Amazing how these things can be discussed without much hoopla as long as a person of non-jewish descent is not pointing out the facts.

Now if this article was published in the nation's newspapers everyday for about 6 months, well then we might have some realization on the part of the public as to what the hell has happened to this country over the past 50 years or so. And how about that arrogance too, yowza!!!!

Anyway, hate to kinda violate my self imposed censorship of all matters in this department but this was just too obvious for me to resist, perhaps it might open a few eyes.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,2313474.column

-- Modified on 2/5/2009 3:27:54 PM

Is Oprah a Jew?

Hey the article speaks for itself, I am not making the point. The author's point is that the american people are naive and ignorant to not believe that jews wield much power in Hollywood and the media.

I guess if you had a kid that you would not tell him to stay away from snakes because not ALL of them are poisonous instead of telling them to avoid snakes just to be on the safe side. It shouldn't be necessary to do this, but I have been accused of worse in the past (the nose business garbage) so I will say that the comparison using snakes has nothing to do with jews.

I find it unbelieveable that people like you refuse to admit the facts Mr. Stien discusses simply because EVERY SINGLE studio is not owned by a jew. I mean what the hell is wrong with you, can't anyone make generalizations anymore, are you so bitchified that you can't make a educated assessment of reality based on the general state of affairs.

This lack of the ability to make genralizations makes me sometimes think that the West deserves to meet its end. What pantywastes we have as men in this civilization.



-- Modified on 2/5/2009 4:14:51 PM

You say we all know what is anti-Semitic? In fact the definitions are quite diverse.

     Our state department defines anti-Semitism as "hatred toward Jews — individually and as a group — that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."

       A typical dictionary definition as in the On Line dictionary is simply one who is prejudiced against Jews.

      A third group of definers would include as anti-Semitic the making of stereotypical allegations about Jews. But this definition would embrace even positive images.


    Big difference between these definitions isn't there? The most murderous Hamas suicide bomber could be lumped together with some poor uneducated but decent guy who happens to think that the Jews control Hollywood. They are both anti-Semites to the undiscerning.

       Scanning your article, we can easily say there are no anti-Semitic comments from the author under definitions 1 and 2. At best, he is exploring the parameters of definition 3. But he in fact is trying to determine whether the stereotype of Jews in Hollywood has any factual basis.

     His unscientific survey shows that Jews are  indeed dominant in the positions he surveyed. Nothing anti-Semitic about that – just a statement of fact. For balance, he quotes a PC guy who expresses the percentage as one of disproportionate over-representation.

     So that’s how the article is not anti-Semitic –it expresses neither hatred nor prejudice toward the Jews and explores the stereotype without simply assuming its true. Whether written by  Jew, a Moslem, or Donald Duck, no discerning person would treat this article as anti-Semitic.

Is Oprah a Jew? As I have posted before, race, culture and religion mean nothing to me. All I can say about the article is "so what". So, is Oprah a Jew?

Describing demographics, if accurate, is not "anti-" what ever group you are talking about.

For example, if one were to point out that a particular AFL or basketball team has a higher per cent of blacks than the general population, assuming it is true, it is not anti-black.

Likewise, if one were to point out that a disproprtionate number of Jews have won Nobel prizes in any number of catagories, it would be an accurate description of demographics.

Jews got into the entertainment biz in the early days of Hollywood when a lot of other people were not interested.  The fact is that they started the big studios - Goldwyn, Warner, Lemle, etc.

There are other groups that are more prominent in certain areas.  That is what we call reality.  Nothing negative, so long as it is based on reality.

ROFL....that is priceless.

I don't see this as anti-semitic at all. In fact, there is little difference between the intent of this piece and the intent of things like Black History Month.

This piece highlights the accomplishments and success of members of the jewish community. This might come as a galloping shock, but only a few decades ago, Jews dwelt in the same poverty, and experienced the same violent discrimination that blacks dealt with. Why not celebrate their achievement by rising to the highest levels of management in a multi-billion dollar industry?Good for them. Let them toot their horn.

Of course, viewing hollywood in terms of "brought to you from the makers of the Bible" sort of explains alot for me. I've got about as much use for Hollywood as I have for the Bible - which isn't much. But hey, no one can knock their success, or the sheer cussed determination that has brought Jews from grinding poverty such sucess. Others could learn alot from Jews.

C'mon, a non-jew says that the jews control the media and it is considered as pure anti-semitism, give me a break. Total hypocrisy.

I could show you other articles of this ilk written by non-Jews that would be and are condemned as anti-semitic. Those would be articles devoid of any anti jewish terms or epithets.

The article is great, 100% truthful. It's just totally hypocritical that jews are the only ones permitted the right to write about the issue without also being called all the nasty names.

Also far be it for anyone to acknowledge what Stein points out (jewish media control) and then add that this control has not been beneficial to the morals and values of america. Oh boy that would really be anti-semitic,no matter how much evidence was presented.

Basically anti-semitism, in the modern day with the media defining what it is, anti semitism is basically what ever the jews don't like.

-- Modified on 2/5/2009 5:36:40 PM

-- Modified on 2/5/2009 5:37:15 PM

The original article from the L.A. Times discussed Jews having a disproportionate presence in Hollywood and entertainment.  

You then said something about Jews controlling the media.

The two are very different.  While Jews went into the entertainment business, they did not control the media.  The Chandlers in LA, Hearst in SF and nationwide, the New York Times, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, CNN, and other sources are not controlled by the Jews, and none of those companies were founded or controlled by Jews.

If a non-Jew tells me that Jews have tremendous influence in Hollywood, I don't get upset. But to transform that to the media is not true.

and seems to have nothing to do with the issue he is raising.

Is Oprah a Jew?

Oh , I get it, you don't like hypocrisy.

What can others learn from Jews? What "others" are you referring to?

You're right, they're too successful. They need to be more mediocre, like the gentiles.

If an ethnic group is underperforming, like the blacks, you blame them for their shiftless under-motivation. When they are over-performing, you see them as a threat, or as subversive.  

Now, as comparison with the Jews: shouldn't gentiles be taking more responsibility for NOT accomplishing as much? Isn't that what modernistic individualist American social philosophy says we should be doing? That life isn't fair, that it doesn't matter how much another ethnic group shuts you out, you have the responsibility to succeed.

Is there no way for Jews to win with you? Aren't entertainers better than Bolsheviks?  

On the question you posed: it would have been very touchy for a gentile to say this. It was only slightly less touchy for a Jew to say this. Why? Because people like you hate Jews equally whether they're Bolsheviks or entertainers. And it doesn't take much to set you off.

I don't see very much anti-Christian stuff in the media. I just don't. When Hollywood does get "spiritual" it's usually a muddled mishmash. You do get the occasional "Dogma" movie, independent ones made on a nickel budget, which are most notable for all the protests they attract. They have the action-fantasies that basically ignore Christian and Jewish religions, which also heavily ignore that "Thou shall not kill" commandment. Maybe that's what you mean by attacks on Christianity, but they seem biased against Judaism as well.  

You do get things like "Schindler's List" and maybe you're angry that it just doesn't let bygones be bygones about that soo overblown holocaust incident. But then again, you get "The Passion of the Christ," and the fact that Hollywood producers bankrolled "Apocalypto" and that Mel Gibson is still working in Hollywood, says something.  

If you're saying that they attack and disparage America, I can't think of too many examples, either. You do get the occasional "Rambo" or "Black Hawk Down," which patently promote  America, while avoiding anything controversial.  

Jews do have their own tight network, but so does Alpha Chi Rho, Lambda Chi Alpha, the Masons, Rosicrucians, and the Skull and Bones (the latter membership was even caught red-handed plotting a coup in the US). The fact is that secularized Judaism functions like a fraternity-- of successful people.

So, in other words, suspicions of subversion or some evil plan here are totally unfounded.

I have to say that if the Jews get slaughtered for what has happened over the last 50 years, it would be the wrong culprits. It won't be the good restart for the nation that you are thinking.

things have become way to "PC".  I can't even make little dick Asian jokes anymore.  Just kidding GaGambler.

Take a toke. lol

It's a few days after I posted this but let me placate you, no Oprah is not a Jew. You happy?

I contend that the mainstream media is controlled by jews in much the same way Hollywood is, the proof is there.

Now what force has condemned the thought of the majority in America (white people) suscribing to group loyalty, that is racism isn't it? Who calls it racism, the media, groups like the ADL (referenced in the article),etc, that lead the charge in condemning the notion of "white racism".

I have no problem with jews working together for their common good. I do have a problem with these same jews condemning any other group for doing the same. The most nationalistic of any race whether they be blacks (Black Panthers) whites, etc, are always condemned by groups like the ADL and the media, of course with whites being condemned more than anyone else.

I also think it is inevitable that the people who are left out in the cold, the nonjews that don't get but the crumbs of what the jews leave behind once their dealings are carried out are prompted to rebel against them and this has played out in history. The jews at the top, Zionists and in the past, seem not to care that their own people, many who are not profiting from their excess, stand to lose alot because of this possibility of rebellion.

Good arguments though, rare that you get that.

Yes.

You have come up with yet another racist post. You want to say white people subscribing to "group loyalty" are considered racist by the Jewish controlled media and the ADL. Then you say you have no problem with nationalism but the Jews condemn all forms of nationalism but their own. Then you , like Adolph before you" offer the threat of rebellion and the reason that you give is "people were left in the cold". What will your next suggestion be?  A reenactment
of the final solution?

Though that there are some claims (from anti-semites) that his father married a Jewish woman, it isn't verified, and they have to "prove" that no matter what the evidence, though he's apparently irreligious. Either way, Murdoch is terribly conservative, and his main outlets all lean that way.  

About why whites banding together as an ethic group is disdained: they aren't an ethnic group. They are many ethnicities. It means that if they unite over their whiteness, something bad will be happening.

One thing makes Blacks pull together as one ethnicity: their history of slavery and oppression by Whites (of any ethnicity) has given them a shared identity. Sort of like Britain's tax policies quickly made Americans into a "new" people, or the Arabs in Palestine became Palestinians. Shared oppression and suffering create new ethnic groups and nations.

So, the reason why Whites pulling together as one ethnicity formally competing with the others is dangerous-- to the stability of the country. It's seen as racism, simply because it would be in response to measures taken to help Blacks, who are still suffering from damage (past or present) to them perpetrated by Whites. For Blacks, slavery and Jim Crow were just the worst insults to them, their were major insults and attacks on them that happened in every generation up to the 80s. Whites have forgotten or have dismissed them.

In some ways you are anti-semitic, in others you're not. You comment on how there's bound to be a rebellion against Jews. The problem with this is that because Jews are so successful, their identity as a group is bound to weaken and disappear. Without oppression to hold them together, the identity will weaken over time and disappear.  

About Jews at the top not being helpful to the bottom, to the contrary, if anything they're very motivated to help other Jews, and Jews aren't in the underclass anymore.