Apples to Apples: A Media Tale of Two Anti-Semitic Rants — Oliver Stone & Mel Gibson
by Warner Todd HustonSome of you may recall that early in the morning of July 28 of 2006 actor Mel Gibson was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving in Los Angeles, California. During that arrest, it was reported that Gibson was alleged to have launched into a brief but vehement denunciation of Jews that were “responsible for all the wars in the world.” Famed at the time for having produced and directed the film The Passion of the Christ (2004), Gibson’s anti-Semitic tirade was the feature of news reports throughout the media for weeks after the incident.
The same cannot be said, however, for Oliver Stone who just last weekend launched into his own anti-Semitic rant. Coverage of Stone’s outrageous comments, arguably as bad as Gibson’s, has been met with a virtual shrug from the Old Media, especially the TV newsers.
On July 25, 2010, the London Sunday Times released an interview with Oliver Stone that featured his claim that Hitler is often treated too harshly by history because of the “Jewish domination of the media.” (The Sunday Times article is on a subscription only site)
Stone lamented the fact that few people are seemingly aware that Hitler killed “25 or 30 million” Russians saying, “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than [he did to] the Jewish people.” The reason no one knows this, according to Stone, is apparently because of powerful Jews in the US.
“There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f_ _ _de up United States foreign policy for years.”
And it should be noted that Oliver Stone did not deliver his comments in a drunken rant as Mel Gibson did. Stone was stone cold sober when he made his remarks.
The media has minimally reported this incident, of course.
Now this Jews-control-the-media claim has a long pedigree and is still bandied about by racists in academia. Just in 2006, for instance, a study widely distributed — and widely attacked — based on this theme was released by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Stephen Walt. It goes back as far as there has been media to supposedly control.
Still, Stone’s claim that the “Jews control the media” has been met with a yawn by that same media. Stone’s absurd comments have barely caused a ripple on the national and international media scene.
The same cannot be said of Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic rant.
In the first few days after Gibson’s arrest was made public he was top news not just in the entertainment media, but also in the regular news media as well as the left-wing blogosphere.
Hollywood likey
The entertainment gossip site TMZ had the report of Gibson’s arrest on the very afternoon he was detained and immediately released his anti-Semitic statements. Over the next few days he was the top news at ABC, CBS, NBC, and all the cable stations. The story was also all over the print media as well as the foreign media.
Three days after the incident, media gadfly Arianna Huffington was demanding that Hollywood denounce Gibson for his remarks. A few days later “comedian” Bill Maher was doing the same thing, both on the left-wing blog site The Huffington Post. Many other prominent lefty bloggers immediately went after Gibson for his anti-Semitic remarks, as well.
In contrast it seems that in these three days after Stone’s anti-Semitic rant Huffington Post only has three posts on the left-wing director’s outrage and none of them are from a principle celebrity or a Huffington top blogger, much less Huffington chief, Arianna, herself. Further not many other high profile lefty bloggers seem too eager to launch into denunciations against Oliver Stone.
Back in 2006 Gibson was apologizing within a week saying he was “deeply ashamed” at his actions. The actor/director said that he was undergoing alcohol abuse treatment as a result of the incident. This, of course, caused a whole new slew of coverage that went on for another few days.
Again in contrast, the media today has also reported Stone’s day-after apology where he reverses himself saying, “Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry.” Interestingly, most of these stories are one, two and three paragraph shorties as opposed to the long report treatment that the Old Media doled out to Gibson’s altercation of four years previous.
There is also the equating of Gibson to Stone. Perhaps it is a natural comparison, but an LA Times blog by Patrick Goldstein is a typical example. As Stone apologized in his one paragraph press release, Goldstein couldn’t help himself but bring Mel Gibson into the Stone story in a recent post*. Also as amusingly, Goldstein tries to tar Andrew Breitbart with the whole incident, doing his best to obscure Oliver Stone’s guilt by making this whole thing an issue of conservatives overreacting instead of focusing on Stone’s outrageous comments.
Hollywood no likey
Goldstein gives Stone a pass because he apologized fairly quickly after the incident. He attacks Gibson, though, for having waited a week to issue his in 2006. I guess one can say anything at all but if one apologizes quick all is forgiven to such as Patrick Goldstein.
And typical of how the left-wing spins an incident, Goldstein characterizes Oliver Stone’s apology as a “quick, forceful apology” yet the thing is but one paragraph issued through his agent. On the other hand he lambastes Gibson’s apology even as he has said it repeatedly to all sorts of media folks (in person mind you) and even went to alcohol rehab over it all. It’s hard for any fair minded person to think that a one-paragraph press release if somehow more “forceful” than apologies made in person to multiple media outlets, but that is the spin that Goldstein is ridiculously proffering his readers.
Sadly, Goldstein is typical of how Hollywood will react to Stone and how they have reacted to Gibson. In fact, Goldstein gives Stone a “wry Jewish” wink and a nod letting the hatemongering Director know that it’s OK to smear Jews in the media. Goldstein writes, “it’s not considered out of bounds for Jewish filmmakers to josh among themselves about the decline in Jewish domination of the film industry,” so apparently no one should get too mad at Oliver Stone for his “joshing” and joining that self-hating club.
In the end we can all see the difference in treatment of similar incidents. Let Mel Gibson say something like he did in 2006 and we get a Goldstein finger wagging disgustedly, but when golden lefty Oliver Stone does it, we get a “wry Jewish” wink and a grin.
*Incidentally, in the same post Goldstein peddles the lie that Fox News got Shirley Sherrod fired, too. The truth is that Sherrod was fired long before Fox News even began to cover the story.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
63 Comments
Sherrod was fired long before FNC covered the story?? Really? Then why in on earth did she say the very next day that the WH called her and pressured her to leave or else, she'll be on Glen Beck that night?
Stone is a socialist and hate is socialism's stock-in-trade. His ant-semitism doesn't surprise me, it goes hand in hand with his belief system.
How Gibson, or any other Christian, can worship a Jew yet be anti-semitic is staggeringly illogical and hypocritical.
can some one explain to me why we are all supposed to hate the Jews? I feel like I'm mising something here, given that so many already hate them, I must be missing some vital information.
IResting comparison.
Personally, I think Mel Gibson has always been the ultimate Hollywood outsider. he went around the Hollywood system when he marketed the Passion of the Christ. The made Hollywood mad. Oliver Stone is just a moron. Hollywood overlooks his idiosyncracies.
I have asked that question for years. Have never gotten a satisfactory answer. I've heard every reason under the sun; from them being money changers and charging usury; to because they crucified Jesus. I have never gotten one reasonable answer.
Any timeline reconstructing Fox News and Glenn Beck's so-called involvement in the Sherrod firing case shows that the first mention of the firing was on Bill O'Reilly's program after Ms. Sherrod was fired. Brief mention was made on Sean Hannity's and Greta Van Susteren's program later that evening.
In fact, it was only the following day that Glen Beck talked about the Sherrod firing case, and Beck called for an apology and reinstatement for Ms. Sherrod.
So why was the White House concerned about Glen Beck and the Sherrod firing?
Paranoia
http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2010/07/27/medi...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-s...
In my opinion it's because they brought forth the 10 Commandments. In a world of hedonistic pagans, any attempt to limit the carnal lust and base impulses is met with a visceral hatred.
In other news, Oliver Stone looks like a muppet. A deranged, pompous muppet. "Hey kids, today we're going to learn about how The Jooooos control the world!"
But he loves all the little communists of the world, so he must be treated with respect by the entertainment media. Shameful.
Also as amusingly, Goldstein tries to tar Andrew Breitbart with the whole incident, doing his best to obscure Oliver Stone’s guilt by making this whole thing an issue of conservatives overreacting instead of focusing on Stone’s outrageous comments.
Remember that the MSM is still in Journolist mode: ashamed of being caught and ready to blame "the Right" for conspiring to out them for their bullshit, just as they reacted when Sherrod was fired BEFORE Fox covered the story. After all, we're just overreacting as usual, donchaknow.
I have no idea, but man, they've been hated for thousands of years. Someone must have done something pretty twisted to get so much hate from so many people for so long.
If you find out why, let me know because I have no idea why either.
You are right, of course. Additionally, they are God's chosen people. There is absolutely no other way to explain their multitude of successes no matter what they attempt. Recently, I read an article on the Big's (I think) about the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to Jews versus Muslims. Jews – 45, Muslims – 1. I could be wrong on the numbers but there is definitely a huge disparity.
Please tell me you are not this dense…..
Is this Howard Dean??
Beck actually didn't know about the firing until 11:00 that night when Breitbart called him. He spent the next day's episode defending Sherrod.
They are both looney-tunes, but I would take my chances with Mel any day. I mean if I had to be stuck with one of them.
because she's a paranoid lunatic.
The women don't do oral…it's a well known fact.
Anyone notice that as Bush fades into the rear-view mirror, they've replaced him by blaming another "B" for everything: Breitbart. It's Breitbart's fault.
“Stone lamented … fact that few people … aware that Hitler killed “25 or 30 million” Russians …”
Trying to obfuscate the issue of the Jewish genocide by taking numbers out of context and throwing them around is intellectual skullduggery and inexcusable. There was a war on the Russian Front, a nasty, dirty war.
But I’ll point some facts out for you. Let’s not forget Stalin’s war on free people with his forced famine which murdered 7 million Ukrainians. Oh, how about the Katyn massacre, when Stalin ordered the execution of 22,000 Poles, because it would make subjugating Poland easier. Oh, there’s more, much more.
Hitler was a monster and Stalin was his twin brother.
Because she's a liar.
i hate to say this, because there is not only a race card, but an anti-semite card too. say something bad about a specific jewish person, who has wronged you for any reason, and they are almost as fast as the best race baiters, at whipping out the anti-semite card. just like with the black community, there are wonderful jews, but there are some bad apples out there, mention one, and out comes that card. the hispanics have the anti immigrant card. we crackers, whiteys, or honkeys have so such cards to pull. but i will say jews are a little less liberal with thier cards than say jessie and al, but they do whip them out, when no defense will work.
Why am I getting negatives? I'm just trying to figure out why they say that she was fired before FNC/Big Govt showed her say racist remarks? I don't think she was fired until it was caught on video at Biggovernment website. I think she was fired after the website caught her saying it at the NAALCP.
the timeline was simple- she was forced to the side of the road at 3PM Eastern. Third call. They said you have to resign on your PDA. She did. O'Reilly mentioned her at 8PM Eastern. They were reacting to the clip shown on BH. Beck was not a factor in the whole deal other than the fear she would be used by him.
The NAACP had the whole tape yet denounced her. That's the strangest part of the story…
Because it was the bankers, not the Freemasons, who poisoned all the wells..
I know how to fix both of them. Mel Gibson plays Steve Biko in an Oliver Stone conspiracy movie about how Magaret Thatcher secretly had the British Secret Service support apartheid in SA. They'd strangle eachother before they made it to the 3rd day of filming.
How is it that stating a fact like Jews having a disproportionate amount of influence in the media is "anti-Semitic"?
The only time that word is used today is when that "chosen" group of whiners wants to suppress discussion of a topic that they would rather keep hidden.
By the way,Stone's father is a Jew.
Ya know, part the hair on the other side, change the mustache… Stone kinda looks like Hitler to me… never noticed before. Me no likey.
We can Christian bash any day,any hour (FOR GOOD REASON),but the moment that Jews get any examination as a group,out come the hateful epithets.
By the way,proof of this is in the fact that my above comment has to be "approved for public consumption" if it is ever posted.
I'll be surprised if this gets thru.
I think that's how you know you've 'made it' in these circles.
Jews can never do wrong,they are all benevolent and are a wonderful asset to the US domestically and in foreign policy.
There you fucking censoring scumbags,is that ass kissing enough to get posted?
RE: Stone. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Now, do they "control" the media? No, but they do wield a lot of power. Did they earn that power? Sure, like everyone else who achieves in a business. Jews are the most successful, accomplished minority on earth today. If you doubt that, look at the number of Nobel Prize winners. That said, why does everyone quivver with fright when stating the obvious, and retract so quickly when they "misspeak"? Maybe the Jews themselves don't want to acknowledge the 800 # elephant in the room for fear of waking some gigantic anti-semetic impulse.
We were discussing it another thread:
He looks like Gregory Peck as Joseph Mengele in "The Boys From Brazil".
He's probably planning to clone Che.
Because the time line has been a hot topic over here at the Big sites ever since the story broke.
Fox news records show they were following the story when it broke, but a director specifically told reporters to hold off till more facts were in. Just the other day Chris Wallace was bitch slapping Howard Dean over the exact same charge. And I admit, its quite enjoyable watching that blow hard Dean left virtually speechless.
The White House panicked and acted before FNC could report. They were scared it would show up on Beck that evening, and they wanted no part of it, so they canned her.
That's when FNC moved on it.
If you ask me its a few different reasons. for many Matthew's Gospel provides reason enough. In it the Jews gladly accept the blood of Jesus on their hands.
Also, I think a lot of it is jealousy. The Jews are one of the few, if not the only, pure ethnic group to survive from that era. Many ethnic groups would love to be able to say they can trace their heritage and culture back 5,000 years. I have an Italian friend who likes to point to ancient Rome with pride. Only problem is today Italians are not Romans. The Romans were married into oblivion long ago, though some pure Romans may still survive.
And probably the biggest reason in my opinion is simple distrust. The Jews make no doubts about it they are Jewish first. That doesn't sit well with nationalism or isolationists. They demand allegiance to the state first, not culture.
i think the blood on us and our children may be one of those things that is not exactly what happend, whether Matthew elaborated or it was put in later by some mistranslations or whatever.
But that is the only one I could think of.
No, the strangest part of the story is that they denounced her even though they had the whole tape AND members of the audience could plainly be heard applauding her. The second strangest (though not unpredictable) is that once again, the media has fooled everyone into thinking Fox News and other evil right-wingers were behind it all.
There's no easy answer. What continues to blow my mind is how European (and obviously many American) elitists can have such loathing for Israel, a country with many of the trappings of a welfare state, a significant tolerance of gay rights and other hedonism, etc. The only thing I can think of is that its war with the Arabs gives the lie to so much of the elites' pretensions–that we've moved past simple religious hatred, that we're continually progressing–they need someone to blame for their vision's failure, and Israel seems like a convenient target somehow.
That's probably not the best answer, but it's all I've got.
I've often wondered about Matthew. The author's obvious target audience is educated Jews, that's why there are so many references to Old Testament profits. So why include that? Seems to me that would alienate the audience.
Some people have theorized that early Christians were attempting to kiss up to Rome. It more or less absolves Rome of guilt. By the time Matthew shows up in the historical record, it was after Rome had already destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jewish people, but before the major persecutions started up.
Exactly. Gibson tends to spew his crap privately and under influence of something. Stone spews his crap publicly, and appears to be sober. Gibson COULD be helped by professionals.
Stone is a moron who's had the good fortune to get into the movie-making business at just the right time–when most of Hollywood (or at least a large part of it) has decided that the only REAL evil in the world is the United States! I can't forget that even Jimmy Stewart, who was politically a bit left of center, served honorably in the U.S. Air Force and held a reserve commission as a major general when he died.
That's how you can tell when you're getting under their skin.
they took the story and did what they do- change it to fit The Narrative. It's the only thing that means anything to them…
spot on bud…
The thing is, a lot of Jews would assimilate if they were allowed to. Nietzsche recognized this, and wrote that the first European nation to actually embrace the Jews living in their territory would be the one that would "win" the battle for supremacy.
Another thing to note is that the reason that a lot of Jews got into money lending is because it was one of the few trades they were legally allowed to pursue in certain places. The Catholic Church denounced usury, and sometimes extended that to any money-lending, leaving Jews as the only people able to do it without having to worry about excommunication.
As for Jews being merchants, because of the Jewish disapora a lot of them had reasonably close family across national and cultural borders. This became a double edged sword when Jews were able to deal with Muslims and Christians. They brought wealth, but they also dealt with the "enemy".
Then there are questions as to how much of active Christian anti-Semitism is derived from Muslim instruction. While Jews were not utterly loved, a lot of the truly vicious oppression did not get going big time until the time of the Crusades, starting with the Reconquest of Spain.
I also like the part in the third sentence that describes how Oliver Stone "sounded just as bad as anything Gibson said." Yeah, yeah, yeah… It only SOUNDED bad! It wasn't REALLY bad! So, in an article about Stone, Patrick Goldstein mentions Mel Gibson at length, takes a detour through Big Hollywood / Fox News / Sherrod, and then zooms out to project the likely (unlikely?) public response: "it takes a lot for people to get worked up over his latest foot-in-mouth antics." Really? Antics?
But Goldstein saves his biggest stretch for the second to last sentence: "I guess if there is any lesson here, it's that Stone is a lot better off in American than in his beloved Venezuela, Cuba or Iran, where artists have languished in prison for years for making remarks far less rude than what Stone had to say about the Jews." I'm pretty sure that Oliver Stone would be more than welcome to make anti-Semitic comments in Iran.
To sum it all up—Mel Gibson: A "raving" lunatic. Oliver Stone: A lovable "artist" with some quirky "antics."
Buckwheat, I always want to challenge every person who froths about Jews taking over the world with "and how exactly would that be a bad thing if it happened?" I wish to G – d they WOULD! I'd love to see it happen. Maybe then we could actually have a return to culture and art. Maybe then we could have REAL debates with humor instead of backbiting and horrible ugliness. Ive yet to receive an honest and thought-worthy answer to the question of just what it is theyve done so wrong too…it hasnt happened. All I get is paranoia, frenzy, and foaming at the mouth conspiracy.
I think a lot of people hate lawyers which is totally justified, but since a lot of lawyers tend to be Jewish, some people equate the two.
Egh…
They're both scum in this regard, but how can anyone write an article about context and subjective reporting and NOT even mention – outside of a screenshot – that the reason Gibson's incident was so newsworthy was that it directly followed his release of a widely-seen film that MANY had already regarded as anti-semitic?
It would be like if Spike Lee had trashed a pizzeria right after "Do The Right Thing," people NOTICE ironic coincidence.
Which is why I say things like JournoList are only going to gain traction if conservatives and Republicans getting grilled by the media go on the offensive ("get in their face," as Barack Obama likes to say) and question their own claims to be acting impartially. If the public is made aware of just how corrupt the MSM is, one of its last means of manipulation will be gone.
I'm not sure about your dating on this one, Ed.
After reading your comment, I grabbed my Bible and checked the introductory note to Matthew, which said the gospel was written probably between A.D. 60 and 65. This would have been before the sacking of Jerusalem and the subsequent diaspora (A.D. 70-73), and just possibly concurrent with the start of Nero's persecution of the Christians (A.D. 64-68). Therefore, while I can understand the idea of some early Christians trying to reconcile with Rome, I doubt that's what was happening in this particular case.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke ("The Synoptic Gospels," as they're often called) are all fairly close to one another in material and organization, the first and last being based largely on Mark, which was written well before any of these events.
The earliest known copy of any Gospels is Mark around the early 80's A.D. Mathew and Luke show up in the historical records a few years later, and John was added around 124 A.D. by St. Irenaeus.
The dates in the 60's A.D. are only estimates of when it was written. I stick with the recognized historical dates.
Incidentally a lot of historians think there was another Gospel written even earlier that was the basis for Matthew, Mark and Luke. The refer to it I think as "X" the first letter of some German word that essentially means we know about it, but can't prove it.
They think that was the basis for Mark, Mark and X were the basis of Matthew, and Mark, Matthew and X were the basis for Luke. John's Gospel came from St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who claimed he was a disciple of the Apostle. So ironically, while so different from the other 3 Gospels, it has the best credentials for actually connecting to Jesus.
While many people may have considered Passion an anti-semetic movie I vehemently disagree. It cannot be anti-semetic to historically account for the execution of Jesus. Whether or not a person believes, as I do, that Jesus was the son of God is immaterial because the historical actions portrayed in the movie; the betrayal, capture, trial, torture, and execution of Jesus occurred, with the assistance and consent of a faction of Jews. I'm very pro-Jewish and pro-Isreal and I certainly don't blame any living Jew for the death of Jesus. That's as idiotic as blaming me (white guy) for slavery.
I think it was so popular to bash Gibson (whose comments were absolutely reprehensible) because he projected himself as a Christian and so that made it more interesting for people to tear him apart. Those who are anti-Christian like to find people who are or present an image of themselves being Christian and then find major flaws with them. It somehow justifies their hatred of Christianity in their sick, twisted minds. Stone, on the other hand has not projected himself as being overtly Christian, the way Gibson did (with the Passion of the Christ) And so, it's not as much fun to tear down someone who isn't a Christian. Maybe I'm paranoid. I always feel like at the very root of a lot of these kinds of events is not just an Anti-Semitism, but an Anti-Christian movement. I don't know. That's my take and maybe I am a paranoid loon.
Mel Gibson = right winger
Oliver Stone = Left winger
Media gives Gibson hell
Media gives Stone a pass
You figure it out
Well, that's kind of my point–Matthew et al. may not have been recognized as authoritative Gospels until well into the second century, but they reach back to a point well before the destruction of Jerusalem and the persecutions of the Christians. Thus, I'm skeptical of the idea that they were written with an eye toward reconciliation with Rome.
Also, with reference to the original conversation, I don't see Matthew's inclusion of the "Let his blood be on us and our children!" passage as a dig at the Jews per se, as much as a tool for conversion. It smacks of Acts 2, when St. Peter told the Jews gathered in Jerusalem about the Savior they had just killed, after which "they were cut to the heart" and about 3,000 were converted on the spot. More likely, the words just got twisted over the years by anti-Semites to mean something they were never intended to mean.
Glenn Beck frequently covers stories that "break" on Breitbart. The WH, as always, in permanent campaign mode, tried to "get ahead of the story" by forcing SS to resign, because they ASSUMED that Glenn Beck would pick it up. Glenn did not cover it. Fox did not cover it, on the day that they requested her resignation. It was the next day, when Shirley appeared to tell the story that she was, effectively, ordered to resign, that Glenn defended her, and the other FOX shows covered Shirley's report that the WH had been involved. They then showed the NAACP tape that Breibart had posted to start the whole mess.
In addition, subsequent commentary by Ms Sherrod indicates that it may not have been the firing, but the apologies that were premature…hence the blackout on allowing her to speak on Sunday talk shows, etc.
The apology from O'Reilly on the NEXT day was over the fact that they had assumed racism from the tape, without pointing out the "Turning Point" nature of Shirley's story. (the actual "TP" turning out to be "it's not about race, it's about class !" BFD) The "you're gonna be on Glenn Beck" was the WH assumption, NOT a fact.
You very well may be right. The historical records from Juda at that time are quite scarce. Jesus doesn't even show up in the ancient gold star historians, though John the Baptist does.
So all we can really do is subjective reasoning. There are more than a few historians who believe that when Jesus preached about the dark days coming before the second coming of God was referring to the impending destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. At least some of them knew Rome was only going to put up with their periodic rebellions for so long before they finally put an end to it once and for all.
Which for me is a pretty good argument for saying the author of Matthew really didn't want to write anything the Romans would find seditious.
But again, there's no way to prove it. When the Gospels were written, Juda was a little, tiny, backwater on the fringes of the empire. Not many chroniclers were paying a whole lot of attention.
I can roll with that. I've heard that before, actually, and Jesus in Matthew 24 seems to pretty explicitly allude in a few places to the Temple's future destruction (and possibly to the subsequent Masada drama as well).
Further proof of why Christian theology is so fascinating. Several different excellent interpretations could be drawn out of this and the other Gospels–not to mention the subject of St. Paul's alleged anti-Semitism, or the controversies over the eschatology in Revelation or elsewhere. Interesting stuff…
that has already happened,T…
The media preaches to whichever choir tunes them in- like in the UK where you have left/right media in the open. Here they still lie about it but most people are wise to it…
Agreed. A hugely fascinating subject. I got interested about ten years ago when I was a brand new father who had no idea what to do with a brand new child, so I did what my dad did and took my family to church.
And after a while I even started paying attention. I was bored, what else was I going to do?
And there was a Priest who occasionally would start off his homily with 'one theologian has….' And what followed was so mind blowing. He would do that every so often up until he retired. But what an eye opener.
So I decided I wanted to know a lot more about this Bible than I do. And its amazing what I've found.
I decided I wanted to know what it really was before I started, so I'd have a better understanding of what was in it. Seems to have turned out to be a good idea.
T_Rav
One thing to remember, while the gospels were written maybe in 70 or 80 AD, they were codified by Constantine around 300 AD when Rome took over the church. Before that the Christian Church was widely varied with many disputing sects. Many texts were banned Gnotics etc and other than a few surving relics for the time we know little about them.
Also remember that the first persecurters of the Christians were not the Romans but their fellow Jews who did not convert. To them Christianity was a cult. The Apostle Paul is an example of this "Saul's conversion at Damascus" Who knows what edits may have been made to the bible.
What the public won't hear is that Mel was shit face handcuff on that dark road and as a drunk sitting there he just blurts out "jews start all the wars' Someone said something to him. That Deputy happen to be jewish, he knew Mel very well they were know to bust each others chops. When one is drunk and looks at a girl you are bound to say something as he did to the female officer, he called her 'sugar tits'. No one will report that some one said something to him and he reacted. Then the leftist media lost their minds and wanted to barbecue his butt. There are a lot of people in Hollywood get very pissed if you show them up and you make 600 million and not one dime goes to pay any tribute to any distributor.
People who have never made a film or dealt with distributors have no clue how these people come at you. Mel is one pissed off Irishman since before the Passion he was their token conservative and he made this film that they all tried to destroy. Has anyone ever notice that Jim Caviezel hasn't worked in a A level film since the Passion. What did Jim do??? The Girl that played Mary has she made a film with any Hollywood Star. People don't believe that the left are animals and they will shut you out for the slightest reason.
I love when liberals and conservatives say Mel has anger issues, try going through this hell and see if your kids aren't effected at school and you have to deal with your wife hearing this crap on TV for over a year. I'd be more then just pissed.
The public has a tendency to tear down conservative christians and catholics. But a fascist SOB like Oliver Stone the will kiss this feet once he says a public apology. I read somewhere that Mel has a small chapel in his office where he works, so he can hear Mass when he wants. Now the only other person that has a chapel in his office is the Pope. Everything is taken out of context and the leftist mad dogs and their conservatives who feel they don't sin or won't bend to peer pressure all want their pound of flesh from Mel but not Stone.
The Democrats all circle the wagons, they did it with fat Ted Kennedy when Mary Jo was killed. Nothing happen not even an indictment. Mel says a line and not a rant when he is shit face and we all what to send him the the chair. I'd love to hear half the stuff we all here have said when in our youth were drunk out of our minds, I am sure it wasn't prayers.
Let me ask a question: when was the last time Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao were mentioned in the world media as the paragons of evil, murder, and genocide? Comparisons of all kinds are drawn to Hitler and the Nazis when modern governments commit questionable human rights violations or do something so outlandishly evil as to threaten the lives of millions of a certain group of people.
The "Reductio al Hiterum" is an axiom in every corner of today's political dialogue of which everyone here grasps the concept. Yet there is nothing similar that calls into question or condemns the ideology or tactics of Joseph Stalin or Mao. Why is that? I'll answer that.
Hitler was a horribly evil man, and every reference to him in the media as such is certainly apt and well-made. I find something interesting, however, in Oliver Stone's complaint about Hitler never being truly understood for who he was. Oliver Stone misses entirely why Hitler's name invokes the most putrid evil the world has ever devised. It's not because the media is dominated by Jews who seek to ensure Hitler is synonymous with pure evil; it's because the media is dominated by leftists who proffer Hitler's name as such at a fever pitch to lessen the chances that history's genocidal leftist dictators with socialist and communist ideology–Stalin and Mao–will be mentioned as just as evil, just as murderous, and just as deranged.
I know plenty of liberals who say Hitler was a right-winger (he was not). But I also know plenty of non-ideological, politically-neutral people who believe the same thing. But that is enough. THAT's why Hitler is always mentioned as the archbishop of the church of Satan–because "he was a right-winger."
Society from time to time may ask, "But what about the dictators who killed more people than Hitler did? What was their politics?" Indeed this is a question that scares the leftist media, so rather than answer it honestly and hurt their own favorite ideological beliefs they just repeat how bad Hitler was.
This is what's causing Hitler's public image crisis that is so bothering Oliver Stone. But apparently the man is an anti-Semite, and those people will say just about anything–mostly something about Jew conspiracies. But he's also a leftist, so I'm surprised he's got his knickers in a twist about Hitler's street cred.
…..Because, "Hey, wasn't Hitler a right-winger, after all?"
You must be logged in to post a comment.