← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 16004 | Posts: 31 | Started: 2004-12-17
2004-12-17 11:44 | User Profile
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/arts/19rich.html?oref=login&8hpib=&pagewanted=print&position=[/url]
[COLOR=Purple][FONT=Book Antiqua]
[B]2004: The Year of 'The Passion' / FRANK RICH [/B]
Will it be the Jews' fault if "The Passion of the Christ," ignored by the Golden Globes this week, comes up empty in the Oscar nominations next month? Why, of course. "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular," William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, explained in a colloquy on the subject recently convened by Pat Buchanan on MSNBC. "It's not a secret, O.K.?" Mr. Donohue continued. "And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth." After the show's token (and conservative) Jewish panelist, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, pointed out that "Michael Moore is certainly not a Jew" and that Scorsese, Coppola and Lucas are not "Jewish names," Mr. Donohue responded: "I like Harvey Weinstein. How's that? Harvey Weinstein is my friend." How's that? Not quite good enough. Surely Mr. Donohue knows that decorum in these situations requires that he cite a Jew as one of his "best friends," not merely a friend. For shame. As we close the books on 2004, and not a moment too soon, it's clear that, as far as the culture goes, this year belonged to Mel Gibson's mammoth hit. Its prurient and interminable wallow in the Crucifixion, to the point where Jesus' actual teachings become mere passing footnotes to the sumptuously depicted mutilation of his flesh, is as representative of our time as "Godspell" was of terminal-stage hippiedom 30 years ago. The Gibson conflation of religion with violence reflects the universal order of the day — whether the verbal fisticuffs of the culture war within America, as exemplified by Mr. Donohue's rant on national television or, far more lethally, the savagery of the actual war that radical Islam brought to our doorstep on 9/11. "The Passion" is a one-size-fits-all touchstone, it seems. It didn't just excite and anger a lot of moviegoers in our own country but also broke box-office records abroad, including in the Middle East. Most Arab governments censor films that depict prophets (Jesus included), even banning recent benign Hollywood products like the Jim Carrey vehicle "Bruce Almighty" and the animated musical "Prince of Egypt." But an exception was made for Mr. Gibson's blood fest nearly everywhere. It was seen in Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Among the satisfied customers last spring was Yasser Arafat, who called the film "moving and historical" — a thumb's up that has not, to my knowledge, yet surfaced in the film's low-key Oscar campaign. Arafat's animus was clear enough; an aide said at the time that he likened Jesus' suffering, as depicted in "The Passion," to that of the Palestinians at the hands of Israel. Our domestic culture war over religion is not so easily explained. You'd think peace might reign in a nation where there is so much unanimity of faith. In Newsweek's "Birth of Jesus" holiday cover article — not to be confused with Time's competing "Secrets of the Nativity" cover — a poll found that 84 percent of American adults call themselves Christian, 82 percent see Jesus as the son of God, and 79 percent believe in the Virgin Birth. Though by a far slimmer margin, the presidential election reinstalled a chief executive who ostentatiously invokes a Christian Almighty. As for "The Passion of the Christ," it achieved the monetary landslide of a $370 million domestic gross (second only to the cartoon saviors Shrek and Spider-Man). Yet if you watch the news and listen to certain politicians, especially since Election Day, you'll hear an ever-growing drumbeat that Christianity is under siege in America. Like Mr. Gibson, the international movie star who portrayed himself as a powerless martyr to a shadowy anti- Christian conspiracy in the run-up to the release of "The Passion," his fellow travelers on the right detect a sinister plot — of secularists, "secular Jews" and "elites" — out to destroy the religion followed by more than four out of every five Americans. In the latest and most bizarre twist on this theme, even Christmas is now said to be a target of the anti-Christian mob. "Are we going to abolish the word Christmas?" asked Newt Gingrich, warning that "it absolutely can happen here." Among those courageously leading the fight to save the holiday from its enemies is Bill O'Reilly, who has taken to calling the Anti-Defamation League "an extremist group" and put the threat this way: "Remember, more than 90 percent of American homes celebrate Christmas. But the small minority that is trying to impose its will on the majority is so vicious, so dishonest — and has to be dealt with." If more than 90 percent of American households celebrate Christmas, you have to wonder why the guy is whining. The only evidence of what Pat Buchanan has called Christmas-season "hate crimes against Christianity" consists of a few ridiculous and isolated incidents, like the banishment of a religious float from a parade in Denver and of religious songs from a high school band concert in New Jersey. (In scale, this is nothing compared with the refusal of the world's largest retailer, Wal- Mart, to stock George Carlin's new best seller, "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?," whose cover depicts its author at the Last Supper.) Yet the hysteria is being pumped up daily by Fox News, newspapers like The New York Post and The Washington Times, and Web sites like savemerrychristmas.org. Mr. O'Reilly and Jerry Falwell have gone so far as to name Michael Bloomberg an anti-Christmas conspirator because the mayor referred to the Christmas tree as a "holiday tree" in the lighting ceremony at Rockefeller Center. What is this about? How can those in this country's overwhelming religious majority maintain that they are victims in a fiery battle with forces of darkness? It is certainly not about actual victimization. Christmas is as pervasive as it has ever been in America, where it wasn't even declared a federal holiday until after the Civil War. What's really going on here is yet another example of a post-Election-Day winner-takes-all power grab by the "moral values" brigade. As Mr. Gibson shrewdly contrived his own crucifixion all the way to the bank, trumping up nonexistent threats to his movie to hype it, so the creation of imagined enemies and exaggerated threats to Christianity by "moral values" mongers of the right has its own secular purpose. The idea is to intimidate and marginalize anyone who objects to their efforts to impose the most conservative of Christian dogma on public policy. If you're against their views, you don't have a differing opinion — you're anti-Christian (even if you are a Christian). The power of this minority within the Christian majority comes from its exaggerated claims on the Bush election victory. It is enhanced further by a news culture, especially on television, that gives the Mel Gibson wing of Christianity more say than other Christian voices and that usually ignores minority religions altogether. This is not just a Fox phenomenon. Something is off when NBC's "Meet the Press" and ABC's "This Week," mainstream TV shows both, invite religious leaders to discuss "values" in the aftermath of the election and limit that discussion to all-male panels composed exclusively of either evangelical ministers or politicians with pseudo-spiritual credentials. Does Mr. Falwell, who after 9/11 blamed Al Qaeda's attack partly on "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians," speak for any sizable group of American Christians? Does the Rev. Al Sharpton, booked on TV as a "balance" to Mr. Falwell, do so either? Mr. Sharpton doesn't even have a congregation; like Mr. Falwell, he is a politician first, a religious leader second (or maybe fourth or fifth). Gary Bauer and James Dobson are also secular political figures, not religious leaders, yet they are more frequently called upon to play them on television than actual clergy are. "It's theological correctness," says the Rev. Debra Haffner, a Unitarian Universalist minister who directs a national interfaith group, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing, and is one of the rare progressive religious voices to get any TV time. She detects an overall "understanding" in the media that religion "is one voice — fundamentalist." That understanding may have little to do with the beliefs of television news producers — or even the beliefs of fundamentalists themselves — and more to do with the raw, secular political power that the press has attributed to "values" crusaders since the election. "There is the belief that the conservative view won, and the media are more interested in winners," says Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice. Even more important than inflated notions of the fundamentalists' power may be their entertainment value. As Ms. Kissling points out, the 50 million Americans who belong to progressive religious organizations are rarely represented on television because "progressive religious leaders are so tolerant that they don't make good TV." The Rev. Bob Chase of the United Church of Christ agrees: "We're not exciting guests." His church's recent ad trumpeting its inclusion of gay couples was rejected by the same networks that routinely give a forum to the far more dramatic anti-gay views of Mr. Falwell. Ms. Kissling laments that contemporary progressive Christians lack an intellectual star to rival Reinhold Niebuhr or William Sloane Coffin, but adds that today "Jesus Christ would have a tough time getting covered by TV if he didn't get arrested." This paradigm is everywhere in our news culture. When Jon Stewart went on CNN's "Crossfire" to demand that its hosts stop "hurting America" by turning news and political debate into a form of pro wrestling, it may have sounded a bit hyperbolic. "Crossfire" is an aging show that few watch. But his broader point holds up: it's all crossfire now. In the electronic news sphere where most Americans live much of the time, anyone who refuses to engage in combat is quickly sent packing as a bore. Toss the issue of religion into that 24/7 wrestling match, as into any conflict in human history, and the incendiary possibilities are limitless. When even phenomena as innocuous as Oscar nominations or the lighting of a Christmas tree can be inflated into divisive religious warfare, it's only a matter of time before someone uncovers an anti-Christian plot in "White Christmas." It avoids any mention of religion and it was, as William Donohue might be the first to point out, written by a secular Jew.[/FONT][/COLOR]
2004-12-17 13:28 | User Profile
The "Passion" is the gift that just keep on giving. Here's another good reason for any Christian to embrace anti-Semitism and it's published the NYT where millions will read it. And this flap has been going on for nearly two years now.
You'd think that they'd figure out to just shut up about the "Passion" in the hopes of letting the whole messy debacle pass into obscurity. And what a humiliating defeat it's been for them. I mean, here we have a small budget privately funded film (which was a finger in the eye of the Jewish Hollywood establishment for that reason alone) that acheived amazing public acclaim and stupendous financial success DUE PRECISELY TO THE HOLLYWOOD ELITES BEST EFFORTS TO SCUTTLE IT.
Ha!
These are the same people who coined the phrase "there ain't no such thing as bad press."
For smart people they sure are dumb somtimes.
There's a great lesson here for us: they can't help themselves. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Their hatred of Christ and His Church is so deeply etched in their collective cultural brain that they'll wildly overreact to (what should have been) a minor phenomenon like the "Passion" everytime.
I hope somebody else will follow up on this success somehow. They'll fall for the ruse again, I swear.
Just give them the Gospel straight up without a chaser, and they'll self destruct.
2004-12-17 15:11 | User Profile
Frank Rich's dissembling and disingenuousness really grate on me. He is such a tool. He ridicules the idea that Christmas is under attack by the Jews and 'elites' by saying that almost 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas, so it can't possibly be under attack. This one statement has so much stupidity packed into it, that he must have invented his own compression algorithm. 1. The fact that 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas has nothing to do with whether Christmas is under attack. Nothing. It only illustrates that the attack has not succeeded, yet. 2. If something is being attacked by 'elites' that it is almost a given that the thing they are attacking is something widespread and common. Therefore, the fact that many people celebrate Christmas has nothing to do with whether the 'elites' are attacking it. 3. At this point, nobody is disputing that people still have the right to celebrate Christmas in their own homes. The outcry is over the concerted effort by the 'elites' to expunge all Christianity from our culture and from public life. 4. Finally, the 'elites' have been quite successful in transforming Christmas into a secular festival of materialism and vague feelings of kindness, instead of a holy day commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ. How many of that 90% are truly celebrating the birth of the Word as man, and not the birth of two-days only sales at Sears?
This whole thing brings me to a pet peeve of mine. I absolutely cannot stand to watch a show, or movie, or special in which one of the characters discovers the so-called 'true meaning of Christmas', and that meaning turns out to be 'be nice to people'. This infuriates me. It makes me want to scream -- 'No, morons, the true meaning of Christmas is the birth of Jesus Christ!' If they want to make a secular Christmas show, then just make the freakin' show. But please drop the 'real meaning of Christmas' crap.
Anyway, you're right, Walter. This movie is the gift that keeps on giving. The more the Jewish 'elites' squawk about this, the more people will realize what is going on.
2004-12-17 15:33 | User Profile
That red font is impossible.
2004-12-17 16:31 | User Profile
Consider it fixed, Bardamu. I just wanted something spiffier than standard black sitefont.
Glee at their discomfort notwithstanding, it's hard to take these fu$#!?*ng people seriously (though you should, you should). I mean, there's only so much alteration the basic story of Christ can accomodate, after all. We all know the who, when, where and why for 1971 years now, whether you're an adherent or not. What is [I]any [/I] filmmaker supposed to do here exactly - give Him a girlfriend? A black sidekick named "Rerun"? A Nike swoosh on His raiment? It is what it is.
Since you can never go broke underestimating the sheer brass balls of a Jew, I guess their new tack - the dirty rotten Romans did it, under the explicit orders of that first-century Saddam Hussein (or was that the [I]Hitler in a toga[/I]? I forget now) murderous, megalomaniacal Pilate - is to be expected. What is truly frightening is how many people will at least half-concede this. I've heard more perfunctory Pilate-bashing in Anno Domini 2004....it's like the media just now discovered the ancient world had no due process or Miranda law, and have decided to go for jury-nullification in the interests of 'justice'.
That's funny. I seem to recall (and I'm hardly Chuck E Church, so correct me if I'm off the mark here) that Pilate was the governor presiding over a gaggle of Semites he generally disdained so thoroughly he strove whenever possible to extend them a measure of autonomy in their intramural, hebe-said-she-said squabbles. When actually confronted with Christ, he was genuinely puzzled why such a one would be so hated by his fellow Jews, even taking pity on him as a man - but, as it was a Jewish matter, he left it for the Jews to decide. He even extended them the gift of a get-off-the-cross-free card and they used it for Barrabas instead. At every turn, the willful choice to crucify Jesus of Nazareth was undertaken by the Jews. I mean, everybody knows this. There are no heroes in this story, but that doesn't mean that every actor in this play was a villain of equal culpability, and it for sure doesn't use The New Math to hang the ultimate blame upon the one guy who genuinely felt some revulsion at the proceedings.
Yes, yes, I know, metaphorically we [I]all [/I] killed Him; but technically, on that day in 33 AD, it was the people [I]howling for his death [/I] who drove him to it, no?
Not like I mean to whitewash Pilate, but like I keep shouting into deaf ears here - compared to the Jews, [I]an anti-Semitic atheist is a Christian's best friend.[/I]
2004-12-17 19:15 | User Profile
In the wake of The Passion, one of the networks broadcast a movie called Judas. It was wretchedly bad. Jesus as California hippie with superpowers. And of course, Pilate was the villain.
2004-12-17 19:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Frank Rich's dissembling and disingenuousness really grate on me. He is such a tool. He ridicules the idea that Christmas is under attack by the Jews and 'elites' by saying that almost 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas, so it can't possibly be under attack. This one statement has so much stupidity packed into it, that he must have invented his own compression algorithm.
[/QUOTE]
You've hit the nail on the head Q. In fact I would go even further and say that if such a majority celebrate Christmas and 79% consider themselves Christian then why is there so little public acknowledgement of Christ and his teachings? Rich's argument is a two-edged sword and he's trying to spin it otherwise. One can't go to say India or Iran during one of their religious festivals and expect such a generic spin as Christmas often gets.
2004-12-17 19:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Frank Rich's dissembling and disingenuousness really grate on me. He is such a tool. He ridicules the idea that Christmas is under attack by the Jews and 'elites' by saying that almost 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas, so it can't possibly be under attack. This one statement has so much stupidity packed into it, that he must have invented his own compression algorithm. He didn't invent it sure enough, but you're right, its sure seems effective for practical effect among our nations mainstream/leadership. It's the old, "What persecuted Christians, its just a tiny bunch of Jews trying to survive in an overwhelmingly hegenomously Christian nation. You poor Christians must at best be paranoid, at worse, just maneuvering for a new inquisition/holocaust."
I think all this nation's jew-influenced media and elite in general picks up this line at the mimeograph machine.
Anyway, you're right, Walter. This movie is the gift that keeps on giving. The more the Jewish 'elites' squawk about this, the more people will realize what is going on.[/QUOTE]
Thanks again for posting this also Il Ragno. The title threw me off a bit, I guess if you're from a Protestant area you wonder if Bill Donahue is Phil Donohue's cousin :lol: Anyway its very encouraging, after all the depressing tendencies of the past few years, to see some Churchmen speaking out. I think what Bill Donahue is saying may be on the minds of a lot of hi-ranking Churchmen across the board.
I think the lower levels is mostly jusst ignorant of the Jewish problem, but the upper levels are aware, they've just gone along with it. Something about the Passion and the Jews stereotyped hostile reaction to it seems capable of stirring this feeling up. Wish we could do something to help it.
I think the mass of Churchmen in general in this country aren't bad, but they're a little intimidated, by a fifth column of purely jew synchphants in their midst, who never cease to whine about "resurgent in-semitism, intolerance", etc., whenever someone looks like they're ready to start speaking up. Good some voices haven't been completely silenced, and they're being noticed. And good Pat is still around stirring up trouble, even if only as a guest host. (You bet his enemies noticed that!)
2004-12-17 21:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]We all know the who, when, where and why for 1971 years now, whether you're an adherent or not. What is any filmmaker supposed to do here exactly - give Him a girlfriend? A black sidekick named "Rerun"?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Pilate was the governor presiding over a gaggle of Semites he generally disdained so thoroughly he strove whenever possible to extend them a measure of autonomy in their intramural, hebe-said-she-said squabbles. [/QUOTE] Man, you have talent. As loud as I was laughing, it's a good thing my office door was closed....
2004-12-17 22:53 | User Profile
Many thanks. As a small child I couldn't understand why the tv news wasn't shown with a laugh track like MR ED and THE MUNSTERS were. I still don't, and try to reflect that in my commentary.
2004-12-17 23:33 | User Profile
il rags:
You're one helluva writer. Thanks.
2004-12-18 00:12 | User Profile
The way the Jews sidestep any connection to the plot to destroy Christmas is to blame it on the secular Jews, leading one to believe that their numbers are so minute as to not represent the entire tribe at all. But they always fail to mention what portion of world Jewry is composed of secular Jews. My guess would be the majority. So much for cutting the herd.
There was a story out of Oklahoma that was encouraging. For the first time in memory, the town voted down its school board's bond issue which was supposed to pay for a new school. Why? Because the Supt. of Schools decided after talking with the school's attorneys, that the manger scene had to be removed from the final performance of Silent Night in the Christmas play or they might be open to a law suit. As it turned out, they decided to leave up the menorah and the symbols associated with that joke of a black holiday. The parents went nuts and it's about time. They just didn't go far enough. They should have shut down the school for days and voted the entire board out of office. Then let the Supt. decide who he should consult first about school protocol.
Odd, this never made the news. Too revolutionary a concept, white Christians fighting back.
2004-12-18 05:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]There was a story out of Oklahoma that was encouraging. For the first time in memory, the town voted down its school board's bond issue which was supposed to pay for a new school. Why? Because the Supt. of Schools decided after talking with the school's attorneys, that the manger scene had to be removed from the final performance of Silent Night in the Christmas play or they might be open to a law suit. As it turned out, they decided to leave up the menorah and the symbols associated with that joke of a black holiday. The parents went nuts and it's about time. They just didn't go far enough. They should have shut down the school for days and voted the entire board out of office. Then let the Supt. decide who he should consult first about school protocol.
Odd, this never made the news. Too revolutionary a concept, white Christians fighting back.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Dakota. Decided to dig this up out of this Daily Oklahoman's archives.
[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16013]Mustang Residents Protest Nativity Ban[/URL]
Its interesting you don't hear more about this. You'd think this would be going on everywhere.
2004-12-18 19:02 | User Profile
I wrote the following in my book: [QUOTE][COLOR=Red]Recognizing the rise and importance of the trash culture prevalent in the United States, the editorial board of the New York Times has given a column to Frank Rich, an obnoxious taunter[/COLOR] who had proven himself by reviewing movies and shows in New York City. Mr. Rich had unburdened his psyche in the pages of the New York Times. He permitted readers to know that during his freshman year in college in 1968 he had done a frame by frame dissection of 2001: A Space Odyssey while stoned and miserable because of the "Vietnam Apocalypse". At that time he never could have imagined the Vietnam War would be over in 25 years, and he would have become a functioning adult. It had become an article of faith with Mr. Rich that whatever was commercial in Hollywood entertainment reflected the mood of the country. Films reflected the foreign policy the public wanted. That most of these films were made by Jews never concerned him. Mr. Rich like so many of his kind would call people he did not like "fascists". It was understood by his set that anybody called a fascist was a bad guy, but none could exactly describe what a fascist was other than somebody they should not like. Mr. Rich had confessed to having learned to despise Richard Nixon around the time he was learning to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. [COLOR=Red]Senator Bob Dole was called an anti-Semite by Mr. Rich for protesting obscene lyrics in black gangster rap music. Senator Dole had to know Jews ran the music business[/COLOR]. Mr. Rich wrote as a staunch supporter of President Clinton. Concerning the suicide of Vince Foster, Mr. Rich wrote that the truth was "we don't know the truth". A Clinton man all the way Mr. Rich accepted the explanation by the president: "Even if you had a whole set of objective reasons that wouldn't be why it happened". His hero, the president, had been there before according to Mr. Rich. After the suicide of Frank Aller, Mr. Clinton had remarked how impressed he had been by the stoicism of Frank Aller who "no matter how much he was hurting, never showed it". [COLOR=Red]Mr. Rich remembered his Bar Mitzvah as a rite of youth. While reading of the horrors of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and the Warsaw uprising, Mr. Rich contemplated his son's Bar Mitzvah to be held on the anniversary of the Warsaw rebellion. He quoted Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Laureate, who had been to Yugoslavia and had seen the bloodshed. Mr. Wiesel had said he could not sleep after seeing the carnage: "As a Jew I am saying that". According to Mr. Rich, President Clinton had begun to rethink intervention in Yugoslavia after hearing what Mr. Wiesel had said "as a Jew". [/COLOR] What was not contemplated by Mr. Rich or Mr. Wiesel was who would have to bear the burden of their consciences. A gut feeling had been they would not have cared. Prior to Mr. Clinton going to Normandy Mr. Rich wanted him to acknowledge his solidarity with most of his generation who stopped at nothing to avoid military duty in Vietnam. Mr. Rich claimed a high lottery number for himself, but admitted he would have manipulated the system as his hero did if he had been confronted with that necessity. Mr. Rich thought of this as his generation's "dirty little secret". How anybody could think of the widespread lying and dishonesty of being a "secret" must be indicative of the mindset of the people at Harvard. Mr. Rich deemed the only war hero of his Harvard 1971 class to be Jonathan Netanyahu, brother of the future Prime Minister of Israel, who like his Harvard classmates never wore an American uniform. Mr. Rich was disturbed by Mr. Clinton's lack of composure when issues remotely concerning war arose for national debate. The war-shirking, college-educated class was running the United States, and Mr. Rich was demanding recognition of their achievement, if not rectitude. If only Mr. Clinton manfully admitted his deeds, Mr. Rich thought the antiwar generation which shared his past might follow him into battle if he would stop posturing and lead. One had the idea after reading the counsel of Mr. Rich that he had conjured up a version of "Onward Jewish Soldiers" to stir the bones of him and his friends. What kind of battle would he follow Mr. Clinton into? One might be tempted to think that Mr. Rich and his friends would not be tempted to follow where real danger may lie, but would confine themselves to outbursts about minor issues which their active imaginations would enlarge into demonstrations of their noble character and courage.[/QUOTE]Frank Rich functions as a professional Jew who will write anything to burden the goyim with his conscience. On my list of those who should be put on the rack Frank Rich is near the top.
2004-12-19 05:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]I wrote the following in my book: Frank Rich functions as a professional Jew who will write anything to burden the goyim with his conscience. On my list of those who should be put on the rack Frank Rich is near the top.[/QUOTE]Great research Edward. I may have to get your book.
2004-12-19 16:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Among those courageously leading the fight to save the holiday from its enemies is Bill O'Reilly, who has taken to calling the Anti-Defamation League "an extremist group" ...[/QUOTE]
This is great news, IMO. Let's hope that all the cops that watch O'Reilly remember this the next time they attend an [URL=http://vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/StaffADLBackground.htm]ADL indoctrination session.[/URL]
2004-12-19 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]hebe-said-she-said squabbles. [/QUOTE]
that was priceless, priceless...
2004-12-19 20:01 | User Profile
let them emigrate
2004-12-19 23:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Recluse][QUOTE]Among those courageously leading the fight to save the holiday from its enemies is Bill O'Reilly, who has taken to calling the Anti-Defamation League "an extremist group" ... [/QUOTE]
This is great news, IMO. Let's hope that all the cops that watch O'Reilly remember this the next time they attend an [URL=http://vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/StaffADLBackground.htm]ADL indoctrination session.[/URL][/QUOTE]Well I knew there was something good in ole Bill, even though some purists (you know who you are) love to "rag" on him.
If we were more politically organized and active, we might be able to really make things unconfortable for the ADL on this, and impact a lot of fence sitters.
2004-12-20 00:45 | User Profile
Worth revisiting from time to time.
Link: [url]http://p076.ezboard.com/ftb2kfulltopicfrm1.showMessage?topicID=14582.topic[/url]
2004-12-20 01:27 | User Profile
I'm going to buy your book too. Having a personal association with both institutions, and an "old settler" WASP too - before I converted to Catholicism - I found most interesting the synoptic statement in one of the reviews-
The WASP hierarchy escaped the travails of the Civil War. They cowered in the campuses of Harvard and Yale.
There are a lot of names inscribed in the cartouches in Memorial Hall, slightly off the Yard. A lot of Harvard Yankees there, lots of dead WASPs. They don't include any of the Harvard dead in grey and butternut, who in the noble opinion of Samuel Eliot Morison deserved their own gallant niche. I don't think Yale has quite the same memorial to its Civil War dead. I'll be interested to see what edward gibbon's take on this is in his book.
Neither is a WASP institution any more, not since the Second World War. They are dominated by the Jews and their ethos. Despite their control and arrogance, they cannot obliterate the achievements and memory of historic Harvard and Yale, so fundamental to the early Republic, a Republic that has ceased to be in our time.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? - Yeats, the Second Coming
2004-12-20 16:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Frank Rich functions as a professional Jew who will write anything to burden the goyim with his conscience. On my list of those who should be put on the rack Frank Rich is near the top.[/QUOTE]
I used to be a regular reader of this nitwit's columns, but he made me so ****ing pissed off that I needed to stop.
2004-12-20 16:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well I knew there was something good in ole Bill, even though some purists (you know who you are) love to "rag" on him.[/QUOTE]
O'Reilly is an odd character. His views on foreign policy sicken me, but he's pretty good on the domestic side.
2004-12-25 06:15 | User Profile
This topic seems to have stirred a number of our articulate posters to new heights of eloquence. Good thinking and good writing, all.
I sincerely hope that somewhere, at any given moment, there is at least one of God's Chosen People reading this with a snarl and a hiss of outrage at the sight of so many uppity goyim in one place, gnashing his teeth like a vampire turning from the light.
Dark as it all looks now, the enemies of Western Gentile civilization [I]are[/I] beginning to lose their greasy grip at last. It's too late for them to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Have courage, and -- dare I say it? -- faith.
A MERRY CHRISTMAS to one and all.
2004-12-25 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]Dark as it all looks now, the enemies of Western Gentile civilization [I]are[/I] beginning to lose their greasy grip at last. It's too late for them to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Have courage, and -- dare I say it? -- faith.
A MERRY CHRISTMAS to one and all.[/QUOTE]
A very Merry Christmas to you, arkady. And a Prosperous New Year.
Walter
2004-12-28 08:56 | User Profile
Buchanan gets nervous: (McLaughlin Group)
MR. O'DONNELL: The Most Stagnant Thinker is stuck in the Middle Ages, in the Inquisition, a guy named Bill Donohue, who is the leader of a thing called the Catholic League, which has no relationship with the Catholic Church, who has said on cable television recently that Jews control Hollywood and that they hate Christianity. His reward for having said this is that he's been invited back on cable news to say more such evil things.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You want to say anything about that, Pat?
MR. BUCHANAN: No, I'll pass on that, since he has said on my program -- (chuckles) --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, the Most Stagnant -- well, you know Bill.
MR. BUCHANAN: Sure I do. Sure. Well, just let me say this about Bill. It's being -- I think it was an unfortunate statement that he made there, and controversial. But it was a violent argument with Rabbi Boteach --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Don't give us too much, Pat. (Laughter.)
[url]http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=446[/url]
Buchanan should have asked why it's OK to point out the alleged influence right wing Christians have in the Bush administration, but not OK to mention the power secular Jews have in Hollywood.
2005-01-19 19:53 | User Profile
Add this [url=http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41992]bitch session[/url] by Schmuley Boteach on WorldNutDeli to the chorus.
Odd that Edgar Steele (certainly a character on the fringe--he was the lawyer who defended the Aryan Nations against the SPLC) draws Boteach's ire and gets painted as an "evangelical author," unless Boteach's goal all along is to paint with a broad brush.
2005-01-21 16:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] Since you can never go broke underestimating the sheer brass balls of a Jew, I guess their new tack - the dirty rotten Romans did it, under the explicit orders of that first-century Saddam Hussein (or was that the [I]Hitler in a toga[/I]? I forget now) murderous, megalomaniacal Pilate - is to be expected. What is truly frightening is how many people will at least half-concede this. I've heard more perfunctory Pilate-bashing in Anno Domini 2004....it's like the media just now discovered the ancient world had no due process or Miranda law, and have decided to go for jury-nullification in the interests of 'justice'.[/QUOTE] Thereââ¬â¢s bumper sticker potential here, ââ¬ÅRomans donââ¬â¢t kill Messiahs, Jews do.ââ¬Â
2005-01-21 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]Thereââ¬â¢s bumper sticker potential here, ââ¬ÅRomans donââ¬â¢t kill Messiahs, Jews do.ââ¬Â[/QUOTE]Except a lot of WN would add "why do those darn Jews :caiphas:[I]always [/I] get all the fun". :disgust:
2005-01-22 01:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The "Passion" is the gift that just keep on giving. Here's another good reason for any Christian to embrace anti-Semitism and it's published the NYT where millions will read it. And this flap has been going on for nearly two years now.
You'd think that they'd figure out to just shut up about the "Passion" in the hopes of letting the whole messy debacle pass into obscurity. And what a humiliating defeat it's been for them. I mean, here we have a small budget privately funded film (which was a finger in the eye of the Jewish Hollywood establishment for that reason alone) that acheived amazing public acclaim and stupendous financial success DUE PRECISELY TO THE HOLLYWOOD ELITES BEST EFFORTS TO SCUTTLE IT.
Ha!
These are the same people who coined the phrase "there ain't no such thing as bad press."
For smart people they sure are dumb somtimes.
There's a great lesson here for us: they can't help themselves. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Their hatred of Christ and His Church is so deeply etched in their collective cultural brain that they'll wildly overreact to (what should have been) a minor phenomenon like the "Passion" everytime.
I hope somebody else will follow up on this success somehow. They'll fall for the ruse again, I swear.
Just give them the Gospel straight up without a chaser, and they'll self destruct.[/QUOTE]
Damn, what a post! Seriously, that was great.
I will slightly disagree that ignoring this movie was ever an option - or that it would have passed quietly into the night w/o the angry leftists. It had traction due to the content and the man producing it.
He directed BraveHeart, and I think that gave him credibility on this one.
2005-01-22 01:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Except a lot of WN would add "why do those darn Jews :caiphas:[I]always [/I] get all the fun". :disgust:[/QUOTE] You remind me of an ex-girlfriend, she never missed an opportunity for claw sharpening either and I have the scars to prove it ;) :whstl: