← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · martel
Thread ID: 12842 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2004-03-23
2004-03-23 04:58 | User Profile
March 22, 2004
Gibson's Passion And Christophobic Libel By Sam Francis
OK, I've seen Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ and am therefore entitled to pronounce the definitive and final word on a subject over which more ink has already been spilled than cuttlefish can squirt.
I have to confess the film did nothing for me religiously and even less aesthetically. It's a well-made movie, but the brutality inflicted on the person of Jesus I found repellent, tasteless, bordering on the blasphemous and implausible.
A human being who gets the kind of beating administered in the movie would be dead or dying, and he wouldn't be lugging a 15-foot-tall cross for several miles an hour or so later.
I had much the same reaction to the graphic torture scene in Mr. Gibson's earlier film Braveheart, though that was less brutal and mercifully shorter.
But the violence of the Passion is only a small part of the controversy. The bigger question has been, is The Passion of the Christ anti-Semitic?
The answer is "No."
Yes, Jewish priests and their hired mob are depicted as engineering the execution of Jesus, carried out by Roman soldiers. This is from the New Testament account, the only historical source we have about the event, and it's perfectly consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church today. "The Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ," Pope Paul VI stated in his 1965 Nostra Aetate declaration.
The writers (mainly but not entirely Jewish) who have denounced the movie for anti-Semitism have dwelled on the Jewish role in the crucifixion as the main basis for their claims, and they don't hesitate to instruct Mr. Gibson, a lifelong traditional Catholic, in his own religion.
Probably at least a dozen Jewish writers invoked the 1965 statement and Mr. Gibson's supposed deviation from it.
But neither the Church nor Mel Gibson can rewrite historical documents the way these writers demand. The more important point is that neither Paul VI nor Mr. Gibson's film holds Jews today or all Jews responsible for the killing of Christ, which is what most of the critics try to lump in with the historical account. The pope added, "What happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." The movie insists on the universal responsibility of mankind for Christ's death and dwells most of all on Christ's own forgiveness of those who tortured and killed him.
At no time during or after the movie did I get the idea that it blamed all Jews or that you were supposed to get that idea.
Yet the response to the film has been literally hysterical. "Gibson's Blood Libel,ââ¬Â yells Charles Krauthammer. "Fascistic" concludes Richard Cohen. "Unambiguously contrived to vilify Jews" says Frank Rich. Gibson "has chosen to give millions of people the impression that Jews are culpable for the death of Jesus," writes Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic.
That's only a small sample.
But probably the most bizarre reaction comes from an Orthodox Rabbi, Ariel Bar Tzadok, who writes that he feels nothing for the sufferings of the mother of Jesus watching the crucifixion of her son, a story "considered by many non-Christians to be a fictional account recorded in the Gospels."
What the rabbi does identify with are
"the Jewish mothers who cried for their sons, suffering from German Nazis, Russian Cossacks, Spanish Inquisitors, and all types of European Crusaders. All of these persecutors of the Jews held one thing in common, they were all Christians, and they had all at one time or another seen a 'passion play,' similar to Mr. Gibson's movie that motivated them to, in their eyes, take revenge for Christ against those who killed him."
Well, now, speaking of "fictional accounts."
Aside from his insulting parody of Christianity, what's important here is what the rabbi's fiction tells us about the Jewish reaction to The Passion. His response is extremeââ¬âbut not really very different from other reactions.
And what that reaction reveals is that many Jewsââ¬âOrthodox and traditional as well as modern and secularââ¬âseem to harbor a deep, ineradicable and obsessive hatred of Christianity itself and the central events of the New Testament.
It's more than the normal dislike one religion often feels for another but a hatred drawn from what they insist are centuries of vicious persecution of Jews, a persecution held to come from the heart of Christianity itself.
If that kind of hatred does lurk in the Jewish psyche, then there's a much bigger problem here than Mel Gibson's movie.
There's a fundamental (and perhaps irresolvable) conflict with a country and a civilization thatââ¬âas the immense popularity of The Passion of Christ showsââ¬âcontinue to insist on calling themselves Christian :thumbsup:
2004-03-23 07:10 | User Profile
Dr. Francis, wrote a very coherent review of the jewish hysteria being thrown at Mel Gibson's Movie. The jewish reaction in it's self shows how they react as a "Oi,vey" hive against U.S. whites at large.. If the Jew's have this kind of hysteria over a movie, then think about their position's in all the aspect's of our country since FDR the traitor was put in office in 1932. Just look at the immigration law changes, domination of the Media, Medical profession, Justice Department, training of our police, talk radio such as Savage Nation, where as I may only hear "it" a few minutes once or twice a month, "it" seem's to always be ranting about "Nazi's"? along with yelling about jewish persecution in France and calling them frog's etc. White's who speak out against jewish power/arrogance are the people who are persecuted in the U.S. today. They have control of the country, we have multi-cultism shoved down on U.S. like a boot on our necks if you don't smile about it, and support it fully you may be in trouble. This diversity has been murdering U.S. literially.. The extent of this violence is and has always been covered up, like the Zebra torture/kidnapping murder cases, and the Wichita mass murder/torture case, to so many other horror attacks by Congoids, like the Federal Express pilot who was a fired and who in 1995 attacked three pilot's in flight with a sledge hammer that was hidden in his suitcase, trying to gain control and then crash the fully loaded Jet Cargo plane in to FEDEX headquarter's, and the P.S.A. Congoid Airline employee who murdered by shooting white's and causing the crash of a whole plane load of whites along with the crew of course.. Yesterday, N.P.R. had a long segment on LENNY BRUCE, a jewish so called comic, junkie doper, and white hating pervert who killed himself 41 years ago!? Then NPR played a old Lenny Bruce routine of him acting like he was Adolf Eichman speaking, and yelling about gas shower's and lampshades etc.. Kosher food in prison for them, rape for U.S. white's in prison, along with Holycost training in Elementry schools nation wide now, all this is something to behold. Bottom line is that it is white's who suffer violence/stress every day by non white's plus a government that is foisting hate speech and H.R. 3077 on U.S. If I was from another world, I would be certain that the whites were the persucuted ones. Please never forget the real terror that these young U.S. sailors felt on June 8. 1968. It is only a matter of time till the [url]www.ussliberty.org[/url] website will be removed as a hate site..
2004-03-23 07:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=martel]There's a fundamental (and perhaps irresolvable) conflict with a country and a civilization that-as the immense popularity of The Passion of Christ shows-continue to insist on calling themselves Christian.[/QUOTE]
This closing sentence is a masterful example of subtle, suggestive understatement. These few simple words from Dr. Francis point the way to a fertile field of rich ground ready to cultivate and exploit for those that will only acknowledge its reality, accept it as such and then begin tilling the soil. Those that want to slash and burn and try and make ready entire new fields have an infinitely more difficult and elusively attainable row to hoe.
The first step in being effective is recognizing and accepting the reality of the field of play and then designing one's gameplan based on same.
2004-03-23 08:26 | User Profile
So, less is more? We over-the-toppers are too blatant?
2004-03-23 08:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]So, less is more? We over-the-toppers are too blatant?[/QUOTE]
No, not necessarily. The point I was making is what good is it to have the most wicked slider in baseball if one is playing tennis? It's all about knowing and accepting one's audience, where "they are at", and making an appeal that can speak to and persuade them accordingly.
2004-03-23 09:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE]If that kind of hatred does lurk in the Jewish psyche, then there's a much bigger problem here than Mel Gibson's movie. [/QUOTE]
That sorta sums it up, no?
As St. Paul put it, the Jews are the "enemies of the Gospel."
[QUOTE]Romans 11:28 [B]As concerning the gospel, they are enemies [/B] for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.[/QUOTE]
It's a complicated thing with the Jews. On the one hand, they have a special deal with God by means of their ancestry, and yet on the other hand they're the enemies of the Gospel.
St. Paul asks us not to despise them, but clearly also we must be wary of them. It's a tough balance to strike, IMHO.
One thing that clearly flows from the fact that they are enemies of the Gospel is that you can't hope to build a Christian society with them around, for the simple reason that you can't tolerate a blood enemy within your own gates. They have to leave.
Since they have to leave, and since they can't get along with anybody, it seems to follow that only moving them all to their own country is the only real solution to the Jewish problem (and man is it ever a problem). For practical reasons, that should be Israel, with the Hebrews on one side of the fence and the Arabs on the other.
The Gospel is for the salvation of mankind, and Jews are its enemy. Yet, it is an enemy beloved of God Himself. I see no other way than separation.
Walter
2004-03-23 19:26 | User Profile
Nicely done, as usual. And would whoever is sending told-ya so e-mails to Sam Francis and then posting the results on the VNN letters page please stop? Not that it's anyone on this fine board.
It's a little thing called respect for elders. Even in a race war, it's good practice.
2004-03-23 21:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Since they have to leave, and since they can't get along with anybody, it seems to follow that only moving them all to their own country is the only real solution to the Jewish problem (and man is it ever a problem). For practical reasons, that should be Israel, with the Hebrews on one side of the fence and the Arabs on the other.[/QUOTE]
I am quite certain that they would die rather than submit. There have been similar proposals: Uganda, Madagascar, etc. In any case, I am quite dubious as to the Jewish capacity for self-governance other than within a host society.
I've said before, I think the answer lies in restoring freedom of assoication in this country. I would favor various forms of separation, suppression, censorship, and various other disabilities. If Jews didn't like it, they could leave it.
But even that won't happen unless we recover far more Christian solidarity than we have today.
2004-03-23 22:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I am quite certain that they would die rather than submit. There have been similar proposals: Uganda, Madagascar, etc. In any case, I am quite dubious as to the Jewish capacity for self-governance other than within a host society.[/QUOTE]
The Jews seem incapable of maintaining any sort of national society in the ordinary sense. Without foreign aid, a Jewish Madagascar would import Negroes to do all their scut work. The Negroes would soon eat the Jews, presumably. They aren't fit and hence won't survive. The only question is, will the same prove true of us as well?
2004-03-23 22:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]For practical reasons, that should be Israel,... [/QUOTE]
Really? I have some difficulty with rewarding them for land theft and ethnic cleansing. And are you sure they can be trusted with Atomic Weapons? :sad:
2004-03-23 23:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Without foreign aid, a Jewish Madagascar would import Negroes to do all their scut work. The Negroes would soon eat the Jews, presumably. [/QUOTE]
Now this is not necessarily true. They would probably screen the imports for extra-low IQ, and indoctrinate them with some Noahide-type ideology, so they consider them their Gods. Could work. And I could live with [I]that.[/I]
Frankly, and no offense meant, but I believe you NA types want [I]revenge,[/I], in addition to problem solved. For me, problem solved would suffice, and if it can be done without shedding a single drop of blood, so much the better.
2004-03-23 23:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=martel]It's a well-made movie, but the brutality inflicted on the person of Jesus I found repellent, tasteless, bordering on the blasphemous and implausible. [/QUOTE]
This part of his essay is silly.
SF doesnôt quite understand that Christôs suffering had to be excessive, even [I]unique[/I]. The Passion is supposed to atone for all Sins of Humanity. It would rather have been blasphemous to prettify the event.
And how could the Crucifixion of the Saviour have been [I]tasteful[/I]?
I must admit I am glad Mel did more thinking about this movie than Sam Francis.
(The rest of his article is quite good, but he should have made his point without denouncing one of the best religious films in history.)
2004-03-24 05:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Really? I have some difficulty with rewarding them for land theft and ethnic cleansing. And are you sure they can be trusted with Atomic Weapons? :sad:[/QUOTE] Please read this one for a answer on that question. [url]http://www.jfkmontreal.com/dimona.htm[/url]
2004-03-24 15:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Really? I have some difficulty with rewarding them for land theft and ethnic cleansing. And are you sure they can be trusted with Atomic Weapons? :sad:[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't like it either, but there're so many of them now that it would be simplest to move them there.
As to nukes, that cat's outta the bag. It's all bad, man.
Walter
2004-03-24 15:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]This part of his essay is silly.
SF doesnôt quite understand that Christôs suffering had to be excessive, even [I]unique[/I]. The Passion is supposed to atone for all Sins of Humanity. It would rather have been blasphemous to prettify the event.
And how could the Crucifixion of the Saviour have been [I]tasteful[/I]?
I must admit I am glad Mel did more thinking about this movie than Sam Francis.
(The rest of his article is quite good, but he should have made his point without denouncing one of the best religious films in history.)[/QUOTE]
Good points.
Walter
2004-03-24 16:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Now this is not necessarily true. They would probably screen the imports for extra-low IQ, and indoctrinate them with some Noahide-type ideology, so they consider them their Gods. Could work. And I could live with [I]that.[/I]
Frankly, and no offense meant, but I believe you NA types want [I]revenge,[/I], in addition to problem solved. For me, problem solved would suffice, and if it can be done without shedding a single drop of blood, so much the better.[/QUOTE]
Izzy has a budding problem with the black Falasha Jews from Ethiopia.
I know, surprise, surprise, but it turns out Israeli schools are failing Falasha children and they're falling behind the Ashkenazi kids.
Who could have guessed that?
Walter
2004-03-24 21:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I would favor various forms of separation, suppression, censorship, and various other disabilities. If Jews didn't like it, they could leave it.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with this. I think the place to start is government. A humane way of dealing with the situation would be some American form of the Nuremberg laws. I would not hesitate to begin by denying any Jew any position of political power: they would not be eligible for Congress, for state legislatures, for local government, for any executive position, for any judicial position, period. Any government position they held would have to be of the administrative variety. Further, any gentile caught being lobbied by a Jew on any issue would be severely punished.
Something named "The Office for Jewish Safety" would be instituted to oversee this, adjudicate who is Jewish, etc. They would have the power to cease and desist any Jewish communication designed to subvert. Access to universities, not sure. I think it would be too complicated to prevent Jewish economic activity, but this, too, could be monitored.
The animating idea would be that Jews could live their lives and practice Judaism, but no more. If they don't like the deal, they can leave. A few official proclamations might help to set the tone for keeping them from causing trouble. In short, we would make them Amish by force.
2004-03-25 06:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Hugh Lincoln]Something named "The Office for Jewish Safety" would be instituted to oversee this, adjudicate who is Jewish, etc. They would have the power to cease and desist any Jewish communication designed to subvert. Access to universities, not sure. I think it would be too complicated to prevent Jewish economic activity, but this, too, could be monitored.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't it be easier to hold them to the central idea of Zionism - i.e. that all Jews should live in Israel - rather than make arrangements with them here.
It's what their leaders want (Ariel Sharon tells them to emigrate from the US and Russia all the time), and it's what we want.
The only thing we need to change is the unspoken rule that Ariel Sharon can say it but we can't. We simply need to put Herzl's ideas into practice.
IMHO.
Walter
2004-03-25 15:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]The animating idea would be that Jews could live their lives and practice Judaism, but no more. If they don't like the deal, they can leave. A few official proclamations might help to set the tone for keeping them from causing trouble. In short, we would make them Amish by force.[/QUOTE]
Great minds think alike, Hugh.
Walter, Zionism was a fanatic idea from the start. Even most Jews thought so initially. As did Pope St. Pius X. Even if you could justify a Jewish homeland in Palestine morally (a dubious proposition), Israel could never have security within its original boundaries. It is then faced with the necessity of absorbing millions of alien Christian and Muslim citizens, mostly in the West Bank, into an officially Jewish state--another absurd proposition. That is why we have the stalemate we have, which may result ultimately in a very bloody and tragic conclusion.
I therefore reject the two-state solution. I say to unite and country and arrange for some power sharing agreement maybe along the Swiss model. Get the Pope involved. Internationalize certain areas, such as Jerusalem, if you must. But accept the fact that based on history, Islam is the naturally predominant influence in the region barring a change of reality on the ground. Jews and Christians have lived with that reality for centuries and just have to make the best of it.
2004-03-26 18:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Wouldn't it be easier to hold them to the central idea of Zionism - i.e. that all Jews should live in Israel - rather than make arrangements with them here.
It's what their leaders want (Ariel Sharon tells them to emigrate from the US and Russia all the time), and it's what we want. [/QUOTE]
This could probably be a part of the solution, but I'm skeptical because most Jews have no interest in living in Israel. They're happy right in America, where they pretty much run the show. Jews just like the idea of Israel --- not necessarily the real thing. Which makes their instigation of WWIII on its behalf all the more infuriating.