Blog

Gibson vis-a-vis Polanski

43 Comments

On 9 July 2010, Steven Zeitchik writes Mel Gibson’s mainstream Hollywood career is over — for real, this time:

…as sad as it is that someone with all this experience could walk the world in his own bubble of hate, it’s perhaps sadder that it took so many of us this long to realize what should have been clear all along.

On 12 July 2010, he writes Latest Roman Polanski chapter puts the saga back where it started:

Those who are fans of his films — regardless of their opinions of his character — might be heartened to know he could soon be working again.

Jewish morals on display. A mouthy White gets blackballed. An absconding child-raping jew gets well wishes.

See also James Edwards’ The Crucifixion of Mel Gibson.

UPDATE 12 July 2010: Same day, same paper, same double standards.

On 12 July 2010, Patrick Goldstein writes Has Mel Gibson become a pariah in Hollywood? Or just for the time being?:

There are plenty of tough jobs in the movie business, but right now it’s hard to find any applicants for the job of defending Mel Gibson.

On 12 July 2010, he writes Roman Polanski is a free man. You got a problem with that?:

When it comes to Polanski, history will be the only judge.

Regarding Gibson, Goldstein writes:

Once the extent of Gibson’s racist tirade became clear, it was pretty obvious that there was no way WME could possibly keep Washington if it made any effort to keep Gibson as well. So Gibson was a goner. And as I’ve discovered from talking to the heads of other agencies in town, not to mention the heads of several studios, Gibson is a true Hollywood pariah right now. Every talent agency has a cadre of important African American clients who would be outraged–and rightfully so–if their agency made a play for Gibson as a client.

Since none of the high-level agency executives would speak on the record, I’ll paraphrase their explication of their thought process: Based on what’s happened, you have to assume that Mel is a total jerk, so why would you want to be in business with him, since it’s not only bad for your soul–and probably makes you look sleazy–but if he’s a total jerk to his ex-girlfriend and people around him, then why wouldn’t he be that way to you too? You have to figure that working with him would be both financially and emotionally unrewarding. If it were just one or the other, maybe you could do it, but if it’s both, you just say–Yuck!

In other words, to use a favorite Hollywood maxim: Life is too short.

These heads of agencies, heads of studios, and the media pundits (like Zeitchik and Goldstein) making a stink about Gibson aren’t black. They’re jewish. So in other words, what Goldstein is describing is an essentially jewish boycott of Gibson that they’d like everyone to instead attribute to blacks.

Regarding Polanski, Goldstein regurgitates much of the same apologia he and other jews spun when when Polanski was first arrested. Rather than being a sleazy jerk you wouldn’t want to do business with, Polanski is instead a victim of Glenn Beck and Puritanism, and all the hubbub is a but a clash between European and American values. As with Gibson, the jewish angle is obfuscated, attention is redirected elsewhere.

On 12 July 2010, Steven Zeitchik also writes The Hollywood wagons circle Mel Gibson to complain that rank-and-file Hollywood non-jews haven’t yet joined the pariah parade jews are organizing against Gibson. Zeitchik notes Whoopie Goldberg has actually defended Gibson, and that Danny Glover has so far refused to comment. If more Hollywood blacks don’t start stomping their feet soon jews will be left to take credit for blackballing Gibson themselves. Goldstein intimates that most of the Hollywood jews are afraid to do this because they’re greedy and might want to make money with Gibson some day. More likely they just want someone, anyone else to take the blame. If blacks won’t serve then we can expect to see the “sexism” angle amplified in a bid to recruit women to the pariah parade. That, of course, will only heighten the contrast with Polanski and the pass he has gotten from jewish “feminists”.

43 thoughts on “Gibson vis-a-vis Polanski”

  1. Gibson has lots of money. We need to figure out a way to convince him to give some of it to us to fight for the good guys.

  2. I’d be happy to see him use the money to produce films concerning the bolshevik revolution, the holodomor, the USS Liberty, the impact of immigration, … show our people where the hate’s coming from, and where it’s going.

  3. Here is the contact information for Mel Gibson, I think we should send him our support, some educational dvds or links like 911missinglinks or onethirdoftheholocaust, and also see if he would be willing to use his industry contacts or money towards a project educating the public about the crimes of the jews. The first address seems to be the best one according to people online http://www.fanmail.biz/1203.html His talent agency has dropped him though and I’m not sure which address that is.

    Mel Gibson
    c/o Spanky Taylor
    3727 W. Magnolia
    Suite 300
    Burbank, CA 91505

    Mr. Mel Gibson
    c/o Alan Nierob
    Rogers & Cowan Ltd Advertising
    (310) 201-8800
    1888 Century Park East
    5th Floor
    Los Angeles, CA 90067

    Mel Gibson
    Icon Productions
    808 Wilshire Blvd.
    4th Floor
    Santa Monica, CA 90401-1894
    Phone: (310) 434-7300
    Fax: (310) 434-7377

    Mel Gibson
    Shanahan Management Pty Ltd.
    Level 3
    Berman House
    91 Campbell Street
    Surry Hills, NSW 2010
    Australia
    Phone: +61 2 8202 1800
    Fax: +61 2 8202 1801

  5. Mel Gibson said that Oksana Grigorieva was making an exhibition of herself and exposing herself to a risk of being raped through her trashy behavior, but that’s also true of him. He exposed himself to attack by a gang of media Jews rather than by African-Americans.

    The reason he’s been humiliated like this is that Oksana Grigorieva taped him, and the reason that happened was that he chose this woman.

    If he had stuck with his own wife, his real wife, who gave him seven children and as far as I know decades of unblemished fidelity, he would have been armored against all the efforts of his enemies to shame him.

    The people who are attacking Mel now hate him for having gone against the owners of Hollywood, especially with his greatest movie The Passion Of The Christ.

    My objection is that he went too Hollywood. He should have held himself more aloof from corruption.

    – Daybreaker

  8. Richard Cohen comments on Switzerland’s refusal to extradite Polanski, and writes “victim” in scare quotes:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/07/thank_you_switzerland_for_free.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    “The Swiss got it right. Their refusal to extradite film director Roman Polanski to the United States on a 33-year-old sex charge is the proper dénouement for this mess of a case. There is no doubt that Polanski did what he did, which is have sex with a 13-year-old after plying her with booze. There is no doubt also that after all these years there is something stale about the case, not to mention a “victim,” Samantha Geimer, who has long ago forgiven her assailant and dearly wishes the whole thing would go away. So do I.”

  9. From your snippet I thought Cohen was ignoring, as usual for Polanski’s advocates, Polanski’s flight from justice and contempt for the court’s authority.

    Toward the end of Thank you, Switzerland, for freeing Polanski, Cohen writes:

    The only argument in favor of Polanski’s continued freedom is that he is the victim of judicial misconduct. He had good reason to believe that the trial judge in his case was going to break the plea agreement and throw the book at him. He had already pleaded guilty to a reduced charge; he had already spent 42 days in Chino State Prison under psychiatric examination. (Another analogy to the Pound case — a talented person must be nuts to do something so wrong.) He ran from the prospect of a judge who was going to make his reputation at Polanski’s expense and send him to jail for a very long time. I would have done the same.

    It was this alleged — but virtually proven — miscarriage of justice that impressed the Swiss authorities and why they rejected the American requests for extradition. That was good.

    So Cohen actually turns these offenses on their head, asserting that Polanski is a “victim of judicial misconduct” and was fleeing a “virtually proven” (when? where?) “miscarriage of justice”.

    Whatever wrong a jew does it seems his fellow jews will come foward to argue black is white and 2 + 2 = 5 in his defense.

    Cohen’s invocation of Ezra Pound is bizarre. Pound faced judgement and served his time. The take away is that a jew can rape an underage girl, thumb his nose at the court, and get away with it, while Cohen cheers him on, whereas someone who commits the “crime” of vexing jews must and will pay. This fits Cohen’s attitude toward Gibson, who he wrote about indirectly in defense of Israel, in A Moment Mel Would Understand, in 2006.

  11. No surprise, Richard Cohen is wrong about why Polanski was freed. It was essentially a white-collar jailbreak.

    ‘Flub’ freed Polanski:

    The [Swiss] officials said that the denial of access to the information was the key factor in the refusal to extradite the film maker to the U.S., according to the letter to the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland.

    A district attorney’s spokeswoman said their office was never notified of the Swiss request and did not know that the Justice Department had turned it down.

    The letter dated Monday was obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday night. It provided a time line of when the request was filed and when it was turned down.

    The letter blamed the denial of extradition solidly on the refusal by the Justice Department to show transcripts of testimony by the film director’s original prosecutor to Swiss officials.

    “Since the additional documents requested were not transmitted in full, extradition of Roman Polanski to the United States of America is thus denied,” said the letter.

    . . .

    Adding to the confusion, Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman Folco Galli had said on April 30 that his department wasn’t interested in the testimony. “Such documents are irrelevant for the extradition proceedings,” he had told the AP.

    But the ministry said it then asked U.S. authorities for the transcript only days later because it was believed to contain evidence of paramount importance to the case.

    Well, now that the misunderstanding is so well understood they can simply arrest Polanski again, promptly forward the proper documents, and finally get him extradicted. Right?

    Not with any help from Swiss authorities.

    Polanski only safe in France, Poland, Switzerland:

    “The decision has been taken and the file is closed,” Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The AP. “It would only be a different situation if it concerned a new crime.”

    Balmer said Polanski could even seek compensation for the two months he spent in prison and the seven months he was confined to his luxury chalet in the Swiss Alps.

  13. Polanski’s LA Times supporter and Gibson-hater Patrick Goldstein says the news that the Gibson tape was tampered doesn’t matter.

    LA Times

  15. Yet another one from Goldstein – David Brooks figures out Mel Gibson’s real problem: He’s a narcissist!:

    What’s really sad is that as someone who’s spent years in the showbiz trenches, I could easily name another 400 people — not just movie and TV stars and pop singers and hip-hop artists, but studio executives, filmmakers (oh-so-many of them, trust me), movie producers and agents who fit the type to a T as well.

    As Goldstein said a few days ago, blacks run Hollywood, and nobody there wants to work with sleazy jerks. That’s why Gibson has got to go.

    Regarding narcissism, Goldstein riffs into a brief story that’s more about jewish media and political power:

    Back when Edwards was first considering a presidential run, I was having lunch with David Geffen when, of all people, Rob Reiner brought Edwards over to Geffen’s table to meet the well-connected DreamWorks mogul. Edwards slid into the booth and had a lengthy conversation with Geffen about his presidential aspirations. It was a conversation that almost instantly — since Edwards wasn’t on his guard, having no idea I was a reporter — revealed the man who was supposed to be a die-hard “There are two Americas”-style idealist to be in actuality a shallow, self-absorbed smoothie of the highest order. And not half as shrewd or smart as Geffen, who, having spent plenty of time around Bill Clinton (a much smarter first-class smoothie), was clearly underwhelmed by Edwards.

    Goldstein, Brooks, Geffen, Reiner. Hopefully they won’t have to suffer shallow, self-absorbed smoothies much longer.

  16. If it needs saying: Roman Polanski is a monster, and so are his supporters.

    – Daybreaker

  17. By the way, isn’t this the same Goldstein who wrote a brutally honest column about how the Jews, in fact, run Hollywood? He listed the names of the heads of all of the major studios searching in vain for a Gentile . . . If it is the same Goldstein, it makes for even more glaring hypocrisy regarding his attack on Gibson as “anti-black”.

  19. That would be the one.

    It may be that Hollywood is such a Jewish-dominated environment that nobody with a normal willingness to censor themselves will whisper one word that they think will alienate Jews.

    Which would mean that anyone who makes movies that don’t fit the Jewish mold is also highly likely to embarrass themselves and expose themselves to atack.

    – Daybeaker

  20. Stein writes:

    The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

    He thinks it’s funny.

  21. Why wouldn’t he? In defeat: lamentations and longing for revenge. But in victory: laughter, celebration and scorn for the defeated.

    For Mel Gibson: hate and anger. Let him be silenced, shamed and punished!

    For Roman Polanski, pity, support and the feeling that the accusations against him, however true and well proven in court, are “stale” and unwanted.

    That’s mingled with some concern that this might be bad for the Jews. But not very much concern, as obviously the impunity of the Jewish child-rapist is not exacting a price. At first Richard Cohen’s line was that Polanski should go free – but first Cohen should punch him in the mouth. Ann Althouse held that faux-toughness in scorn, rightly.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/09/richard-cohen-says-let-polanski-go-but.html

    Now it’s just let him go free, the charges against him are “stale”.

    Such are the ways of ethnocentrism, carried forward with intensity and high verbal dexterity.

    It’s simple to understand: “Yay us, boo them!”

    The only difficulty is believing it. We don’t want to believe that people are like that. But we are. And some more than others, and Jews on average more than anybody else.

    – Daybreaker

  22. “the additional documents requested were not transmitted in full” / “The decision has been taken and the file is closed”

    It’s also interesting to know France’s reasons for doing nothing about Polanski.

    From what I’ve just read on wikipedia, Polanski has French citizenship on account of being born in Paris, and there are no extraditions between France and the USA. He could have had a second trial in France, but the USA had to make an official request, which they didn’t make.

    Maybe they thought they would catch him some day.

  23. Daybreaker – have you got a site/blog anywhere?

    Im guessing not but maybe I missed the link.

  24. Frank Rich is giddy with hatred for Mel Gibson, and White people in general.

    The Good News About Mel Gibson:

    Six years ago he was not merely an A-list movie star with a penchant for drinking and boorish behavior but also a powerful and canonized figure in the political and cultural pantheon of American conservatism. That he has reached rock bottom tells us nothing new about Gibson. He was the same talented, nasty, bigoted blowhard then that he is today. But his fall says a lot about the changes in our country over the past six years. We shouldn’t take those changes for granted. We should take stock — and celebrate. They are good news.

    . . .

    It seems preposterous in retrospect that a film as bigoted and noxious as “The Passion” had so many reverent defenders in high places in 2004. Once Gibson, or at least the subconscious Gibson, baldly advertised his anti-Semitism with his obscene tirade during a 2006 D.U.I. incident in Malibu, his old defenders had no choice but to peel off. Today you never hear conservatives mention their embrace of “The Passion” back then — if they mention Gibson at all. (Fox News has barely covered the new tapes.) But it isn’t just Gibson who has been discredited. Even as he self-immolated, so did many of the moral paragons who had rallied around him as a culture-war martyr.

    . . .

    Conservative America’s new signature movement, the Tea Party, has its own extremes, but it shuns culture-war battles. It even remained mum when a federal judge in Massachusetts struck down the anti-same-sex marriage Defense of Marriage Act this month. As the conservative commentator Kyle Smith recently wrote in The New York Post, the “demise of Reagan-era groups like the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority is just as important” as the rise of the Tea Party. “The morality armies have failed to inspire their children to join the crusade,” he concluded, and not unhappily. The right, too, is subject to generational turnover.

    As utter coincidence would have it, the revelation of the latest Gibson tapes was followed last week by the news that a federal appeals court, in a 3-0 ruling, had thrown out the indecency rules imposed by the F.C.C. after Janet Jackson’s 2004 “wardrobe malfunction.” The death throes of Mel Gibson’s career feel less like another Hollywood scandal than the last gasps of an American era.

    Via James Edwards.

  25. No, I don’t blog. And if I had built a blog I would have had to change the direction radically, as Tanstaafl had to when he figured out what was going on.

    – Daybreaker

  26. Mel Gibson finally figures it out, I hope:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1295658/Mel-Gibson-leaves-States-selling-mansion-cut-price.html

    He has told friends that he will move back to Australia – where he grew up after moving from America when he was 12 – with his ex-wife Robyn, who still supports him.

    …

    ‘She is shocked and furious at this woman’s lies and their seven children are shocked.
    ‘Robyn has never seen a violent side to him.
    ‘She has persuaded him that he needs to get away from Hollywood and find peace on his ranch and she will go with him along with some of the children.’

    The whole glamorous, liberated lifestyle we have been sold ever since the new elite took over in the 1960s revolution is good for nothing but our ruin.

    If a man wants to live sanely, or recover his sanity, he should get clear of it, and he should get on his knees for prayers of thanks if his wife and children still want him back.

    Kevin MacDonald has said that the “culture of critique” take on traditional sexual and marital ethics – that it is a mass of bitterness, frustration and failure to really live that people need to be “liberated” from – is bogus, and that there isn’t a thing wrong with old-fashioned White ideals of monogamy, fidelity and stability. He’s right.

    – Daybreaker

  31. I posted this today at Occidental Dissent.

    Robert Reis says:
    July 22, 2010 at 3:32 pm
    Mr. Parrott has made no secret of his admiration for the Neo-Conservatives.
    There are two kinds of Neo-Conservative. There are Jewish Neo-Conservatives. They believe the proper function of the United States is serve the interests of Zionist imperialism. There are non-Jewish Neoconservatives. They believe that is role of non-Jewish Americans to serve the interest of Zionist imperialism.
    The Jewish Neo-Conservatives are not traitors. They are 100 loyal to Israel.
    The non-Jewish Neo-Conservatives are simply traitors. I am disappointment that Occidental Dissent has become the mouthpiece for anti-White pro-Jewish interests.

  32. In 2006, Ari Emanuel, CEO of William Morris Endeavor Entertainment and son of a “member of a Jewish nationalist “terrorist” organization, Irgun Zvai Leumi” posted a denunciation and called on “the entertainment community” to blackball Gibson.

    Ari Emanuel: The Bottom Line on Mel Gibson’s Anti-Semitic Remarks:

    Now we know the truth. And no amount of publicist-approved contrition can paper it over. People in the entertainment community, whether Jew or gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him, even if it means a sacrifice to their bottom line.

    There are times in history when standing up against bigotry and racism is more important than money.

    According to Ari Emanuel: 21st century Hollywood mogul – Features, Films – The Independent, published in 2009:

    “People stick with Ari, because he’s not the sort of guy who will just dump someone who stops making money,” says one colleague. “If you look at his client list, there are people he’s been with for a very long time; from the start, really, through good and bad.”

    Unless he thinks you don’t like jews. Then he’s willing to lose money to punish you.

    The second half of the article is a section titled “Hollywood power brokers: The big four” which informs readers that the “head honchos” are: Richard Lovett, Ari Emanuel, Jim Berkus, and Jeffrey Berg.

    Is Jim Berkus jewish?

    Here’s an revealing snippet about Lovett. Q & A With Richard Lovett | Community Briefs | Jewish Journal:

    Jewish Journal: There are 28,000 Jews in Wisconsin. For Jews from parts of L.A. or New York, it takes a while to realize the whole world isn’t Jewish. I’m going to assume that wasn’t the case growing up in Milwaukee. What are your early memories about being Jewish? What had the most influence on shaping your Jewish identity?

    Richard Lovett: I went to Sunday school and had my afternoons of Hebrew school on the way to my bar mitzvah, but it was the full immersion in the spirit of this wonderful Jewish summer camp, Camp Interlaken [JCC], in Eagle River, Wis., that was most influential in shaping my Jewish identity.

    “For Jews from parts of L.A. or New York, it takes a while to realize the whole world isn’t Jewish.”

  33. Lawrence Auster, self-annointed champion of Israel and jews, opines on the meaning of the Gibson controversy in Our absurd society:

    We used to be a nation under God. Now we’re a nation under blacks.

    Update: To be more precise, we are a nation under the twin gods of black sacredness and white guilt–gods which we ourselves have created.

    Like his tribemate Patrick Goldstein, Auster tries to misdirect attention to blacks. As if blacks have called on Hollywood to blackball Gibson. As if blacks are the ones generating the media circus about Gibson’s “racism”. More precisely, Auster blames “ourselves” for creating “the twin gods of black sacredness and white guilt”. And by “ourselves”, of course, Auster means “the white gentile majority”.

    In Guess who Richard Spencer says is behind Mel Gibson’s melt-down? Spencer’s mention of “America’s journalism and film establishment, with its preponderance of Jews in positions of power” elicits a typically hyperbolic anti-“anti-semitic” reaction from Auster:

    So the Jews did it. According to Spencer, the Jews “deemed it necessary to destroy the man,” and then they proceeded to “pounce.” How does Spencer know that the Jews decided to destroy Gibson?

    From the links and quotes I’ve provided above I think it’s clear that if we can generalize about which group most deserves collective credit for seeking to destroy Gibson, it’s jews. Certainly more so than blacks or “ourselves”.

    But excusing jews while blaming Whites is habitual for Auster. That’s why he labels himself a “secret enemy of America and the West” and a “jewish fifth-columnist”.

    More evidence, and a relevant contrast to his reaction to Mel Gibson, is found in his post about Polanski’s arrest last fall, which he originally titled America’s vendetta against Roman Polanski:

    I was stunned to read in Monday’s paper that Roman Polanski, 76 years old, was, with the connivance of U.S. authorities, tricked into being arrested in Switzerland for the 32 year old offense of raping a 13 year old girl, so that he could be returned to the U.S. for trial. Who ever heard of a crime–other than murder–being pursued over so many years? I thought all crimes–other than murder–have a statute of limitations.

    This is appalling. What is America now–the Javert Nation?

    As usual for Auster, the jew is the victim and “America”, ie. “the white gentile majority”, is the villain.

  34. I just reread Guess who Richard Spencer says is behind Mel Gibson’s melt-down? and have more to say.

    How dare anyone point out that Auster publishes in an echo chamber? He posts a calm, polite response from Spencer that is so thoroughly interrupted with his own spittle-flecked invective, bolded for good measure, that it’s clear Auster is having his own melt-down.

    Right at the get-go Auster takes Spencer’s point about the overrepresentation and ethnic nepotism of jews in Hollywood today out of context and without explanation transports the debate back to the 1930s. Auster describes this as a “golden age” that in his mind demonstrates “there was a “fit” between the qualities, talents, and creative urges of the great Jewish movie producers, and the qualities, talents, and creative urges involved in making movies”.

  35. “What does that have to do with ethnic nepotism?” Auster barks at Spencer. Indeed, why did change the subject? What does it have to do with the hostile, anti-White behavior of jews in Hollywood today? Not much. The Hollywood “golden age” is one of Auster’s hobbyhorses. Two and a half years ago Auster responded to my point that his First Law applies to jews with the same nonsense, almost word-for-word:

    When I say this, I am not covering up the fact that there is a Jewish problem because that is something I often talk about. But I believe in the need to talk about it rationally. The Jewish problem—not the Jewish problem of the Jew haters, but the real Jewish problem—consists in the fact that Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority. For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy, as Kevin McDonald would have it, rather it is just built into the fact of Jewish distinctiveness combined with Jewish talents. But even though the situation is not anyone’s fault, it is not a healthy situation. The way the problem can be resolved, as I’ve said many times, is by the majority recovering and maintaining its majority identity, functions, and authority, and thus requiring minorities to conform to the majority’s standards.

    It used to be this way in America. A classic example is the Golden Age of Hollywood. The movie industry was largely a Jewish creation, yet the Jews of Hollywood loved the majority culture and elevated its ideals. For example, the beautiful MGM movies of the late ’30 and early ’40s that were set in England and were imbued with an English atmosphere (so that it’s hard to believe the movies were made in Los Angeles), were the brain child of Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM. Contrast that with today, when many of the Jews of Hollywood, such as Steven Spielberg, are self-consciously alienated from the majority culture and seek to tear it down. An example is “Saving Private Ryan,” in which the elderly Ryan, re-visiting Normandy in his old age, is bizarrely portrayed as a broken down figure overwhelmed with guilt. That’s the way alienated leftist Jews want to portray the Christian majority.

    What is the solution? There is no quick solution, but there is a solution. The majority needs to rediscover itself and start acting like the majority again and start setting the standards for America. Once a new elite was in place setting different and better standards than what we have now, the viciously anti-American movies that are now standard fare in Hollywood would cease being made.

    Auster is well aware that the jewish agenda has long been, “what’s good for jews?” He “criticizes” jews while excusing and even praising them. Whites he simply lectures and scolds. He gets so caught up in the emotion of his glowing, pro-tribal vision of 1930s Hollywood that in his response to Spencer he neglects to note that this only makes the anti-Gibson, anti-White, anti-Christian jewish-owned and operated Hollywood of today that much more blatant. In his older response to me he actually pointed out this contrast himself.

    Auster’s point about Saving Private Ryan, that “alienated leftist Jews want to portray the Christian majority” as “overwhelmed with guilt”, is interesting in relation to his more recent comment (quoted above) about “white guilt” “we ourselves have created”. He behaves just like he says alienated leftist jews do.

  36. Auster’s melt-down continues:

    Where is the evidence that “Gibson’s enemies” (the Jews again according to you) have done anything to “get rid of him”? This is anti-Jewish speculation parading as a statement of fact.

    . . .

    So where is the Jewish campaign to destroy him? In fact, in each instance in which he has been attacked, it has been because of people’s reactions (justified or not) to his works and actions, not because of some campaign to destroy him.

    Ari Emanuel’s call for “the entertainment community” to shun Gibson, quoted in a comment above, was baldly made in terms of jewish interests. Zeitchik, in the article I linked in the original post, is of the opinion that “it’s not like Gibson had a terribly robust career over the last four years, so in a way you could say that Emanuel’s 2006 call for a boycott served it purpose.” Both Zeitchik and Goldstein attack Gibson and provide insight into a campaign to “destroy him”, or at least end his movie-making career. Both men, like Auster, have defended, or at least sympathized with Polanski.

  37. It’s really hard to go through Tanstaafl’s links again and reread the depraved things people have said.

    Patrick Goldstrein in the Los Angeles Times: “In America, having sex with a 13-year-girl is a crime worthy of punishment, no matter how talented Polanski is as a filmmaker. In Europe, it’s hardly worthy of a raised eyebrow, which is why Polanski is still lionized in most European countries, receiving countless awards and happily accepted in polite society. This drives a lot of Americans crazy, since we’re at heart a Puritan nation. But in Europe, attitudes are different. Not better. I’m not sure even worse. Just different.”

    Not even sure it’s worse? That’s putting it mildly: the entire piece promotes complacent resignation without a shred of disapproval.

    And yet for anyone who deserves to be a called a decent human being, severe disapproval of Polanski’s anal rape of a 13-year old girl is mandatory.

    Patrick Goldstein doesn’t just lack a requirement of decency, he promotes a radical moral corruption in others.

    Who is this “we” that’s a Puritan nation at heart? Not Patrick Goldstein, that’s for sure.

    And what’s the point of implying that objecting to this child rape is exclusively a Puritan thing? There is no reasonable answer that does not make Patrick Goldstein look bad. The obvious answer would be: to distance his readers, among whom you would find hardly any Puritans, from an attitude that only people of a peculiar and archaic religious bent are supposed to hold.

    This is aggressiveness toward the moral underpinnings of the culture of the people that have unwisely allowed Patric Goldstein and others to take roles advising and commenting on cultural matters.

    He talks as though he was a legitimate stakeholder in the moral order of America, as part of the “we”. It’s very difficult to believe that’s true. If he was, he would have to feel about the victim of the rape as a member of his own community, as if she was the daughter of someone just like him. But a culture that was so destitute of concern for its own daughters could not long survive. So either Patrick Goldstein’s only culture is one that has sprung up very recently and will vanish just as fast, lacking a basic requirement for staying power, or else he’s a fake, poisoning the culture of another people that he cares so little for that he’s not even sure if it’s a worse rather than a better attitude to be indifferent to the rape of its daughters.

    – Daybreaker

  38. In siding with and defending even their scoundrels to the hilt jews are more black than White. Think Marion Barry, OJ, or the Jena Six.

    In his attack on Spencer, Auster writes:

    Clearly you wanted to remove all serious negative judgment from Gibson, and clearly your reason for doing so is that you see Gibson as a representative and champion of your tribe, i.e., Nordic and generically Christian Man. For you, Nordic-Christian tribalism trumps morality. Thus you openly commit the sin with regard to Gibson that you falsely accuse Jews of doing with regard to Polanski.

    This is the clearest anti-White statement I’ve ever seen from Auster. When he, or any other jew, is accused of being motivated by their jewishness, they call it “anti-semitism”. Here he reveals an unequivocally negative view of “Nordic-Christian tribalism”, i.e. White racial awareness. So much for his disingenuously offered “solution” that “the majority needs to rediscover itself and start acting like the majority again”. We can see now that he didn’t real mean that. Though as recently as 15 June 2010, in The anti-white left and the non pro-white right, Auster was painting “conservatives” as hopelessly sick and unprincipled non-racists whose problem is a lack of tribalism.

    Auster’s confusion about tribalism, including his distaste when “Nordic-Christian tribalism trumps morality”, also reminds me of a comment Ben Tillman made at Mangan’s:

    You misapprehend the essence of morality, which exists to further self-interest, specifically the self-interest of groups. It furthers group interests by mediating the conflicting self-interests of group members to allow the group to function as a cooperative unit. Read David Sloan Wilson.

    Jews know better than anyone else that loyalty to the tribe is morality. This is clear from the contrast between the attitides Zeitchik, Goldstein, Auster, and the other jewish pundits I cited in a series of posts about Polanski have about Polanski, versus their attitudes about Gibson. Polanski is Us. Gibson is Them. I don’t feel any immorality in thinking in the same terms. Tribalist jews trying to guilt-trip me about it only makes me angry.

    Hunter Wallace made an insightful comment on Mangan’s post, Why Auster Spends So Much Time and Energy Attacking Alt Right:

    If you are familiar with the theory (i.e., Lawrence Auster is a Jewish tribalist who prioritizes “fighting anti-Semitism” over White racial and cultural preservation), then you can successfully predict his actions.

    You can know what he is going to say about any given topic or article with near certainty before he even hears about it himself.

    That applies to any tribalist. Auster is just a particularly salient example given his recent rants against White tribalism.

  39. There’s also this in Auster’s invective against Spencer: “By the way, the amount of anti-Semitism raised by the Polanski affair was astonishing.”

  40. Apparently Mel Gibson isn’t going back to his wife, his family or his Australian ranch.

    As an artist, he’s great. As a man, he’s on the wrong path.

    But he’s still completely unlike the child-raping monster Roman Polanski, and the monster’s evil defenders.

    – Daybreaker

  41. “golden age”

    The salient point about the “golden age” is that under incrementalist attack, you’ll always be able to point to a “golden age” when your enemies weren’t as dominant or free as they are now.

    Yes, the cesspool that is Hollywood today will look like a “golden age” if we don’t remove ourselves from the midst of our enemies.

    In siding with and defending even their scoundrels to the hilt jews are more black than White. Think Marion Barry, OJ, or the Jena Six.

    Ashkenazis and blacks are more alike than not. The only real differences are HBD related. Politically, culturally, they’re peas on a pod.

    Steve Sailer REALLY doesn’t like this argument. I suppose he thinks it’s excessively inflammatory because he’s censored every comment (a dozen or two) in which I’ve included it, except one. Otherwise, he posts the vast majority of my comments.

  42. Ben’s right, Gibson is loaded. Hollywood can’t “end” his “career,” lol. Money talks. He could find plenty of people (i.e., not Ashkenazis) to help him make movies if that’s what he wants to do. He’ll just have to guard against sabotage.

    Really, Gibson’s holding a lot of cards. What could Hollywood do if he really got pissed and started dragging dirty Ashkenazi diapers out into public view?

  43. If Polanki wasn’t jewish and the girl involved a little blonde girl with a German sounding name they wouldn’t have defended him so strongly.

    If he wasn’t jewish they wouldn’t have bothered to defend him at all.

    If he wasn’t jewish and the girl was jewish they’d have called for the death penalty.

    @@@

    They would have started to try and destroy his career after the Passion. That’s what probably pushed him into drinking and driving and making anti-jewish comments when stopped by the cops. This in turn would have made it easier for them to mess with his career leading to further self-destructive behaviour.

    He needs to back off, calm down and do some revenge sniping from afar.

    Hopefully he will.

Comments are closed.