← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 12427 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2004-02-20
2004-02-20 20:37 | User Profile
[url]http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/040219.shtml[/url]
Gibson and His Enemies
By Joseph Sobran February 19, 2004
According to a verse in the Book of Proverbs, I believe (though, being a Catholic, I canââ¬â¢t find it), ââ¬ÅThere is no such thing as bad publicity.ââ¬Â
Thanks in large part to vitriolic protests by Jewish groups, Mel Gibsonââ¬â¢s forthcoming film The Passion of the Christ will surely be a stupendously popular movie. Jewish-owned media have given it enormous pre-release advertising ââ¬â hostile, to be sure, but free of charge.
Gibson risked more than $20 million of his own money on the film, filling out the spare Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion with vivid details. As many who have seen it attest, itââ¬â¢s very hard to watch. Unlike most films, it makes violence horribly ugly and repulsive. To watch even a terrible criminal crucified ââ¬â a routine Roman punishment ââ¬â would sicken most modern viewers. But to see a re-creation of Christââ¬â¢s torture and death is far worse for Christian audiences, who can only see in it what their own sins did to their Savior.
I saw a screening of it in November. When the film ended, the small audience sat in appalled silence for several minutes. And this is the reported reaction at every screening.
The notion that The Passion (as it was then called) could inspire hatred, let alone violence, against Jews, or anyone else, is hysterical. Itââ¬â¢s perhaps the most violent film ever made, precisely because it shows how hideous violence really is.
But Gibson isnââ¬â¢t the only one who is getting free publicity. Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is getting it too, as he makes the wild accusation, in countless interviews and newspaper columns, that the film will cause ââ¬Åanti-Semitism.ââ¬Â
Well, maybe it will ââ¬â if you equate ââ¬Åanti-Semitismââ¬Â with Christianity, which seems to be the implication. According to many Jewish writers, even the Gospels are anti-Semitic, as was the entire Christian tradition until the Second Vatican Council in 1965. Some, like Hyam Maccoby, actually blame Christianity for Hitler and the Holocaust.
But why stop with the Gospels? If the entire religion centered on hostility to the Jews, why not blame the founder himself? Foxman and his ilk never explain why they exempt Jesus from the accusation. But if all his early followers and their successors were anti-Semitic for two millennia, this calls for an explanation.
According to the Talmud and other authoritative Jewish writings, Jesus was a ââ¬Åbastardââ¬Â and ââ¬Åsorcererââ¬Â who deserved his death and is now in hell, ââ¬Åboiling in excrement.ââ¬Â These lurid writings, which date from centuries after the Crucifixion, are disgusting to a degree that might shock Larry Flynt.
Foxman never mentions these ââ¬Åreligiousââ¬Â texts. Would he object to a film about Jesus based on them?
Such obscene smears bear out Christââ¬â¢s own prediction that he and his disciples would be hated by the world. So have the innumerable Christian martyrs even to our own time, some of whom are still being persecuted from the Sudan to China.
Nobody today actively hates anyone else from that period, not even such horrifying tyrants as Nero and Caligula. But after two thousand years, the gentle Savior, Jesus Christ, is still hated. That is one perverse testimony to the power of his message ââ¬â and of the Gospels that bear it.
A watered-down or distorted image of Jesus, as in Martin Scorseseââ¬â¢s Last Temptation of Christ, doesnââ¬â¢t move the Foxmans of this world to fury. Nobody would bother crucifying Scorseseââ¬â¢s bland Jesus, who could excite neither hatred nor devotion, let alone change even the secular world forever.
If Gibsonââ¬â¢s film can be faulted for anything, it may be for failing to show how popular Jesus was among the ordinary Jews of Jerusalem, who had wildly welcomed him only days before his murder. This popularity, the Gospels tell us, was the reason both the Jewish and Roman authorities feared him and decided to try him at night, in secret.
Not that Gibsonââ¬â¢s enemies would applaud him for showing the adoring crowd greeting Christ on Palm Sunday. That might offend them worse than the vicious crowd he does show.
One can only marvel at the almost lunatic self-absorption of those who feel victimized by The Passion of the Christ. This film is not about them, any more than itââ¬â¢s about the Roman Empire. Itââ¬â¢s about the Son of God.
2004-02-20 20:47 | User Profile
This popularity, the Gospels tell us, was the reason both the Jewish and Roman authorities feared him and decided to try him at night, in secret.
Is the mention of "Roman authorities fearing Jesus" justified from the Christian perspective?
2004-02-20 21:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sobran] Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is getting it too, as he makes the wild accusation, in countless interviews and newspaper columns, that the film will cause ââ¬Åanti-Semitism.ââ¬Â
Well, maybe it will ââ¬â if you equate ââ¬Åanti-Semitismââ¬Â with Christianity, which seems to be the implication. According to many Jewish writers, even the Gospels are anti-Semitic, as was the entire Christian tradition until the Second Vatican Council in 1965. Some, like Hyam Maccoby, actually blame Christianity for Hitler and the Holocaust.
But why stop with the Gospels? If the entire religion centered on hostility to the Jews, why not blame the founder himself? Foxman and his ilk never explain why they exempt Jesus from the accusation. But if all his early followers and their successors were anti-Semitic for two millennia, this calls for an explanation.
According to the Talmud and other authoritative Jewish writings, Jesus was a ââ¬Åbastardââ¬Â and ââ¬Åsorcererââ¬Â who deserved his death and is now in hell, ââ¬Åboiling in excrement.ââ¬Â These lurid writings, which date from centuries after the Crucifixion, are disgusting to a degree that might shock Larry Flynt.
Foxman never mentions these ââ¬Åreligiousââ¬Â texts. Would he object to a film about Jesus based on them?
But after two thousand years, the gentle Savior, Jesus Christ, is still hated.
Not that Gibsonââ¬â¢s enemies would applaud him for showing the adoring crowd greeting Christ on Palm Sunday. That might offend them worse than the vicious crowd he does show.
One can only marvel at the almost lunatic self-absorption of those who feel victimized by The Passion of the Christ. This film is not about them, any more than itââ¬â¢s about the Roman Empire. Itââ¬â¢s about the Son of God.[/QUOTE]
Joe! Joe! Joe! Joe! Joe! :punk: There is SO MUCH that is good in this article!
Mel is beginning to look like a grand master at the great chessboard.
2004-02-20 21:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Is the mention of "Roman authorities fearing Jesus" justified from the Christian perspective?[/QUOTE]
Roman authorities had no fear of Jesus. Pontius Pilate was only fearful of jewish rebellion.
2004-02-20 22:04 | User Profile
So did Sobran just pull his punch?
2004-02-20 22:53 | User Profile
madrussian, [QUOTE]So did Sobran just pull his punch? [/QUOTE]
Yes!
2004-02-21 05:31 | User Profile
Oh, crap. I was just about to post this commentary, but Centinel beat me to it.
2004-02-21 05:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Yes![/QUOTE] Agreed, but he landed four or five solid blows.
2004-02-21 07:42 | User Profile
Mel Gibson really is forcing Uncle Shimon to show his hand.
Show them the Cross and they cringe like vampires - which shouldn't be surprising because they are vampires being shown a Cross.
This should be a lesson to all of us: the Holy Cross is the thing that they fear. It hurts them to look at it. So SHOW IT TO THEM!
Get it?
Mel's done more in the past year with this single film to out the Pharisees than the good Dr. Pierce did in 40 years with impassioned reason. Why? Because humans are religious by nature, and they respond to religious symbols on a profoundly emotional level and then they direct their thinking to comport with that - it's not the other way around. Emotion precedes reason. The only successful appeal to our people will be a fastball pitch down the middle to their Christian faith. These recent events should be enough to convince even the most sceptical among us.
So regardless of our individual beliefs, let's accept this demonstrable fact of marketing life and get on board the Christian Nationalist train.
I mean, just imagine if it ever became widely acknowledged that the Talmud - Judaism's most important book - teaches that Jesus of Nazareth was a sorcerer, that he's being boiled for all eternity in sh*t, that his mother was the whore of a Roman soldier named Pantera, and that he was conceived during her menses? We'd win, and they'd lose. But you can tell Freepers that until you're blue in the face, and it won't matter because they've been conditioned to double-think it out of existence. The only way you can break through that is to market your message properly, and that means the Gospel straight up without a chaser, as Mel Gibson (may his bed in Heaven be soft) has just proved beyond all reasonable debate.
Walter
2004-02-21 08:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Is the mention of "Roman authorities fearing Jesus" justified from the Christian perspective?[/QUOTE]
Of course. Herod the Great tried to kill the infant Jesus, going so far as to execute all boys under the age of 2 in Bethlehem.
Herod the Tetrarch, Herod the Great's son, presided over Jesus' trial with Pontius Pilate and although neither could find nothing to condemn Christ, it was they who consented to the Jewish authorities and sentenced him to death on the cross.
While these are the facts given in Scripture that are used to place blame on 'Roman authorities' for Christ's crucifixion, there's more to this story that is detaled here: [url]http://www.sundayschoollessons.com/herod.htm[/url]
The Herod family were Idumeans. That is, they were descended from Abraham through Isaac and Esau, rather than through Isaac and Jacob. They saw themselves as Jewish, participating in God's covenant with Abraham, but their ancestors had not gone to Egypt with Joseph and returned with Moses and Joshua.
Herod Antipater formally converted to the Jewish religious practice of the descendants of Jacob. His family would not allow their portraits (graven images) on the coins they issued, they did not eat pork as they followed the Jewish dietary laws, and the women of the family were not allowed to marry men who were uncircumcised.
Herod the Great undertook great building projects in Palestine, including whole cities like Caesarea Maritima and Masada and the rebuilding of Jericho. **Most important, he rebuilt the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. **
So we see that even then, jews were working both sides of a seemingly imagined divide. Imagine that.
2004-02-23 16:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Mel's done more in the past year with this single film to out the Pharisees than the good Dr. Pierce did in 40 years with impassioned reason. Why? Because humans are religious by nature, and they respond to religious symbols on a profoundly emotional level and then they direct their thinking to comport with that - it's not the other way around. Emotion precedes reason. [B]The only successful appeal to our people [/B] will be a fastball pitch down the middle to their Christian faith. These recent events should be enough to convince even the most sceptical among us.
So regardless of our individual beliefs, let's accept this demonstrable fact of marketing life and get on board the Christian Nationalist train.
[/QUOTE]
It's too bad Pierce isn't alive to see this story unfold. Though I'm not a Christian, I'm ready to spit on my hands and grab a coal shovel. But is it really the "only" successful appeal? Surely there are other avenues (Beethoven?) to reconnect our people to their past on the intuitive level. It's not only religious symbols, but all mythic symbols from our own past that will give us the confidence to pink-slip the Jews as our trusted interpreters.
2004-02-23 17:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Marlowe]It's too bad Pierce isn't alive to see this story unfold. Though I'm not a Christian, I'm ready to spit on my hands and grab a coal shovel. But is it really the "only" successful appeal? Surely there are other avenues (Beethoven?) to reconnect our people to their past on the intuitive level. It's not only religious symbols, but all mythic symbols from our own past that will give us the confidence to pink-slip the Jews as our trusted interpreters.[/QUOTE]
Yggdrasil has it right on this point. The good Dr. Pierce banged the drum relentlessly when most of us were sleeping (including me), but his appealed to men's intellect only. That's a mistake very smart people like Dr. Pierce tend to make - one good film is more powerful than 40 years of reasoned discourse. It's just the way it is. We need to use the scientific insights of advertising in packaging our message. It's all out there, too. It never interested me much, but it's one of those things that have to be done.
We must appeal to the heart more than to the head.
And it just doesn't get more fundamentally emotional than religion.
However this thing goes down this week, Mel Gibson is to be praised for flushing our enemies out into the light of day.
Well done, brother Mel!
Walter
2004-02-23 17:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Mel's done more in the past year with this single film to out the Pharisees than the good Dr. Pierce did in 40 years with impassioned reason. Why? Because humans are religious by nature, and they respond to religious symbols on a profoundly emotional level and then they direct their thinking to comport with that - it's not the other way around. Emotion precedes reason. The only successful appeal to our people will be a fastball pitch down the middle to their Christian faith. These recent events should be enough to convince even the most sceptical among us.[/QUOTE]
But Walter, your so-called "Christian" appeals are to: (1) passivity cultivated by the Scripture that the Church must thus ignore, or (2) activity as directed by the Anti-Christ - the Whore of Babylon.
In view of this consideration, I'd guess that the Nazis have more appeal to such "Christian faith" as we find hereabouts. I'd be interested, though, in a vote by the flock here at OD as between Hitler and the Pope suggestive of some sense of their relative appeal.
2004-02-23 18:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Of course. Herod the Great tried to kill the infant Jesus, going so far as to execute all boys under the age of 2 in Bethlehem.
This is unrelated to Christ's death several decades later.
Herod the Tetrarch, Herod the Great's son, presided over Jesus' trial with Pontius Pilate and although neither could find nothing to condemn Christ, it was they who consented to the Jewish authorities and sentenced him to death on the cross.
Neither Herod nor Pontius Pilate showed any fear of Jesus. Pilate said that Jesus was innocent, but a "whole multitude" of Jews grew "more fierce." So, Pilate tried to extricate himself by sending Jesus to Herod.
Herod and his men mocked Jesus (while Jewish leaders "vehmently accused" Jesus), but Herod returned Jesus after finding Jesus not guilty. After several attemps to free Jesus, Pilate agreed to kill Jesus but said he would not take responsibility but the Jews agreed to take responsibility.
Where is there even the slightest hint that the Roman's feared Jesus?
If Pilate killed Jesus because he feared Jesus, why did he try so hard to get out of killing Jesus? If Herod feared Jesus, why did he mock Jesus and then declare that he found no guilt in Jesus, and then give up Jesus back to Pilate?
Pilate feared only the Jews. He feared the Jewish mob and he feared Jewish rebellion. His job was to keep the peace with Jews, so to speak. And, if the Jews rebelled (as they did some decades later), Pilate knew he'd be the first one sliced and diced if he let Jesus go. And, even if the Jews did not rebel, refusing to kill Jesus would have made it much more difficult for him to work with the Jews.
2004-02-23 18:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Mel's done more in the past year with this single film to out the Pharisees than the good Dr. Pierce did in 40 years with impassioned reason. Why? Because humans are religious by nature, and they respond to religious symbols on a profoundly emotional level and then they direct their thinking to comport with that - it's not the other way around. Emotion precedes reason. The only successful appeal to our people will be a fastball pitch down the middle to their Christian faith. These recent events should be enough to convince even the most sceptical among us.
Great. At this rate, I expect ZOG to be overthrown no later than Easter. And then we can begin the expulsion of non-Whites from White lands, if that's ok.
So regardless of our individual beliefs, let's accept this demonstrable fact of marketing life and get on board the Christian Nationalist train.
I don't knoiw about that. Is this a "Whites-only" train?
[FONT=Arial Narrow]All this Gibson-worship is making me sick.[/FONT]
2004-02-23 19:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Pilate feared only the Jews. He feared the Jewish mob and he feared Jewish rebellion. His job was to keep the peace with Jews, so to speak. And, if the Jews rebelled (as they did some decades later), Pilate knew he'd be the first one sliced and diced if he let Jesus go. And, even if the Jews did not rebel, refusing to kill Jesus would have made it much more difficult for him to work with the Jews.[/QUOTE]
Pilate was in hot water with Rome over his rule in Jerusalem; he'd made some public blunders. Not the least of which was the way he entered Jerusalem, riding a white stallion and presenting himself among the Jews as a conquering warrior instead of a wise but stern ruler. (Think American tanks dismantling statues in public squares in Iraq not too long ago...) So the Jews were already ticked off at him from the get-go, and not only that, they knew his weaknesses: his burning ambition and his desire to return to Rome's good graces. So in John 19:12, the mob really straps some fear onto Pilate when they say, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar." Probably not the last time this type of blackmail has been used by certain ethnicities looking for a wedge against a corrupt/powerful gentile. (Think about the Israeli firms Amdocs and Comverse, and the lively telephone "conversations" between Clinton and his Esther...)
Another revealing verse comes just before the above-referenced one, in John 19:11, where Christ says to Pilate, [COLOR=DarkRed]"You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin."[/COLOR] In other words, the high priest and his cohort bear the greater responsibility. So let's have it, Abe Foxman; get it over with; call Christ the first Christian antisemite! It might get the train started out of the station.
Interestingly enough, the Coptic Church of Egypt believes that Pilate and his wife converted to Christianity. Who can say? Whatever happened with Pilate, he is not portrayed in the Gospels as fearing Christ or even having a great deal of animus towards him; he's just another gentile to be twisted and used for the purposes of furthering Pharisaical interests.