It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Oliver Stone: Jewish control of the media is preventing free Holocaust debate

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by patmac

That would be the large smoking chimneys with the smell of human flesh coming out.... yea silly pants. They existed.

Also, 6 million did die, as with many others. It is a none issue. If you want to continue to debate what is solid in stone, go ahead. But no one is going to listen to you silly pants. For such blatantly retarded issues it should be a law. Like how 1/3rd of Americans don't know the Earth revolved around the sun. For such blatant retardation, they should be charged with some kind of stupid fee for being leaches to the nation.
Name calling comes out of the closet when the 6 million number is questioned. I'm disappointed, all I want to see is the proof. The number seems quite high given the number of Jews in Europe at the time.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:58 PM

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Well... a day later and wouldn't you know it... Stone is being blasted in the media. So umm... doesn't that just go to show that he is right???

It's getting crazy that anytime you so much as question Israel or something to do with Jews you are chastised and basically run out of town. What are they so afraid of?

Funny isn't it. Nobody else could get away with such name-calling. But for them, it's worked so far. But maybe it works less well now; I hope so.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by oniongrass

name calling concluded when the mods said so. Calling someone silly is not an insult nor name calling. Now, the data is all there. A couple of pages back we did some mathematics with it. I'll post it back here if you'd like.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:34 AM
Nearly 78 million wiped off in both wars, why would anyone focus on (supposedly) 6 million..?

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:47 AM
I think the argument about how many Jews died during the Holocuast is off-topic and pointless.

I'd much rather discuss why saying Jews run the media is considered antisimiteic when the fact is they do.

Joel Stein, a Jewish writer, said it best in his "How Jewish Is Hollywood?" article for the LA Times.

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
LA Times

Even going on to state:

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.

Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. "I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They're disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well," he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I've noticed, aren't so big on circumcision.

I appreciate Foxman's concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.

I think aside from the fact that this is a reality, many Jews have hit out against those stating this fact for fear of Jews being held responsible for the messages contained in the media itself that are deemed as manipulative. Especially to a pro Israel agenda.

The fact remains that when it comes to media in America, Jews are the gatekeepers and are at the top positions of control.

How is saying such a thing antisemitic?

- Lee

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:00 AM
reply to post by lee anoma

Now why the heck would you want to make sense, communicate intelligently, and post references, when you could derail the the OP and talk smack?
Man you are elevating the level of this thread to true discourse...
Now cut that out!

or we will get you!

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Danbones]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:20 AM
Call me paranoid but something is wrong about Mel Gibson's and Stone's remarks.

The remarks are totally off the wall. These are intelligent people and they should know better.

I wonder if they were not asked to say negative things. Now these two popular figures have said negative stuff - people who kept their non-PC views secret will feel more free to express them in public. This then allows the people in power know who harbors these views.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91

If it's totalitarianism, so be it. I could not care less. It keeps BS out and clear concise proven science in. Hell. I'd favor that society over the flaming pile of crap America is becoming.

Let me rephrase that, it keeps undesireables out and denies all forms of doubt. you did not address the point that eugenics was an established (pseudo-?)scientific movement at that time and carries the guilt that comes with responsibility. I find it funny how you openly embrace totalitarianism, and how you 'could not care less', at least for now. again, you're embracing a concept that is destructive, in which case you have right at all to complain about the results, imo, of course.

PS: I personally consider your 'contribution' to this thread is null&void because you stereotypically value tranquility more than liberty. A lot has been said about that mindset, btw, but since the web is at everyone's disposal (for now), so i'll just leave it at that without attaching a few quotes. It's also interesting which side you took, so it's plain to see where the jackboots are putting their money today.... if you're willing to openly state your conviction you must be very sure of yourself, but have you considered that only one post was required to reveal it? You're probably becoming too transparent and unsophisticated.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 07:14 AM
reply to post by lee anoma

If that don't take the cake, this will.

Norman Jewison, director of Fiddler on the Roof, . . . is NOT Jewish.

Believe it or not. When the producers contacted him about making the movie, he told them.

The Jews are a very interesting ethnic group with a surprising amount of diversity within the group. If you really read up on the history of the Jews from the beginning, you will find an unbelievable amount of suffering and an unbelievable degree of group cohesion and dogged persistence.

Ethnically, they are very tribal. They don't mix and mingle the way many other groups have, although there are exceptions, of course. Love really can conquer all, if given half a chance.

The first large waves of European Jewish immigrants to the US scored lower on indices of IQ than many other segments of the US population, but within a generation or two, by dint of labour, this was reversed.

They are an ornament to American culture now and to world culture.

Having said that, not everything they do is above criticism, especially in the political sphere. Also, being at the top of any organization or industry, at least in some circles, is regarded as an indicator of psychopathic tendancies. "Clawing your way to the top."

Stone's movie is going to disappoint a lot of people, because the real in depth story of the Nazis, though long overdo to be told, is just too complicated. You could do a movie on the history of the "Protocols of Zion" alone or a fascinating movie on the life of Hitler to the time of the Munich Putsch and incarceration in Landsberg prison.

The story of the Nazis is a huge story. Serious people should study it in detail. How many people know that the Volkswagon "beetle" was first sketched out by Hitler, or that he designed the Olympic logo and the modern style of Olympic Games?

The Nazis had closed circuit TV in the thirties. People should see some of that programming. It'll shock you how contemporary it is in conceptions and style.

To a large extent our modern world was designed by the Germans of the twenties and thirties of the last century. I could go on and on about this. Study it if you are not aware already of these facts.

The thing that really should be underlined is that the Nazis did not create and achieve the achievements of the Germans, including those of Jewish Germans. The Nazis were a very unscrupulous political gang that seized control of the German state, largely through intimidation and violence. They were the family pitbull that wound up eating the family.

"The Family" is now trying a different formula of fascism. This time they are attempting comprehensive control of the political spectrum, instead of just feeding one pitbull to the point where it can eliminate all the other dogs, they allow the dogfights to go on since they own all the dogs and control the winner whomever that might be.

Smiley face fascism. George W. Bush. Barack Hussein Obama. Smiley guys.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:16 AM
As long as the Empire pays me, I will pull the trigger on anything under the aim of my rifle whenever they ask.

Is that soo wrong

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:35 AM
reply to post by Long Lance

How so? Modern science is based on doubt. Without doubt, it would not exist. Your rephrasing only invalidates what you were saying.

Here's the thing. We did not know what planets were out there. We doubted there was non, so we investigated. we discovered that planets are a dime a dozen. Now if someone claims there are no planets it's quite foolish and simply ignorant. They have no proof and no sources for their argument. There is now doubt in his claims because of his doubt in the scientific community. His doubt is baseless. The scientific community's doubt is not.

Just replacer planets with the holocaust numbers. Same thing.

And I did not say I accept totalitarianism. I said your definition of it, which is wrong, is perfectly acceptable. And Communism and totalitarianism are ideal systems. But man is not ideal, so they cannot work.

Great job completely ignoring what I said about this last page and selectively picking your arguments. Has it ever occurred to you that I am sure of myself because I have the backing of the global scientific community with sourced articles and you do not?

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:15 AM
I suspect that one thing that distresses many Jews about the current state of Jewish culture, I mean post WW2 Jewish culture, is an entirely unexpected result of the tragic meeting of European Jewry with Nazism.

The result. The adoption, in segments of the Jewish community, of an "if you can't beat'em, join'em" attitude to fascism. In essence a horrifying Darwinian adaptation and incorporation of the methods of fascism into their culture.

A retired chief Rabbi of Jerusalem stated, apropos of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, that the country was going backward, step by step, down a ladder into hell.

This bears on Stone's statement about Jewish control of the media. Jews may control the media, but who are they controlling the media for?

Some people ascribe virulent eastern European anti-semitism to the use of Jews, by eastern European aristocratic rulers as tax collectors and financial enforcers against the peasants.

The Jews have always been used, going back to the middle ages, by elites, to do things that the elites were forbidden to do by Christian religious authorities, or didn't want to do for political reasons.

This is a complicated historical political tussle.

In our time media of all sorts are extremely important control mechanisms. Having a jumpy, paranoid, ethnically tight segment of the population in control of the media serves the interests of that group, but also serves the interests of a larger group, much more powerful than the Jews.

This group is very happy to have a community of trembling survivors of the holocaust in control of communications. It suits them just fine. That ethnically distinct group (the Jews) can be used to help control the one group that the elites fear most, the large amorphous, ethnically diverse mass of the people, who must be carefully, carefully handled.

So things come full circle. The Jews, mainly just interested in surviving with their self aggrandizing myths intact, once again are playing that old song, and being used as a tool by the elites.

Note: People will say "But, but, but, the Rothschilds! They are the controlling ones! They own the banks, ipsedixit. The Jews are the problem!"


One company of marines is more powerful than the Rothschilds, if landed in the right place at the right time. The Jews will never be in control of the world. Their peculiar ethnic insularity militates against it.

When God chose his people he made sure there would always be few of them.

The real "problem", so to speak, is much closer to home.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91

How so? Modern science is based on doubt. Without doubt, it would not exist. Your rephrasing only invalidates what you were saying.

glossy PR, if you actually do that in cosmology you'll find yourself fired the next day, just search for a man named Halton Arp. one example of many, how did Linus Pauling, the guy who won two nobel prizes become a quack again? another, for your perusal.

And I did not say I accept totalitarianism. I said your definition of it, which is wrong, is perfectly acceptable. And Communism and totalitarianism are ideal systems. But man is not ideal, so they cannot work.

Great job completely ignoring what I said about this last page and selectively picking your arguments. Has it ever occurred to you that I am sure of myself because I have the backing of the global scientific community with sourced articles and you do not?

you said that 'if it is, i'll accept it'. then you went on and said you 'could not care less', mhh, what do you actually care about? ideal systems? are you serious? none of these systems have much foundation in reality and whether you like it or not, it's called a real life test for a reason, because that's where the rubber meets the road so to speak.

religion, epic fail, communism, epic fail, fascism? apparently alive but failing. what's next? maybe actively looking for what works, then learning from it, as in changing yourself rather than your surroundings?

sorry but your consensus isn't going to impress me, i barely participated in this thread, because i find it's based on a PR stunt, i never even got so far as claiming anything about the holocaust, i only noticed a pattern.

one in which being right or even trying to appear truthful is if anything just the means to an end.

what do you think the commies did? scientific planning. of course, with hindsight people will always claim it was bogus, corrupted by this evil regime (much like nazi science,btw,) when you're living at that time, things look mighty different of course, so it will have to suffice that some hedge funds (edit: it was called 'long term capital management') or whatever) advertised a scientific approach which was supposed to be fool-proof - only to fall into the bottomless pit they helped to create in 1990s Russia, that is. got a bailout, too.

use science where it's due, not as an excuse.

[edit on 2010.7.30 by Long Lance]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by Long Lance

So a guy made a suggestion, there was doubt, but when the science checked out it was ok'd?

Well ok. That's proving my point. Do you honestly expect them to outright say yes? That's called doubt. So yea, thanks for proving my point.

Religion does not fail if it is good religion. That's kind of why there are 1.5 billion Muslims and another Billion Christians and they've been around for centuries, or thousands of years to some people. Not a great lover of Islam. But it works where it works. Christianity and Islam is basically individuality versus conformity.

I said I accept it under your definition. Which, as I said, is wrong. The scientific community is not fascist. But if you call it that, I accept that as good. Because it works.

Science neither stays in one plays nor instantly accepts ideas. This is beautifully great. And thank you for the people you listed who prove my point.

So let me ask you. In all this you say, how am I wrong, and how does it change the number of people who died in the holocaust, or the number of Jews, more importantly. Great job derailing the thread. But it was for nothing. So we're still at square one. Still waiting for your proof.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:37 PM

Originally posted by ipsedixit ... The Nazis had closed circuit TV in the thirties. People should see some of that programming. It'll shock you how contemporary it is in conceptions and style...

There are three movies about the sinking of the Titanic, after a bunch made in around 1912: the German one of 1943, the US (Hollywood) one of 1953, and the Hollywood one of the 1997. The 1997 movie is much more lavish and is actually a much better movie than the 1953 one. What they don't tell you often is that its script is largely from the 1943 German (Nazi) movie. I guess that wouldn't have helped Leonardo DiCaprio's box office.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:35 PM
Double standards alert.
Why does a lib like Oliver Stone get the usual high five from the media yet a conservative like Mel Gibson has his career ruined?

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Alxandro
Double standards alert.
Why does a lib like Oliver Stone get the usual high five from the media yet a conservative like Mel Gibson has his career ruined?

Stone's father was Jewish.

Other than that, I don't have much to add. It shouldn't be a crime to disagree with the standard version of the holocaust, and historians should be able to talk about their findings without being thrown in jail.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Son of Will
I'd much rather hear about who was involved in letting Hitler get to power (and helped him sustain his power), and who influenced the decision to kill a bunch of innocent jews, instead of nitpicking and fighting over how many and by what method. But that's just me.

Germany was in a horrible depression after WWI and had to pay for reconstruction, so they started printing money like there was no tomorrow. Thier dollar collapsed and I bet you can imagine what it was like to live there. Hitler served in WWI, was imprisined, wrote his book (promoted anti communism, anti capitalism, anti semitism, Nationalism, etc) rose to power by telling the German people what they wanted to hear (they were outraged by poland having its own country, had its boundarys taken away, and had to pay for the rebuilding of Europe, etc). He told the people he would better thier standard of living, he delieverd, he garuanteed jobs, he delievered. He also had was a fan of Eugenics and the Spartans. Nonetheless when a leader does what he says, people get too into it. Hell he probably got too into himself and drove himself a little nuts before the drugs took over.

I'm not sticking up for the guy or anything like that, just filling in the blanks.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by AudioGhost]
If someone can tell me how to get my post out of the "quote box" I would appreciate it
I can't figure it out.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by AudioGhost]

[edit on 2-8-2010 by AudioGhost]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:09 PM
Well guess what?

ADL accuses Oliver Stone of making anti-Semitic remarks

[edit on 8/2/2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

problem is, even if hitler "did far more damage to the russians," it was russian jews he was killing. and when he was done, stalin took the cause and killed a bunch himself. something real weird about all this, if you ask me. the more i study it, the more i think it's bigger than any of us suspect.

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in