding in Argentina. Dwight recalls that when he attempted to visit his uncle, his travel visa was ‘protested’ by ‘the Shoah Foundation.’

      And yet, years later after Operation Cast Lead, when Israel’s image was worse than usual – Dwight has apparently gone to Tel Aviv and tried the sushi.

      Absolutely absurd and total Brand Israel injection by likely a Jewish writer on the show.

      It’s just pure nonsense. The Office was my favorite show until Steve Carell left to capitalize on his success as a movie star. But all throughout the show you had casual references to Israel. Such as characters playfully scheming to make big money in a side-story and referring to the big score as ‘shekels’.

      This is just one example.

      There was a move with Steve Carell and Tina Fey, called Date Nite. The movie is about a busy married couple who have lost the spark of romance and adventure in their life since becoming completely domesticated by family life.

      So they plan a date nite and hijinks ensure. A case of mistaken identity and they’re suddenly on the run from gangsters.

      On their way to more unfunny exposition and slapstick, the couple stop at a personal trainer friend of the wife, Tina Fey’s character. He’s played by Mark Wahlberg and obviously is supposed to be a threatening alpha male to Steve Carell’s average Joe character.

      Oh and guess what, Mark Wahlberg was just having sex with a girl before opening the door to the couple. The lady he is with turns out to be a former IDF soldier who is also very attractive, scantily clad and speaks no English.

      She’s seen half naked mumbling in Hebrew with a come hither stare.

      I mean, shit like that is everywhere. I love movies and I clearly watch a lot of them, good and bad alike. So I notice this stuff.

      It just piles up.

      There’s also a movie called ‘I Love You Man,’ starring Paul Rudd and Jason Segal – both Jewish. In the movie, Segal’s dog is named Anwar Sadat.

      Then there’s Bridesmaids which was a hit move a couple of years ago. In the movie, you keep hearing about the Israeli self-defense technique, Krav magra or something.

      That same reiteration of the Israeli combat technique is stated in another movie called ‘Thiry Seconds or Less’ starring Jesse Eisenberg – fresh off of his success in The Social Network. The line is uttered by his buddy in the film, Aziz Ansari – a Pakistani-American comedian. No context. He just says it.

      Again, there are so many examples of this. Totally irrelevant to the plot. It’s just there to pair Israeli identity with something that could possible be ‘cool’ (the movie the Brand Israel drek is injected in nonsensically in a deus ex machine fashion) in the hopes that Israeli identity is simultaneously normalized and made ‘cool’.

      It’s a shallow affair all around and that’s why Brand Israel wants in. Not like anyone is going to look into the issue. They just see the hit Israeli chick and their brain cells that weren’t already dead, proceed to combust.

      So the notion that Jews have to shed their Jewishness to make it in Hollywood is utter crap.

      It’s the opposite. Being Jewish and pro-Israel is in. We will see more pro-Israel propaganda as well as rebranding injected nonsensically into popular movies when possible.

      It’s all typical conspiratorial antisemitic memes in terms of pointing out its existence but its also all true.

      Here on MW, we have seen articles wherein Jewish Zionist activists advocate that local Zionists in the inner circle of news media and film, cozy up to non-tribe members and promote Israel so as to rub off on these poor saps and willing executioners.

      That’s as antisemitic as you can get but once again, its the Zionists doing the tin-foil hattery and not anti-Zionists.

      Only recently, a major Israeli official urged Israeli film makers to counter truth like ’5 Broken Cameras’ with Israeli movies about suicide bombings and otherwise propaganda to re-victimize unendingly, Israeli identity in the minds of the non-tribe members.

      This is the war of narratives. Everything matters. From a subtle uncharacteristic throwaway line by a character with a Nazi war criminal grandfather hiding in Argentina to entire movies whose sole purpose is to paint Israelis as normal people in a though neighborhood.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Cliff
        “It just piles up.”

        Yeah it does. I also watch a lot of movies and TV sit coms etc. The teen angst and young adult comedy movies are chock full of it.

      • ritzl says:

        @Cliff Yeah, if I hear another reference to Krav MaGA, Israel as a vacation paradise, and/or Golani Brigade/Mossad as an exemplary, I think I’m gonna puke. It’s everywhere, and it’s ruining what would otherwise be “better than smoking a cigarette” distractions.

      • jonrich111 says:

        Cliff says: “Again, there are so many examples of this. Totally irrelevant to the plot. It’s just there to pair Israeli identity with something that could possible be ‘cool’ (the movie the Brand Israel drek is injected in nonsensically in a deus ex machine fashion) in the hopes that Israeli identity is simultaneously normalized and made ‘cool’.”

        For one thing, Israeli identity is normal and cool. :-)

        At the very least, Israel deserves to be treated the same as any other country. If countries in the Americas, Europe, Africa, or Asia are portrayed normatively on film, so should Israel.

        Second, Jews are persecuted because we are understood to be a threat to the prevailing systems of oppression. At the heart of Judaism is Tikkun Olam: the idea that it is our responsibility to repair the world and bring about a future age in which “nation shall not lift up sword against nation…” That is why Judaism should be normalized. It should be celebrated. This goes not only for Jews but for all people and all cultures that make up the wondrous tapestry of humanity.

        Third, there is a double standard to your argument. You criticize Jews for treating Judaism and Israel as normative, yet you don’t criticize Gentile culture for being treated as normative. For every instance of Judaism or Israel being celebrated in Hollywood films, there are literally billions of examples of where Gentile culture is being celebrated and normalized.

        In America, white Christian “WASP” culture is the default, the norm. It needs no label, no name. Its so common that its taken for granted. And by “Christian,” I include secularists and atheists because they are a product of Christian culture and upbringing. Judaism, on the other hand, is treated as different, other, or outsider. It applies only to a specific group and isn’t used as a symbol for the human universal like Christianity is.

        So if Jews are really in control of Hollywood, how do you account for the pervasive Christian privilege that exists?

        • Cliff says:

          jonrich says:

          So if Jews are really in control of Hollywood, how do you account for the pervasive Christian privilege that exists?

          When Zionists say that Israel should be treated like others in this regard or that regard, what they really mean is that Israel should be given a pass.

          The reason a large pervasive religious group like Christians and Christianity, is given a pass is because they are a large pervasive group.

          Jews and Judaism are a minority but are a ‘majority’ in Hollywood.

          That does not mean ‘Jews control Hollywood’ if your implication is that every Jew on the planet and every new Jewish person converted or born is ‘responsible’ or ‘in on it’.

          Which goes to show how stupid antisemitism – as painted by Zionist Jews and our Establishment gatekeepers – is.

          The framework is this. We live in a multicultural society. But not all groups are treated the same. And there are reasons for that.

          So attack the reasons and not the headline.

          Jews – as in Jews in Hollywood – have the largest influence on Hollywood as opposed to other identity groups.

          And then what is Hollywood? And is there overlap between popular opinion and popular opinion within the Jewish community?

          Is it fair to pin it solely on Jewish American political views and disregard the overlap if it exists?

          I think there is overlap. But I think the spectre of antisemitism (as a slippery genocidal slope) hangs over popular institutions in America because of the success of Jewish people.

          It goes back to group mobility and how prominent members of the ethnic group perpetuate their mobility.

          The Israel Lobby is an institution and it’s not just going to close shop once it’s reached the plateau. It’s going to want to stay there.

          And threats to it’s status will be dealt with accordingly.

          Chuck Hagel ‘won’ if winning simply meant getting the position. If doing anything with that position of power means winning, he certainly lost.

          And making a circus of Hagel and all the rest had utility in and of itself. It sends a message to other potential threats and it tests the loyalty of current liars and bought-and-paid for politicians.

          Hollywood is not subversive. Israel is the Establishment. But it’s power is overstated in the Establishment because of gatekeepers.

          Those gatekeepers do the same job in Hollywood. It’s not conspiratorial it’s normalized.

          Which is why Dwight Schrute, from The Office, – a character who is ethnically German and who has never left the tri-state area except to see a ping-pong tournament in Eastern Europe, who has a Nazi grandfather who is hiding in Argentina, who’s (Dwight’s) travel visa was protested by “the Shoah Foundation” when he tried to visit said grandfather – APPARENTLY went to Tel Aviv and tried seafood at some Tel Aviv restaurant and would say the food at this Israeli restaurant was ‘the best’ in an episode IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING OPERATION CAST LEAD.

          When Israel’s reputation (or lack thereof) was in the proverbial shitter.

          Israel is not cool. It’s fake.

          And the references to Israel are always in passing and don’t come up organically (like Aziz Ansari tackling Jesse Eisenberg in ’30 Minutes or Less’ after Jesse Eisenberg’s character says he slept with Aziz Ansari’s character’s sister after prom, which prompts Aziz to yell at Eisenberg whilst pummeling him (its a comedy so it’s a funny fight, not real fighting) “take that, Krav Magra – the Israeli Defense Forces fighting style” or something.

          These references always come off like some producer injected them into the script.

          It’s pathetic.

          I’m young and watch a lot of movies. I’m in my 20s still so I like to tell myself I know what is ‘cool’ still lol. And seeing these Israel references desperately placed into the mouths of characters who dont believable deliver them – is not cool.

          Fake trending for a Fake country.

        • Cliff says:

          I forgot to mention a lot of these projects are related to Zionist Jew, Judd Appatow and his circle of friends.
          Appatow and that club are responsible for such intellectual abortions like ‘You Don’t Mess With the Zohan’.

          So really, it’s no surprise that these guys would awkwardly inject ‘Brand Israel’ into a character’s persona.

          It’s all about normalization and it’s no different from Israeli propagandists erecting a fake beach in New York City to promote Israel as a fun, carefree, oasis in the desert.

          I recall Code Pink crashing the party.

          But yea, we see ‘normalization’ in movies like ‘The Hurt Locker’ – where the politics of the Iraq War are removed and it becomes about just a guy and a job he has to do. A job he feels he cannot leave because it’s consumed him and he cannot feel alive as a civilian. In fact, thats what the movie is about.

          In doing so, Bigelow (and she really confirmed her propaganda credentials with ZD30), normalizes the Iraq War.

          We have moved beyond the morality and the legitimacy of the war and turned it into, almost, a movie about blue-collar firemen or something.

          Like Ladder 49! Its a puke-fest of self-congratulations.

          Israel is less in your face, but more pervasive, but in the past those movies were made anyways.

        • hophmi says:

          “Appatow and that club are responsible for such intellectual abortions like ‘You Don’t Mess With the Zohan’.”

          What a great movie. Did you notice that the plot is about how the Israeli character ends up marrying a Palestinian? Sorry, I know this kind of complexity is way too complicated for the likes of you.

          “But yea, we see ‘normalization’ in movies like ‘The Hurt Locker’ – where the politics of the Iraq War are removed and it becomes about just a guy and a job he has to do. A job he feels he cannot leave because it’s consumed him and he cannot feel alive as a civilian. In fact, thats what the movie is about.”

          Yes, it is soooo horrible. People will just not make movies that adopt Cliff’s hard left POV.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        In the show “Community”, the character Abed is supposed to be Palestinian Muslim, though you’d never know it from anything the character says, does, or thinks. Indeed, in the first season, they made it a point to make the old racist on the show played by Chevy Chase hate Israel. Of course Abed — the one character who could have shed light on israeli crimes — had nothing to say and antipathy to israel was shown as being irrational hatred.

        Yeah, this stuff is all over the place.

      • hophmi says:

        “Absolutely absurd and total Brand Israel injection by likely a Jewish writer on the show. ”

        You’re insane. Really. Get checked by a doctor.

        “I mean, shit like that is everywhere. I love movies and I clearly watch a lot of them, good and bad alike. So I notice this stuff.”

        No. You’re obsessed with Jews and Israel, and that’s why you, AND ONLY YOU, notice this stuff. It’s you, not them.

    • “we are shown as being undifferentiated whites.”

      Oh, the horror.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “Jews are not portrayed as distinctive culturally, we are shown as being undifferentiated whites”

      In other words, they portray the day to day experience of most American Jews??

    • Were rich Jews “oppressed” in Britain, in your view, when they intermarried readily with aristocrats in that country?
      Aren’t “Jew” the richest group in America? This is “oppression”?

      • jonrich111 says:

        James Canning says: “Aren’t “Jew” the richest group in America? This is “oppression”?”

        This type of vulgar Marxism is a very narrow way of looking at the world because it assumes that only economic oppression is real. In reality, oppression has many dimensions, only one of which is economic. A woman may be a victim of sexism even if she is a millionaire, and a gay man may face homophobia despite being a successful businessman. Likewise, Jewish people can face anti-Semitism despite being wealthy. In fact, the “Jews have all the money” trope often leads to anti-Semitism, because if you believe Jews have all the money then Jews become targets, they become scapegoats and are then attacked for their “success.”

        • There is nothing “Marxist” about observing that the richest people in a country should not be regarded as being “oppressed”.

          True, slights of one sort or another may well be on offer.

  38. hammersmith says:

    Americans live in a fantasy world of which Hollywood is a great contributor. But Hollywood just capitalized on the pre-existing nature of the American beast. Our conventional narrative/history is a contrivance at best and an cruel myth at worst. And the Jews did not write or make up most of it. Hollywood just found a warm already-made nest awaiting.