Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

"Jews Control Hollywood, Media." Don't Deny It; CELEBRATE!


Ascotrudgeracer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi ascot!

 

I have a lot of blogging experience with European websites, some cultural, some political. I have published film biographies of Hungarian Jews who have made a big impact in the film business, like *Adolph Zukor of Paramount* and *Alexander Korda* and his brothers, who founded *London Film Studios.*

 

Many, many people, for over 90 years, have pointed out that Jews are/were influential in Hollywood. Whether this ends up being an anti-semitic observation or not depends on the attitude and rhetoric of the commentator. Either one says it with an attitude of positive acknowledgement and recognition, or one is clothing it in the rhetoric of race baiting.

 

My own articles were in the vein of the former. Someone like *Joseph Goebbels,* his regime, as well as the neo-nazi nationalist right that continues to flourish in Eastern Europe, take/took the latter approach. (Goebbels, as head of the German film industry, was absolutely obsessed with the subject of Jews controlling Hollywood.) 95% of the response to my articles has been favorable, but a small portion of comment attacked both me and the Jews. The Jew hating racists, who still abound over there, are driven by paranoia. They feel that control over Hollywood was just one of their spearheads for influencing the world, as well as governments.

 

I took the "radical" approach of not distinguishing between Hungarian Jew or gentile. (I also celebrated gentiles like *Bela Lugosia and Vilma Banky*) I held up anybody born and raised in Hungary, who had made it big, as someone to honor and to be considered an inspiration for other Hungarians to achieve as well (Founding Paramount was no small potatoes!) This unfortunately is too inclusive and liberal an attitude for many of the toxic nationalists over there. I myself am not Jewish, but that did not make a difference to their neo-nazi element: I wasn't supposed to be so accepting; I wasn't supposed to downplay the difference. Worse, I wasn't supposed to highlight Jewish contributions to film in a positive way.

 

In a sense, the 1930's have not yet ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just check out how remarks like that were used throughout history. And, whenever a thread turns up here related to a specific "minority" group, there is always someone who says, "I don't know why they would find this offensive."

 

The title of this thread alone is offensive, hopefully the Administrator will keep a close watch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi swithin,

 

Ascot's saving grace was that he put quotation marks around the first part of the thread title; his last word "Celebrate", makes his point. It's a tongue in cheek title, but I get his point.

 

It's not a bad subject to bring up; it's how it is discussed that is the point. I have a LOT of experience dealing with, and fending off neo-nazis, as per my last post. (Indeed, the word "neo" in many instances is redundant and superflous.) I can smell them a mile away by now. I doubt this message board will descend to that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot help but wonder if Ascot decided to start this thread when he saw the thread topic I started today. Seems kind of a coincidence. Unfortunately, when one uses words like "control", even if it's meant in a positive way, people can become wary of possible racist feeling. I am not saying this is the case with Ascot, whom I believe simply meant that Jewish people have and always have had a lot to do with the creative and financial success of Hollywood.

Still, I hope no one thinks the thread I started, referring to a list of 100 best Jewish films, was in any way controversial. Certainly not intended to be so. Lists of best movies, whatever the type or origin or label of the movies may be, are always interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi misswonderly,

 

Ascot is an inveterate thread launcher, and I'm sure he was inspired by the other thread. I myself would have worded the title quite differently, like: "Let's Celebrate Jewish American Contributions to Hollywood". (our friend may want to consider retitling in order to avoid misimpression) Use of the word "control" can be a PC flag. Many Jewish people overlook PC slip-ups in wording, wanting instead to ken the basic intention and purpose of the speaker/ writer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curosity, I did a non-bias Google search related to this thread, I typed on the Search Bar.. *Who actually controls Hollywood* and was a bit surprised of the search results related this to Jews and a couple says the Illuminati controls Hollywood -- another Dan Brown conspiracy maybe in the works?? :^0

all_seeing_eye_gifneri7o.png

 

There is an article in the Los Angeles Times

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi hamradio,

 

The attempt to draw a conspiracy of social and world governance between the Illuminati, Freemasons and Jews goes back over two centuries. As such, it greatly pre-dates Dan Brown.

 

To understand the origins of this belief, you have to know a lot about European history, and French history in particular. Under the "Ancien Regime", the old feudal-monarchist order before 1789 in France, the church had certain guaranteed prerogatives: that it could be a large landowner, that it's pre-eminence as a religious sect would be guaranteed by the state and that it would be protected from competition from other faiths. That it would have control over the educational system and that it could invoke the civil authorities to quash any expression or politics with which it disagreed.

 

The climate of repression and prosecution was such that it became a breeding ground for "secret societies" among the educated and cultured classes. The Illuminati and Freemasons emerged pre-eminent, before and after the 1789 revolution when the monarchy was violently overthrown. They championed the so called "Enlightment", which sought to seperate church and state (our own founding fathers were influenced by this as well), democracy, freedom of speech and press and republicanism.

 

The history of France became a turbulent succession of "republics"- the govt that fell to the Germans in 1940 was called the "Third republic", and the post WW2 French govt was the "Fourth republic". Throughout these changes, the church was sometimes suppressed, it's properties confiscated, it's schools closed and civil influence stripped. Other times it came back and sought to reclaim it's "ancient" privileges. It got locked in a savage struggle with freemasonry, and in the midst of all the bad blood, the church actively promoted the idea that Jews and freemasons were teaming up against it, and trying to take control of governments throughout Europe and the world with the idea of opposing the church and replacing it with a secular society.

 

This went on for so long that these notions took on "legs" and later gained traction with fascists and German nazis, people who also opposed "secret societies". They live on today among the neo-nazi nationalists and right wing, especially in eastern Europe. "Freemason" still has a sinister and subversive connotation among this crowd there even today.

 

As cinema exhibit and evidence, take a look at my *Vintage Exploitation Film-Filmography* thread in *Your Favorites*. There, I posted a film made under the German occupation in France, called *"Occult Forces"(1943).* The premise of the film, made by the *Propaganda Abteilung*, was that Jews and Freemasons were behind the sham known as parliamentary democracy (which the nazis opposed) and that their objective was control of governments throughout the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I know about their history, The History Channel have some great documentaries about the Freemason and the Illuminati. "Angels and Demons Decoded" is a good one concerning the Illuminati. They were founded by Adam Weishaupt who tried to overthrow the Bavarian government.

 

Suspisions towards the Freemasons are mostly unfounded. Just human nature to fear any "secret" society even if harmless. The only association with Hollywood is Lodge 542. Hardly secret :)

http://www.lodge542.com/

 

*Adam Weishaupt - Illuminati Founder*

Adam_Weishaupt01.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have relatives and friends who are Freemasons, and every time I hear

the theory that they are a part, even a small part, of some vast international

conspiracy, I have to chuckle. However, it does give them a aura of mystery

that their rather mundane activities would not otherwise deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi CBogle,

 

There was a practical necessity for their secrecy at one time (see my previous post). Over the years I think they have morphed into a fraternal networking organisation, not unlike the Elks and Shriners. In spite of that, they still perpetuate a lot of loaded symbols and rituals of an earlier time.

 

They are still actively vilified by ultra nationalists and neo nazis, especially in eastern europe. This crowd often declares them to be in alliance with the Jews. Such rhetoric ought to be laughable, but there's nothing amusing about such myths persisting into the 21st century. The people who spout this stuff have no progressive political or social vision. Quoting what I've seen some of them say verbatim here, would not pass the moderation standards of this message board! Trust me on that one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freemasons.

Or the Loyal Order of Raccoons.

Or any other "club" or "gang."

What the hokey heck IS IT in the humanoid DNA they makes people "join up?"

 

I guess everybody needs to "belong" to something. Unless you're the type that would never join a club that would have you as a member (stale joke).

 

Little boys are fond of building a clubhouse; first thing they do is hang a sign:

"No Girls Allowded"

Then they get older and join more clubs.

I think it has much to do with the theory that most people are terrified of being alone.

 

Now I have offended the Freemasons and, I guess, everyone in Israel. I did not have that intention.

 

The most important thing is this: that we are all FREE to say anything.

 

Edited by: Ascotrudgeracer on Dec 16, 2011 3:25 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ascot,

 

In my experience, these fraternal organizations have historically served as a means for networking for businessmen and professionals. When your income derives not from wages but from sales, contracts and the patronage of others, this makes sense.

 

Lodge brother wants to develop some land. He asks his lodge brother, the banker for a loan. He gets his lodge brother on the town council to approve the permits. He then goes to his lodge brother who owns the lumber yard and gets a deal on the materials. Lodge brothers who are electrical and plumbing contractors also come in handy. When his kids need braces, he gets his lodge brother who is a dentist to give him a good deal. Because they all have something to bring to the table, they grease each others wheels and everyone is happy!

 

I think a lot of commerce in small towns throughout the country has been driven this way, which is why there were so many of these organizations at one time: Moose, Kiwanis, Freemasons, Elks, Shriners, Odd Fellows etc. etc., with chapters and lodges throughout the country.

 

People who work for wages have less incentive to join such things, unless they are climbers and have social or business ambitions. A man can be an island, but he will have more success in business if he is not!

 

A great satire of fraternal lodges was *Laurel and Hardy's Sons Of The Desert (1934)*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I think it's fair to say that the Masons are now a fraternal organization

like many of the others that have been listed. What does set them apart is

their history and their syncretistic mystic/occult symbolism and practices.

That likely makes them an easier target of conspiracy types than the other

groups. No offense to Lions or Elks, but it's hard to think of them as the

nexus of some deep, dark, and dangerous conspiracy. The Shriners are

an auxiliary group of the Masons, in that you must be a Mason (a certain

degree of Mason I believe) in order to become a Shriner. Shriners have their

own quasi-Middle Eastern symbolism, though it's hard to think of men with

fezzes riding around in tiny cars as having anything to do with either the

Middle East or a conspiratorial group.

 

The small town and medium sized city seem to be natural environments for

fraternal groups that also serve as business networking societies. Good old

real estate man George F. Babbitt was a member of a number of these groups.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I suppose it has something to do with the old saw that man (and woman) are

social animals. Of course some folks are more likely to be joiners than others.

These groups do provide fellowship and, of course, a network for those who want

to increase their business connections. Every once in awhile you'll read that

these organizations are declining in membership and that today people don't

have the free time to be members of these groups. Not sure how true that really

is.

 

The Raccoons sure seemed to have a lot of fun. Seems they spent a lot of time

playing pool and drinking beer. Then there were those fun convention trips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> The most important thing is this: that we are all FREE to say anything.

* Just for the sake of accuracy, you're not free to say anything. There is no such thing as an absolute right to freedom of speech anywhere in the world.*

 

*Where it applies here, the Code of Conduct specifically outlines what you cannot say on these forums. As the one who applies those rules, let me clear that there's nothing redeeming about this topic: I'll refer you to the discussion of trolling and suggest you find something else to discuss.*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll second the administrators' point by saying that privately owned websites are private property. Like with a home, a guest is a guest with the permission and consent of the owner, and can be restricted at the will of the owner.

 

Furthermore, the First Amendament doesn't apply in such a situation. That amendment restricts the government from restricting your free speech, but does not apply to private parties, who are free to restrict expression as they like in their businesses, among their employees, in their homes, or on their websites. If you get your wrists slapped around here, don't start waving the constitution or go running to the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...