← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Kurt

Thread 7349

Thread ID: 7349 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2003-06-14

Wayback Archive

Kurt [OP]

2003-06-14 18:56 | User Profile

MEL: I'M NO ANTI-SEMITE, AND THAT'S GOSPEL [url=http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/36563.htm]New York Post^[/url] | 6/14/03 | Post Wire Services

June 14, 2003 -- Mel Gibson says he's no anti-Semite - and issued a statement yesterday defending his controversial movie depicting the last 12 hours in the life of Christ, saying it is "meant to inspire, not offend."

"Neither I nor my film are anti-Semitic...Nor do I hate anybody - certainly not the Jews. They are my friends and associates," Gibson said.

"Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is also contrary to the core message of my movie."

Gibson has threatened to sue a team of Catholic and Jewish scholars who level the anti-Semitism charge in a critique of the movie, said a report yesterday in The Jewish Week.

"A film based on the present version of the script of 'The Passion' would promote anti-Semitic sentiments," the scholars said in an 18-page report outlined in the newspaper.

The scholars also claimed Gibson's graphic portrayal of Christ's crucifixion is too brutal, and that the script is filled with historical and theological errors, The Jewish Week said.

Gibson says the scholars' report is based on a stolen copy of the script of the movie, which he directed and co-wrote. It was shot in Italy, and contains dialogue only in Latin and Aramaic with no English subtitles.

The movie "conforms to the narratives of Christ's passion and death found in the four Gospels of the New Testament," Gibson said.

Gibson is a Catholic traditionalist who favors the Latin Mass and opposes church reforms brought by the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s.

His production company, Icon, said it learned in late March that a draft of the script "was taken by an individual referred to as 'our Deep Throat'" and circulated to members of the interfaith scholars group.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has denied Gibson's charge of involvement in the script's theft - but in a statement yesterday, the bishops' general counsel apologized for "this situation" and acknowledged that the draft screenplay was "not considered to be representative of the film."

© 2003 NY Post

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-06-14 19:29 | User Profile

It's quite ridiculous that these days every movie is scrupulously scrutinized for traces of gasp anti-Semitism. The hysteria surrounding it and a related piece of sophistry-racism-can only be compared to the hysteric attitudes towards sex during the Victorian era.

Robbie

2003-06-14 19:39 | User Profile

It is amazing that we live in a society where a man is judged on his attitudes towards the Zhid. My, what a free and democratic country we are!!

Kurt

2003-06-14 19:57 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Robbie@Jun 14 2003, 13:39 * ** It is amazing that we live in a society where a man is judged on his attitudes towards the Zhid. My, what a free and democratic country we are!! **

Yes. It seems that everyone--average citizens, movie stars, politicians and Christian clergymen--all must bow before the Jew. How did this happen to us?

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-14 20:06 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt+Jun 14 2003, 15:57 -->

QUOTE* (Kurt @ Jun 14 2003, 15:57 )

<!--QuoteBegin-Robbie@Jun 14 2003, 13:39 * ** It is amazing that we live in a society where a man is judged on his attitudes towards the Zhid.  My, what a free and democratic country we are!! ** Yes. It seems that everyone--average citizens, movie stars, politicians and Christian clergymen--all must bow before the Jew. How did this happen to us? ** I often wonder why it's gotten this far. The equation I keep coming up with is this: Jews + Mass News and Entertainment Media = White Inner and Outer Dispossession The attitudes of the American people really are heavily formed by what comes across that damn piece of technology that sits in the living room. It's a cliche observation to make, but it's devastatingly true. I don't think that Jewish control could be this pervasive and total in the absence of their ability to reach right into the minds and hearts of the goyim. The Jews pump non-stop "Hitler hysteria" across the airwaves, and the result is that everyone has Jews on the brain as they conduct their lives. You may have noticed that anywhere you go on the Internet that allows people to post their opinions, from discussion boards to AOL chat rooms, not three seconds will pass before someone accuses someone else of being a "racist" or a "Nazi." America is positively obsessed and hysterical about these sorts of PC taboos, and I can only conclude that these flames have been fanned by the Jews. This country is literally flying apart at the seams under the force of these stressors. Wayland 2003-06-14 21:05 | User Profile *Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Jun 14 2003, 13:06 * ** I often wonder why it's gotten this far. The equation I keep coming up with is this: Jews + Mass News and Entertainment Media = White Inner and Outer Dispossession** Jews + MONEY = Mass News and Entertainment Media control = political and judicial control = whatever you want Although you can find examples of super-rich White individuals, no group can match the Jews in the sheer power of the collective financial resources they're prepared to allocate for advancing their group interests. And in a democracy, MONEY RULES. Robbie 2003-06-15 03:31 | User Profile I'm actually convinced that the Chosen have to keep dredging up Hitler and National Socialism as a means of boosting their "self-esteem". Unfortunately, it's reverse psychology that works on everybody. Kurt 2003-06-15 04:47 | User Profile [img]http://www.magicdragon.com/Wallace/melblue2.gif[/img] "I'll fight Longshanks and the entire English army! But take on the [u]Jews[/u]?!? You must be fookin' nuts!" :lol: [SIZE=1]Where is our "Braveheart", the one who will free [u]us[/u] from the Jews?[/SIZE] N.B. Forrest 2003-06-15 20:23 | User Profile Why the hell couldn't Gibson just keep his trap shut and proceed with his movie? Isn't he rich & powerful enough to tell Shmuel to kiss his ass, or at least ignore his screamed demands? If he isn't, who is? :thd: Faust 2003-06-16 23:30 | User Profile **Critics Used Stolen Copy of Gibson's 'Passion' James Hirsen, NewsMax.com Monday, June 16, 2003 Just imagine a story line like this. With the help of an individual who has been called “our Deep Throat,” some academics get their hands on a stolen draft of a confidential script. Next, using ideas and notes from the pilfered preliminary screenplay, a report is generated that distorts and twists the film’s message. Then a bunch of news stories and commentaries spring up. That is what has been going on with Mel Gibson’s upcoming film called “The Passion.” There has been an effort to kick up a dust storm of controversy over a movie from Icon Productions on the last hours in the life of Jesus Christ, before the thing is even completed. Franklin Graham’s words seem hauntingly appropriate: “After all these centuries, just why is the Name of Jesus so controversial and still stirring such a brew of conflicting passions?” Conflicting passions are the operative words here. And for some people, conflicting passions somehow permit theft to become a means to an end. It’s as if we’re hearing a story about some robbers who steal a car off an assembly line and then publish their complaints about the shoddiness of the vehicle in consumer advocacy venues. The press has downplayed the fact that the script was criminally obtained. But not only did these so-called critics receive something that had been illegally acquired, the stolen product that they used to make their quiver of poison arrows was obsolete and had already been significantly revised. As Icon producer Steve McEveety tells me, the script “is not a true representation of the film. It was, and is, a work in progress, as any filmmaker would appreciate.” McEveety also notes that the folks at Icon “respect everyone’s right to their opinion about the film.” But “no one has a right to publicly critique a film that has not even been completed, let alone base their critique on an outdated version of the script which has been illegally obtained.” Here’s the unprecedented way that “The Passion” is being assaulted. The press is quoting scholars who have written a supposedly confidential report. But the report has somehow landed in the hands of the news media. And some of the report’s authors appear to be more than willing to let their criticisms be aired in public; this despite the fact that the report is based on incomplete, dated, confidential and pirated material. Kind of makes you wonder just how elastic the definition of “scholar” has become. Although a lot of Mel’s muggers don’t seem to have the guts to state their names, a few have come forward and identified themselves. For example, there’s Paula Fredriksen of Boston University. If you’re making a film that involves the Christian faith, this is one lady you’ll probably want to avoid. When PBS’s “Frontline” put together a four-hour program in 1998 called “From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians,” which, by the way, aired during the Easter season, it enlisted the help of Fredriksen. Dismissing the idea of seeking factual information from the Gospels, Fredriksen called the sacred books “a kind of religious advertisement.” She explained that the Gospels “proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist's position.” Three days before Christmas 2001, the Washington Post decided to play Grinch by publishing a Fredriksen comment about the trustworthiness of the New Testament. Fredriksen is quoted by the Post as saying, “I can't think of any New Testament scholar who takes [the Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth] to be historically reliable,” adding that most scholars believe that Christ was not born in Bethlehem. (Apparently, Fredriksen hasn’t run across the scores of traditional scholars who certainly make their homes in Beantown, as they do in every other city in the U.S.) And in the secularly riddled “The Search for Jesus,” which aired in June 2000, ABC’s Peter Jennings also turned to Fredriksen to get her input. Philip Cunningham, executive director of Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, is another vociferous critic of a film he hasn’t yet seen. In March 2003, Cunningham told Jewish Week that “it is impossible to do a film based strictly on the Gospels.” This professor is apparently claiming that a film on Christ’s death shouldn’t use the Gospels as a source because “they disagree with one another on some essential details.” The whole bunch reminds me of the same dopes who are trying to make Play-Doh out of the Constitution. Just like the cleverly crafted references to a “living, breathing Constitution,” these folks are prattling on about “progressive interpretation” and “historical context” when what they really want is an eventual rewrite of the Good Book. Because some of the stories that appeared in the press indicated that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was associated with the report, the bishops apparently felt they had the need to apologize as well as distance themselves. “We regret that this situation has occurred, and offer our apologies,” stated Mark E. Chopko, general counsel for the USCCB. “I have further advised the scholars group that this draft screenplay is not considered to be representative of the film and should not be the subject of further public comment. When the film is released, the USCCB will review it at that time.” What a novel idea – actually waiting until a film is done before reviewing it. Mel Gibson is so widely respected in the entertainment industry that charges from the critical cabal look silly. Mel explains that any notion of him being discriminatory runs counter to the core message of his movie. “‘The Passion’ is a film meant to inspire, not offend,” says Gibson. “My intention in bringing it to the screen is to create a lasting work of art and engender serious thought among audiences of diverse faith backgrounds (or none) who have varying familiarity with this story. For those concerned about the content of this film, know that it conforms to the narratives of Christ’s passion and death found in the four Gospels of the New Testament. This is a movie about faith, hope, love and forgiveness – something sorely needed in these turbulent times.” Not much to quibble with there. Makes you wonder what the devil has gotten into these people. Editor's note: For more news on "The Passion" and other Hollywood brouhahas, check out The Left Coast Report. url:  [url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/16/144933.shtml]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...16/144933.shtml[/url] ** triskelion 2003-06-17 02:51 | User Profile This recent capitulation is very depressing in that is shows that even traditionally inclined Catholics in the states with the money and access the mainstream media (ex. Mel Gibson) lack the courage and/or insight to reject an alien population that is actively seeking to destroy that which he supports. The very depressing truth is that the members of Traditio, Charles De Nunzio Society, Wandea, Pius V & X societies and every other traditional Catholic society not open supportive of Maurrassian style National Socialism is, as an organization, totally opposed to any form Eurocentrism and totally unwilling to object to multi racialism in any fundamental sense. In fact, I am totally aware of a single Bishop (let alone anyone higher) refute multi-racialism in all of Europa while even priests with such conviction are hard to find and in the states they seem to be non-existent. We should not pretend that these Catholic traditionalists are, by enlarge, interested in Occidental renewal. Instead, we best note that they are interested in traditional liturgy and social conservatism only when the powers that be don't get too upset. The only real question is how to bring traditional catholics into the ranks of genuine Eurocentrics like the good people of Action française ( [url=http://action.francaise.free.fr/]http://action.francaise.free.fr/[/url] or Roberto Fiore's Forza Neuvo . madrussian 2003-06-17 03:02 | User Profile Originally posted by Kurt@Jun 14 2003, 21:47 * [SIZE=1]Where is our "Braveheart", the one who will free [u]us[/u] from the Jews?[/SIZE]* Someone said on OD one day about someone that his colors were white and blue (just like Gibson's face in Braveheart). Roy Batty 2003-06-17 03:03 | User Profile Mel's just trying to do what he can to keep his project moving toward release. He's surrounded by jews in Hollywood, so it's a minefield. I'll wait until I actually see the film before I decide whether or not he fully capitulated. That said, he does have jewish associates and such in the industry. It's practically unavoidable - unless one could finally get the money together to put together their own studio. Then it's on to fight the distribution wars, as you'll be an outsider. But it could be done. There just doesn't seem to be any or enough whites interested in that venture. The press would be riding them hard all the way, as they attempted to get the ball rolling. But that goes without saying. "Stolen" script, eh? Happens all the time. I know I can safely bet a month's income that the script was swiped by some yahoodi involved in the producion. Happens all the time with "confidential" scripts and on "closed" sets. Yeah, scripts are numbered, etc. Like that's hard to overcome. Mel has eaten crap and gone along with scripts and elements he didn't like or agree with in the past in order to finally put himself in the position to do films like Braveheart, The Patriot, or this latest on Jesus. I'd cut him a bit of slack for now. Hopefully, some horrible brouhaha will arise, a mess that awakens more sleeping sheeple, if they see yet another attack on their hero Jesus. triskelion 2003-06-17 05:01 | User Profile Hello RB, I happen to know, and work with, few people that are currently working on racial nationalist film (not video) projects and have raised several hundred thousand towards such efforts. Hopefully those efforts will come to light. However, such projects are very difficult because of the vast costs involved with production/post production that the only realistic kinds of films that could be made would directed towards small kult genres which, while helpful, would not be able to effect the popular culture at large. Mr Gibson has been in several blatantly anti-Occidental films so it seems reasonable to suspect that he will not make a film that is contrary to the establishment in any drastic sense. His current film has a budget of 40 million USD that he funded himself so he is not under the kind of creative pressures that normal film makers are. Seting up a studio with the capablities to make a film able to compete in mainstream markets would literally cost 10's of milllions and then be faced with the problem that currently no viable Eurocentric market exists in the states which would make it almost immpossible to release a film that has mass market potential with top quality production values and a racial message and recoup one's investments. The real tough problem as you pointed out is distribution which is far more tightly controled by jews then TV or film production. Frankly, I don't think that even a weak kneeded AR style bit of pro jew racialism could get distribution in the states. This means that sale must come from direct video sales which is a difficult market break into given that major retail outlets would never carry a moderately racial film. heritagelost 2003-06-18 17:44 | User Profile Can you believe these effeminate whiny cry-baby Jews on tv denouncing Mel as an anti-Semite? How many anti-Catholic movies have the Jews made?!?!?!?! Jewish writers, directors, and producers have made hundreds of anti-Catholic movies and television shows yet not a single movie the least bit critical of Jews. Forward magazine brags about how Jews own Hollywood. Roy Batty 2003-06-18 19:10 | User Profile Triskelion, you are right in noting that the jews try to maintain ironclad control over the distribution process when it comes to certain form of media. I'ver worked in the film industry for years, and see exactly what goes on. No one is actually stopping whites from making films, or creating studios. The business itself is hit or miss, so most astute white businessmen don't bother. It's not enough of a sure thing. Or so they think. In reality, very few films, if any, lose money today. This has in fact been true for over a decade. Creative accounting aside, with cable, video/DVD, foreign, etc. distribution, the films all end up being profitable. It's getting access to distribution that is the real obstacle. Here's something a lot of people aren't aware of. If you hear that a blockbuster film cost $100 million to make, subtract $30 - $60 million from that number and you will have the actual budget - in most cases. Back to distribution, just getting a straight to video feature into stores can sometimes be an almost insurmountable task, if you aren't connected, or if the subject matter is taboo, like say the jewish role in the Russian "Revolution" and its aftermath. It's as bad as the publishing industry in that regard. Getting to cable is even harder, as it is the same bunch controlling this and most other outlets. Their gameplan is very well thought out. People who scoff at any thought of conspiracies or conscious efforts to inhibit the abilities of "outsiders" to get material in front of the public are true idiots. It's as much an element of greed as it is an element of maintaining brainwashing - a fear of "outsiders" getting the truth out. If a new "outlet" for distribution opens up, the jews do all they can to "buy it out", crush those that started it, or lobby politicians to create laws (barriers) to inhibit the new outlet. Witness the continued jewish panic at the internet. Another area people are not aware of is the threat that DV (digitial video) seems to hold for this unholy bunch. The technology keeps advancing at a rapid rate, and it is now possible to buy or rent prosumer DV camcorders like the Panasonic DVX-100 that shoot at 24 fps (frames per second), and with built in features combined with post production software allow the filmmaker to present a product that looks as if it were shot on film. The savings are enormous. This technology wasn't available at this level, on the street, even 6 months ago. Independent filmmakers can now truly put together professional looking projects that to most viewers are indistinguishable from film. No exaggeration. Many jewish studio people are pressuring film festivals to ignore digital productions (to no avail in many cases), or to continue to make sure that only semitically correct content is considered for exhibition. When film was the only way to go, it was so cost prohibitive, that most "independents" were actually wealthy or connected jews (or elites) playing poor by making an "independent" film. The main worry of the studio folks - HELL, let's just say the zionist cabal - is that now independent filmmakers can create professional level DVD's with their own computer systems - and the price of hardware that allows one to mass produce DVD's is dropping, and dropping, and dropping ... Mel? I know for a fact that he has done films that contained material he didn't necessarily agree with - but millions were dangled in his face, and he took the money in order to eventually make his own large scale projects. Gibson worked on a couple of vile Lethal Weapon sequels for the cash - while not enamored with the anti-gun/NRA message throughout one, and not really giving a crap about the anti-apartheid message in another. I doubt he's any type of WN - but then, who knows what goes on in someone's mind? Gibson's father has been remarking about NWO and certain areas of jewish duplicity for years. Mel Gibson probably never gave the matter of jews being irritated at his film much thought until the semitic jaw-jacking started. Obviously, I haven't seen the script, but I'd be willing to bet that the jews are raising Hell over something minor in the film, as it is rare indeed to see anything remotely negative about jews in any Hollywood film. Martin Scorsese does a great job of working certain aspects of jewish behavior into films (just watch Goodfellas) in a manner that doesn't allow jews to point fingers, because ... you can't be sure if he really meant what ... it MIGHT appear to be. Films to awaken whites racially? A market has to be created. This is going to be a combination of a few filmmakers using some savvy to get their product distributed by "advertising" on the net, word of mouth, sympathetic publications (example - The Free American, etc.), and circumstances that force whites to become aware, like the decreasing social situation in the states with immigration, the increasingly strident warblings of "hispanic" and other non-white ethnic nationalists, the sliding economy, and continued erosion of the domestic employment situation. In the end, hopefully, no one will have to worry about "eurocentric" films or markets, since that's all we'll have for the most part in the US and Europe. Don't laugh, anything is possible. triskelion 2003-06-18 21:48 | User Profile Nice points RB, The only thing I can never agree with you on is quality of digital video as it nothing close to flim to those that are serious about cinematic quality. If you want, and when I have the time, I could point you too a mountain of double blind tests before demographically stratified and random samples of film consummers in which the same footage shot on the best DV systems is compared with perfectly standard 35mm (and sometimes professional quality 16mm) that film is better received every time. Nonetheless, for less then critical viewers watching stuff at home it works well enough if done properly. Of course, to get decent results you'll need a decent editing suite and other post production resources which are fairly pricey but if you live in a very big city such resources are about for rent. A Finnish comrade is working with two Austrians and several Eglishmen to whip up a very good film (shot on top grade Alpines and Ariflex 35mm by professionals) about racialists active in the UK back in the early '80s as "dramatic take on real events". The nice bit is that it's openly racial and possitively so although it is clearly targeted at working class people. The primary production is nearly done I am told and it will soon be sent off for P.P. suites. They also own some very nice Steinbeck flatbeds so that helps to keep cost down which is importaint as they only have a budget of 730USD and they still have to work on funding it's release and promotion. If it comes out on NTSC standard DVDs/videos i'll be sure to let everyone I can in the states know how to get a copy. Roy Batty 2003-06-18 22:07 | User Profile Truth be told, most of the latest "Terminator" film was shot on video, although you won't hear a lot about it. DV is going to toss film out the door. The newer equipment, such as the camera I listed above makes all the difference. The tests you are referring were probably not done with this camera or 24 fps HD, it's too recent. I remember tests here, such as the ones performed over at Sony (where they have the high end/high def vid to film transfer equip! - run your vid in 35mm) The usual differences between DV and film are due to the 3:2 pulldown that had to be done, and the tendency for the "filmmakers" to light for video instead of as if doing so for film. This coupled with artifacting caused the problems you have probably seen. Digital projection pretty much removes the last obstacle to making DV/HDV look like film in theaters. The quality of film is the fact that it can provide higher variances in color and "information" than film, right now. Film has a very slight edge in cinematic look, but those days are winding down, believe me, I work with this stuff everyday. The gap is disappearing rapidly. While the powers that be may be trying to keep the masses from discovering DV, the fact is, they are helping fuel the advancements in many areas, in order to save themselves money in the long run. Not so much in terms of film expense during shooting, but in terms of speed during production, post-production and in distribution. Duplicating digital info is obviously cheaper than making film prints. Many television shows that people think are done on film are actually shot on video, and then the tape is edited and "processed" by such companies as Filmlook - [url=http://www.filmlook.com]http://www.filmlook.com[/url] Filmlook is one of several companies rolling along converting video to look like film - whether it's NFL films (most shot on video), TV commercials, or television shows. Film is dying a slow death. Just like the CRT monitor. Even companies like Arriflex and Panavision are pouring millions into developing HDDV. That your friends own the Steinbecks is a real money saver. The cost of renting editing facilities/equipment is highway robbery in Los Angeles and New York. I'm sure many filmmakers in Europe put their hands up when told the fees over there as well. Let us know when the film is ready. triskelion 2003-06-19 01:12 | User Profile With respect to the tests I mentioned they have been running for the last five years at least and still are. They have been done with DV equipment that is much more expensive and advanced then what you mention and the lighting (as well as camera work and everyting else) was done by very capable professionals of squences that were done in exacltly the same manner as the DV runs at Pathe, Mannesman and other majors in the field. That video is the rule (and has been for decades) with TV does not change the fact that it is clearly differant then film but for TV quality doesn't realy matter either although DV helps in that sense. When I have the time i'll ask my brother to turn over some of the mounds of studies I mentioned. I should also point out that European focus groups are very much more critical about image and sound quality then American counter parts so that accounts for much I am sure. Any way, I am pretty inflexible on the matter but I'd happy to debate the finer points of the testing methods used in various focus groups and such as my brother is very up those matters. While I have some family members that are active in the technical side (mostly research rather then production) I have had a bit of experiance with the industry too (just 4 years on the production side while doing other things as well) so it's basically just an adovcation rather then something serious for me personally. I will be editing some of the footage and I am pretty good at working with answer prints, most kinds of post production sound work as well kodalifts, jels and simelar title development work. Having access to free help and such is very importaint with small budgets and it help that they have all the needed transfering, mixing and matrixing tools. The real problem will be getting some kind of mainstream retail distribution for the final product as they have just 16 screen areas that are willing to carry it based upon the rushes. In the end, the finished product will be excellent but I have my doubts that it will recoup the monies invested so far but hope else wise. Exelsis_Deo 2003-06-19 03:17 | User Profile Mr. Gibson indeed has to make well with the Jew rot in Hollywood somewhat so that his film can get into the box orifices. I hope it does mainstream. At the very least the man deserves WN credit and really never did anything against the modern " Jews " .. but old facts have a way of resurrecting ( no pun intended ) themselves and so-called Jews just cannot DEAL with the FACTS of history. Their agenda is to re-write history in their favor... well guess what. Some blood runs deep ... and they have to swallow it like everyone else. No film will ever capture the TRUE events of Jesus's life.... to think so is an oxymoron. Its about time for balls, and Mr. Gibson is to be applauded. However, in real Catholic tradition, the characterization of Christ is blasphemy. Kurt 2003-06-19 05:32 | User Profile *Originally posted by Exelsis_Deo@Jun 18 2003, 21:17 * ** Mr. Gibson indeed has to make well with the Jew rot in Hollywood somewhat so that his film can get into the box orifices. I hope it does mainstream. At the very least the man deserves WN credit and really never did anything against the modern " Jews " .. but old facts have a way of resurrecting ( no pun intended ) themselves and so-called Jews just cannot DEAL with the FACTS of history. Their agenda is to re-write history in their favor... well guess what. Some blood runs deep ... and they have to swallow it like everyone else. No film will ever capture the TRUE events of Jesus's life.... to think so is an oxymoron. Its about time for balls, and Mr. Gibson is to be applauded. However, in real Catholic tradition, the characterization of Christ is blasphemy. ** I still haven't forgiven him for that horrible anti-White movie [url=http://us.imdb.com/Title?0097733]Lethal Weapon II[/url]. [SIZE=1]come to think of it, I never really did like any of the LW movies. And what do you mean by "modern" and "so-called Jews?" Are you one of those "[url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm]Christian Identity[/url]" types?[/SIZE]