by Doug Collins
A FUNNY thing happened
on the way to the movies the other day. A
British reporter in Hollywood raised
international dust by writing about Jewish
control of Tinsel Town. His name is
William Cash and his story was
published in The Spectator, a major
magazine published in London.
The article and the reaction to it even
warranted a page in the Globe and
Mail, which usually steers away from
such delicate stuff.
The Globe's headline was 'Why
Hollywood is seeing stars."
This space has dealt with the same
subject, but my meanderings were wimpish
compared with what this fellow Cash had to
say. If my column had been anything like
his I would probably have been in the
clink by now.
The story began with a group portrait
of some powerful people in New York's
Vanity Fair magazine, which asked:
"What have these men got in common?'
It showed 16 bosses including Steven
man. And Vanity Fair
answered its own question by stating that
this was the New Establishment - leaders
of the computer, entertainment and
communication industries in America.
The New Establishment, said the
magazine, had replaced the Old
Establishment. But Cash said that that
didn't tell the whole story.
He pointed out
that the New Establishment was
predominantly Jewish, whereas the Old
Establishment had been predominantly
WASP. And he quoted Auberon Waugh, a
waspish writer in more ways than one,
who had called Hollywood bosses the
Titans of Tripe.
Cash went on to say that the New
Establishment was 'a white sock
meritocracy' (white socks are supposedly
popular in the film industry), and that it
ran a network that kept WASPS out. The new
boys, his article suggested, were clannish
and vulgar, and also "talented
He described a WASP would-be producer
who had gold chains on his wrist and a
chunky Star of David round his neck. Asked
why he dressed like that, the man replied:
"I'm trying to look Jewish.'
Cash said the New York Times was
the official mouthpiece for U.S. Jews, and
that 'every major studio head is Jewish
today, just as they were 60 years ago.
It was a shot heard round the
The Times' story was headed "Stereotype
of Jews is Revived".
"Few in Hollywood can recall such an
anti-Semitic article in a major
publication," it huffed.
Others said the piece was "a classic
portrayal of Jews that goes back to an
embellished image of Shylock". And Cash
was "talking in the tradition of
Goebbels and the Nazis".
Neil Gabler, the Jewish author
of "An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews
invented Hollywood", said Cash was
"spewing out anti-Semitic bile."
The object of this wave of rage
wondered what all the fuss was about. No
anti-Semitism was intended. In a letter to
the Times he stated:
attacks me ... but what is so ludicrous
is that all the historical evidence I
present in my article about how Jews
always worked together in the movie
business comes straight from his
it, he refers to 'the Jewish network,'
specifies how Jews preferred to work
with other Jews, and details how
Hollywood Jews practised 'reverse
it is acceptable for a Jewish writer
like Mr.Gabler to use words like
'network' or 'reverse discrimination',
when a Brit uses similar phrases he is
British journalism, he pointed out, is
"colorfully subversive". But in Hollywood,
attacks on a personal level are seen as
being "as out of place as badly capped
He got some support. A letter in the
Los Angeles Times said it was OK
for that paper's Jewish TV critic to call
the Irish 'potato heads', but not for Cash
to say the wrong thing.
There are some ironies here. The editor
of The Spectator is a Jew and he
too wondered what the fuss was about.
"American papers have a code of
political correctness and it's impossible
to run views counter to that product," he
Here in Canada it's twice as bad. If
the Cash article had appeared in any
Canadian magazine its editor and the guy
who wrote it would have been hung, drawn
They would probably have been charged
with spreading 'hatred" under the federal
laws. Failing that, the Canadian Jewish
Congress would have laid a complaint under
our misnamed Human Rights Act. But in the
U.S., and apparently in the U.K., they
still have something called freedom of the