Do Jews run Hollywood?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

Do Jews run Hollywood? You bet they do--and what of it?

by Ben Stein

http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Jews/

Crafty 60 Minutes had studied the top slots in town. Their research showed that "only" about 60 percent of the most important positions in Hollywood were run by Jews. ... if Jews were about 2.5 percent of the population and were about 60 percent of Hollywood, they might well be said to be extremely predominant in that sector.

...

First, it is extremely clear to anyone in Hollywood that Jews are, so to speak, "in charge" in Hollywood in a way that is not duplicated in any other large business, except maybe garments or scrap metal or folding boxes.

At mighty Paramount, the controlling stockholder is Sumner Redstone. Head of the studio is Jon Dolgen. Head of production is Sherry Lansing--all members of the tribe. At titanic Disney, the CEO is Michael Eisner, the world's most assimilated Jew, who might as well be a Presbyterian. Deputy head is Michael Ovitz, karate champ but also a Jew. Head of the studio is Joe Roth. At newly energized ICM, the top dogs are Jeff Berg and Jim Wiatt. At still overwhelming CAA, Jack Rapke and other members of my faith predominate. At William Morris, Jon Burnham and other Jews are, by and large, in the power positions.

This has always been true in Hollywood.

...

"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 ."

-- Marlon Brando on Larry King Live

...

I wonder what Republicans mean when they say "Hollywood liberals"?

[meti57b]

1. Yes, of course we run Hollywood. We run everything ...

as you no doubt may have heard. We are currently considering tipping the planet on it's axis. ;-)

meti,
member in good standing
of the
International Jewish Conspiracy
(IJC)

[Marian]

2. New Protocols Available Here:

www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com

[ugarte]

3. Hollywood is practically the last liberal bastion in America

Better the IJC than Dick Cheney and Pat Robertson.

[aquart]

4. They mean Jews. Did they ask about the other 40 percent?

Because my bet is they're Catholic. Why? Because theatre wasn't respectable. It wasn't where the children of the good, white, Protestant people made a living.

It was where the outcasts went. Irish need not apply. Those used to be the signs put up where there was job hiring.

How did Beverly Hills, that address of addresses get its start? The "good" section of LA, where the rich and important lived, was restricted. Jews weren't allowed to own property there. So they bought land that wasn't restricted.

The upsetting thing, of course, is that the outcasts got so rich. If the WASPs had known, maybe they would have soiled their hands.

[KharmaTrain]

5. MOT Response...

One of the cable networks (I think A & E) did an excellent series on the origins of Jews in Hollywood.

Most of the original moguls (Mayer, Warner, Selznick) have been painted as "Jews In Denial"...as they downplayed their religion throughout their lives (especially during WWII) and married non-Jewish women.

Yes, there's definitely a buzzword of Hollywood = Jewish = Evil in the Right Wing code book. Today those names are Ovitz, Eisner, Karmazin, Geffen, Spielberg and others who have risen to power in the money pit. Again, except for Speilberg, the label "Jew in Denial" or "Jew In Name" only is applied to these folks. But that doesn't mean anything to the wingnuts who love Jews when they fit into Armagedeon but hate them the rest of the time.

[baldguy]

6. I thought money ran Hollywood.

Just like everything else.

[Moderator]

7. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator