Do not forget that Stalin was a heavy tobacco smoker while Hitler was a health freak.
And sure enough Hitler did not live as long :)
Posted on 08/05/2006 5:59:35 AM PDT by A. Pole
Mel Gibson has become the designated Hitler-of-the-Month for August 2006, displacing both Saddam Hussein and Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the previous front-runners. However, conservative Christians, before rushing to condemn or defend their fallen hero, might ponder the incident for a moment, before presuming to form an opinion.
To give credit where it is due, Zev Chafets, in his LA Times commentary “Slurring More than His Words”, makes several valuable points. To begin with, Mr. Gibson’s first line of defense—the Tequila made him do it—is absurd. As Chafets commnts, “Evidently Gibson wants people to believe that, although he personally loves Jews, the devil made him lie under the influence of alcohol. Anyone who has tried this explanation at home knows that it is not very convincing.”
Chafets goes on to observe that Gibson’s theory of history, that the Jews are behind all the wars, is not unknown to the leaders of Hamas. Naturally, Chafets fudges, citing Hamas’ view that Jews fomented both the French and Russian revolutions. Whatever their role (minor) in the French Revolution, Jews were among the largest ethnic groups in the leadership of Marxist movements in Russia. (There were also many Estonians and German, comparatively few Russians.) This is an historical fact, not the product of a limited Muslim education.
Still, putting the two facts together—the drunk defense and his conspiracy theory—Gibson is clearly what the Abe Foxman and Norm Podhoretz would call an anti-Semite. However, we Christians do not have to accept their opinion, which is deliberately crafted to suggest that most Christians throughout history are classic anti-Semites on par with Heinrich Himmler. Liking or disliking the Jews one meets—or even liking or disliking them generally—is a matter of taste, preference, and upbringing. Most serious Christians, as a matter of preference and conviction, would rather spend time with other Christians. There would be something wrong with them if they did not—much as there is something with a husband who prefers to spend time with women other than his wife. It is hard enough for Baptists to tolerate Lutherans and a bit too much to insist that they become matey with Jews who often despise their religion and their way of life
Theories of history are matters of fact and reason. The fact that so many troublemakers of the past 150 years have been of Jewish extraction—Marx, Freud, the Neoconservatives—is certainly no argument in their favor. Jewish “intellectuals” continue to be in the forefront of the movements that aim to destroy our religion and culture. I was already well aware of the Neoconservatives’ (for Chafets, this is a CODEWORD) Christophobia and hatred of the old America, but even I was a little startled, seeing a book in the library entitled My Love Affair with America. I naturally assumed that such a book could only be written by an immigrant writing about a strange and alien country he had come to accept, warts and all. But no, it is one more in an unending series of self-promoting books by Norman Podhoretz. We expect Jakov Smirnoff to say he loves America, but when a natural-born citizen says such a thing, he is putting himself outside the body of citizens, whose culture and traditions he presumes to judge. I am surprised he did not title it One Cheer for America. And Podhoretz père is a genius and superpatriot compared to Pohoretz fils.
To be fair, the Podhoretzes, however inescapable these days, are probably not representative. I have known many Jews, like Michael Wharton (“Peter Simple”) and Edward Shils, who have been among the most effective defenders of “conservative” principles (for want of a better word) and the best company imaginable. I suppose it is wildly incorrect to say so, but I do not care too much about what people say they do or do not believe. Many Jews are fine and admirable people even if they reject my God, and many anti-Semites, Christian as well as pagan, are perfectly good people even if they allow their prejudices to overcome their religion. For me, the best argument in favor of anti-Semitism is the ridiculous attention paid to poor Mel’s little gaffe. The world is filled with violence and inhumanity much of it caused by religious and ethnic intolerance, but a good deal is the result of ideology, greed, ambition, or just pure meanness. Isn’t what people do more important than the silly ideas they picked up, without thinking?
It is on this point, in the conclusion to his column, that Zev Chafets really gets down to business:
“Coincidentally, on the same day Gibson got into trouble in Malibu, a fellow named Naveed Afzal Haq brought a pistol to the Jewish Federation office in Seattle and shot six women, killing one. Two days later, this personal jihad — one of the most gory anti-Jewish crimes in American history — got second billing on the ADL website, under “Mel Gibson’s Apology for Tirade ‘Insufficient.’ ”
Indeed. What kind of people get more excited about a foolish entertainer’s drunken ravings than an actual killer. Is it because Gibson is Catholic, while Naveed Afzal Haq is Muslim, and therefore not worth the trouble? Or is it that the ADL is only on a fund-raising/PR expedition and does not actually care about the safety and welfare of Jews in the US.
It is an old argument, but the fact remains that in Christian America, it is true, our parents and grandparents did not always let Jews into their clubs. On the other hand, it is equally true that our progenitors did not invade their shops and massacre them, much less put them into camps. Mel Gibson’s evil anti-Semitic father fought in WW II. What about the fathers of Abe Foxman, Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Don Feder (who is now accusing Pat Buchanan of blood libel)? There were Jewish war heroes, but not too many in the family trees of blood-lusting neoconservative propagandists.
I find the whole Mel Gibson saga depressing, because it reminds me of the grotesque stupidity of American Catholic conservatives, who insist on putting their faith in actors like Ronald Reagan and Mel Gibson. Have they ever read an interview with Gibson? He cannot frame a three-word sentence that does not sound like it comes from the mouth of Malibu Barbie. But even if he were as articulate as Robert Taylor (I think of his testimony on Hollywood communists—oops, another codeword) and as suave as Ronald Coleman, he would still be an actor, someone who lives illusions, who bares his bottom to the delight of middle-aged women dissatisfied with their paunchy spouses who have worn themselves out bringing home—and, alas eating—the bacon. Acting is not an honorable profession; it is not a profession of any kind, and, for the most part, men who spend their adult lives making movies are, to put it as nicely as I can, unreliable as guides to living.
It would have been better if no one were permitted to shoot his own Gospel story, or, if one had to be done, it should have been done by the Church and not by Mad Max-Martin Riggs. Now they are stuck with the poor Tarbaby (with apologies to the Mormon governor of Massachusetts). When Mel finishes his treatment for alcoholism, he has to face more serious demons—not his anti-Semitism, but the kind of sensitivity training that the ADL is already planning for him. Enjoy it.
In my next Chronicles column, I give it as my opinion that too many people these days have opinions on too many subjects. I’ve tried out the argument on a dozen people and it enraged each one, including my “adult” children. I know I’m on to something. Why does anyone care what an actor thinks about, whether it is the life of Christ or Jewish influence on history. And why, by the love of all that is holy, would anyone with even the brain of Rush Limbaugh, give two seconds to a Christophobic charlatan like Abe Foxman?
If conservatives must revere a man named Mel, why not buy and read the books of Mel Bradford? Well, he was a wise and learned man, but he weighed 300 pounds and never made a movie with Danny Glover.
Here’s my final words. If you love Christ and his Church, give them your heart and forget about remote pop-cultural icons you imagine might be on your side. If you really wish to study the Life of Christ, read the Gospels. If you like C.S. Lewis or Tolkien, read their books and do not waste time on the slick and manipulative films made out of them. Christian lovers of Peter Jackson’s version of Lord of the Rings will be pleased to know that he is contributing a large chunk of their ticket money to promote leftist, anti-Christian moral causes. As the most notorious “anti-Semite” in history once observed, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
mel is providin 'entertainment' "for the millions" on and off-screen, clearly
Can you imagine if Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, or Tim Robbins got pulled over under the exact same circumstances and the arresting officer had a "Vote Republican" pin on? What Mel said would be tame compared to the utter hatred and vile screaming that would come from those people. The exact same hatred, the same vitriolic rants that they are ripping Mel for would be coming out of their mouths but it would be an on an acceptable topic for them. Even I would go off like that if the cop was showing off a "NAMBLA Is An Acceptable Lifestyle" pin he got from the local meeting he attended.
Cut Mel some slack, at least his apology was a real apology and he is willing to admit he has a problem, unlike most hate mongers who revel in their hatred. (like everyone at DU does...)
Where was the outrage when Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as "hymietown?"
Jesse Jackson was not drunk
I stopped right there. Marx I can see. But the rest is anti-semitic trash. As is this article.
Thomas "I respect and admire the French, who have been a far greater nation than we shall ever be, that is, if greatness means anything loftier than money and bombs." Fleming strikes again.
As usual, most of his writing here consists of downgrading the intelligence of his intellectual betters (Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, Mel Gibson, Catholic Joe Sixpack) without providing any substantive argument for doing so, but his attack gets even sillier than usual in his throw-away lines about Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia.
Why not Freud? :) His theory of libido caused a lot of mess in peoples minds. Why?
If people get convinced that the the key driving force in human beings is sexual in character and if the civilization is based on suppression or sublimation of this force than the result is perfectly predicable.
Most of people are less disciplined/compulsive than Freud and they will tell civilization to "go to hell", thinking that pursuit of happiness is only in one direction.
He disappoints me sometimes.
Sums it up rather nicely as does...
“Coincidentally, on the same day Gibson got into trouble in Malibu, a fellow named Naveed Afzal Haq brought a pistol to the Jewish Federation office in Seattle and shot six women, killing one. Two days later, this personal jihad — one of the most gory anti-Jewish crimes in American history — got second billing on the ADL website, under “Mel Gibson’s Apology for Tirade ‘Insufficient.’ ”
I also find it ironic that the media pumping this story is the same media that acts as cheerleaders for Hezbollah/Syria/Iran/terrorists.
Some of the finest people I have ever known are politically conservative, observant Jews. Some of the most destructive, nihilistic people I have ever encountered are ultraliberal, cultural Jews. Quite the dichotomy there, between the religious and the irreligious. I think some people get caught up with politically driven behavior, confusing that with religion. Just my two cents on the matter.
It is what Mel says when sober that counts.
LOL--maybe you should report him to Variety. It is stinging, non-PC, and will enrage those who think they hold ironclad franchises.
Do not forget that Stalin was a heavy tobacco smoker while Hitler was a health freak.
And sure enough Hitler did not live as long :)
Look, the people of Germany are still held responsible to this day for Hitler's evil insanity. The world cannot have it two ways because look what has become of Germany their every act this day is a reflection upon their history.
The guilt association to Germany seems to be a mark forever, how long should they the people born 60 + years after Hitler and his insanity was stopped be considered suspect.
Now history tells that it was the political decisions made at the end of WWI that laid the groundwork, stripping a people bare that opened the door for Hitler's evil reign.
Yet there is not the same kind of accountability demanded and or required for Stalin and his global destruction. Nation after nation after nation has suffered death, destruction and slavery to the mind of communism.
I find that telling and curious that minds of communism readily point to Hitler and totally ignore their own wastelands. So is it really a "Jewish" problem or a global problem.
"It is hard enough for Baptists to tolerate Lutherans and a bit too much to insist that they become matey with Jews who often despise their religion and their way of life"
Wow. I don't believe I'd be pushing stuff like this. Mel needs help, not fellow travelers.
i think it's morally wrong to smear any religion or ethnic group for the evil actions of a few of its members.
however, people's ethnic backgrounds, religious training, and the position of their ethnic groups in the overall society probably do play a role in their later political positions. this is probably especially true in the case of those political revolutionaries who come from "out groups". stalin was a Georgian (a group oppressed by russia), for example, and that did effect his thinking. Trotsky's ethnic Jewish (another group oppressed by Russia) background probably played a role in the development of his political beliefs. this is also probably true of Freud, Marx, and the neo-conservative. Likewise, the religious background of IRA members is significant, even if they are not practicing Catholics. Hitler's Austrian background probably played some role in his development, even if it has not been focused on.
On the other hand, any superficial "analysis" that focuses on ethnic/religious factors is likely to unfairly blame the entire group for an individual's sins. this is currently happening a lot with the neo-cons.
I think one difference in the way we think of Stalin's mass murders versus Hitler's is that Stalin killed mostly people of the old Russian empire, almost a self-inflicted wound, as opposed to Hitler's efforts that went searching all places to find Jews who were a non-threat. Hitler put the tactical and strategic needs of his war machine second to killing Jews. [See the book "The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945 by Lucy S. Dawidowicz for an excellent scholarly explanation of this.]
The communists and fascists were always indignant about the others crimes, except when Hitler and Stalin had a pact.
And I don't know of a Jewish problem. I just know that for certain anti-Semites there is a Jewish problem and for Islamists, of course.
Well said. And I think the author above does smear all Jews for the actions of a Jewish Communists.
thanks.
the frequent use of the term "cabal" in referring to neo-cons is another example of this problem.
LOL - this could be said about 99% of the Hollyweird crowd.
Still beating the paranoia drum I see.
It is stinging, non-PC, and will enrage those who think they hold ironclad franchises.
Nothing you don't see every day in the Jewhating, America-hating leftwing and Arab press.
He was also a racist. Sheesh. I knew Fleming was a reactionary paleo, but championing Melvin Bradford?
In my next Chronicles column, I give it as my opinion that too many people these days have opinions on too many subjects.
Why does anybody give a damn what Fleming thinks of Melvin Bradford?
what ounce on that elbow of flesh are up to now?
Hollyweirdo hates Mel 'cause he's succeeded going against the grain of Hollyweirdo...that place it nothing but an anti-America land of the fruits and nuts. THE LAND OF THE LOONS!!!!!
Excellent and valid point. Personally, whatever people's individual opinions, I think it is shameful how Mel is being attacked on all sides. It says a heck of a lot more about the attackers than it does about Mel.
Don't forget Mad Max.
Well stated. Who hasn't done something dumb when they are pickled. The MSM has coverage on this, yet ignores the Seattle shootings by the muzzie.
I doubt the Hutsis and Tutsis cared.
I doubt the Chinese cared at Nanking.
I have heard far worse talk about a person or a people than Mel's diatrabe.
So what; he hates Jews.
Has he hit or killed any?
Actions speak louder than words.
Big success, big target. Comes with the territory.
You should look again.
This article is anti Semitic trash- the Gibson incident has been a cornucopia for anti Semites to let lose.
Lets evaluate the "Jewish" trouble makers of the last bloody 150 years. Let's concentrate on Marx, ignoring that Marx's family had converted or was atheistic so his thoughts were anything but Jewish.
Marx wrote crackpot theories. So what. Read the Internet, tens of thousands, if not more, have crackpot theories.
Suppose I sat down and wrote my solution to all the World's problems. My solution is that all human beings should have their right arm cut off. And I published my idea on my web site.
Now suppose most people who found my obscure site immediately recognized someone nuts but A. Pole happening on my web site decided that my solution was brilliant. So A Pole buys an ax and goes out into the World to spread "my" idea and starts attacking people and chopping off their right arm.
Who's the trouble maker? If A Pole goes on trial, is it a defense that he couldn't help himself after he read my brilliant prose of arm removal and therefore it is all my fault?
Same for Fraud and the Jewish neocons and all the other Jewish "trouble makers". All they did was postulate ideas and opinions. some would point to another Jewish "trouble maker" with ideas was called Jesus (but Jews rarely get credit/blame for that "trouble maker")
The great irony about passive anti Semitism (as compared to active anti Semitism were Jews are physically harmed) is that it is so very insulting. Not to Jews. It is so insulting to Gentiles. It assumes them brainless and defenseless from Jewish influence .
The premise of passive anti Semitism is The Gentiles can just not help themselves. When a Jew thinks, Gentiles must obey. Marx writes his theories, Gentile armies are raised to enforce his ideas. Fraud writes, Gentiles diagnose. Neocons write in magazines and WASP George W Bush goes off to war.
Now if I just could have ever channeled this super Jewish ability of persuasion to cause leggy Gentile supermodels to perform to my direction, then you would have seen a real troublemaker.
Actually Fleming is right. Who cares what any actor thinks!!!!!
I was talking about Mel Gibson's genius in picking sources that he knows will make great movies then directing them. That's what Hollyweirdo hates about him. If he was only an actor...then he could/is easily black balled...helping for them to bring him in line. It's not possible since he's the movie maker with his own production company. Which has made him a very wealthy man!!! That's what they hate!!!!
What, Jewish supermodels aren't good enough for you?
Supermodel Bar Refaeli, Leonardo DiCaprio's Israeli girlfriend...
Jewish "persuation" doesn't work on other Jews. We usually can't even get family to agree with us about anything.
It seems only Gentiles are so easily led by the nose by our powerful Jewish brain waves.
That's how Jews "start all the wars".
Your post was awesome. I was just throwing down some humor.
We Jews not only produce "trouble makers" but some merry makers too, comedians and such. Or is Jerry Seinfeld a trouble maker?? :)
I don't remember any mention of drunken arrest ravings before Mel and that includes the Baldwins, the Carradines and the Waynans.
Of course, Stalin had much to do with communism being established in North Korea, but the Chinese paid more in blood to assure it remained there.
And I agree with you that it's always safest to hold individuals responsible for their actions, for good or for bad, and not the group they're attached to.
The Chinese were the victims of the rape of Nanking. I suspect they cared then and I believe they're still bitter about it. Read the Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.