Tag Archives: mel gibson

Blog

Takes a Kicking and Keeps on Licking

4 Comments

Mel Gibson’s Career — Why He Deserves Another Chance In Hollywood, by Allison Hope Weiner, Deadline|Hollywood, 11 March 2014:

As a journalist who vilified Gibson in The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly until my coverage allowed me to get to know him, I want to make the case here that it is time for those Hollywood agencies and studios to end their quiet blacklisting of Mel Gibson. Once Hollywood’s biggest movie star whose film Braveheart won five Oscars and whose collective box office totals $3.6 billion, Gibson hasn’t been directly employed by a studio since Passion Of The Christ was released in 2004.

For those who are skeptical, I understand. For the longest time, I disliked Gibson and thought he was a Holocaust-denier, homophobic, misogynistic, racist drunk. I wrote as much in articles for EW and the NY Times. And whenever I wrote about him, I would get irate calls from his representatives saying I didn’t know him.

It developed into something that felt like friendship, which doesn’t often happen with investigative journalists and the subjects they cover. Odder still was that it happened with a man disdained by my colleagues, friends and my family, who, like me, are observant Jews. At this point, Gibson’s career had gone all kinds of wrong, starting with that 2006 DUI arrest, when he told that cop that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Four years later, he sounded positively unhinged and racist in surreptitious recordings of an angry phone exchange between Gibson and ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva — the mother of his infant daughter. The whole world heard him shout abusively at her and make racist remarks.

Since then, I’ve gotten to know Gibson extremely well. I thought it would be difficult for him to have a friend in the media, but he has been surprisingly honest and trusting. As a lawyer-turned-reporter, I have no problem asking tough questions, even of friends. Gibson never wavered or equivocated when I confronted him, whether the subject was his drinking, his politics, his religion or his relationships with women. It soon became clear that my early journalistic assessment of him wasn’t right.

This crystallized when we met each other’s families. It was hard to blame his family for being skeptical of a journalist, but the issues with my own family were more challenging. Gibson asked to meet them at my son’s bar mitzvah celebration. Imagine the scene: A room filled with Jews. In walks the person who, in their minds, might be the most notorious anti-Semite in America. Gibson attended alone and I can only imagine what was going through his head when he walked into the party.

Before the evening was over, he was chatting with many of my relatives, who saw a funny, kind, charming guy and not the demon they’d read about. Gutsier still, he attended our Yom Kippur break fast dinner. Anyone who has attended such a gathering knows there is nothing more imposing than making friends in a room full of Jews who haven’t eaten in 24 hours.

I’ve discussed the Holocaust with Gibson and whether his views differed from those of his father. Just as he refused to condemn his father in that TV interview with Diane Sawyer, Gibson refused to discuss his dad with me. Similar to what he told Sawyer, Gibson told me that he believed that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. “Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely,” he told Sawyer. “It was an atrocity of monumental proportion.” In our conversations, I took that a step further. Why, I asked him “did you say those things about the Jews starting all the wars? Where did those unkind things come from?” Gibson thought for a moment, then answered that he’d been terribly hurt by the very personal criticism of him from the Jewish community over The Passion Of The Christ. He said that while he’d been criticized for films before, this was personal and cruel. He said that when he drinks, he can be a mean drunk and “Stuff comes out in a distorted manner…” His own faith led him to make his version of Christ’s story, and he found himself being attacked for making a film that might get Jews killed, and that he was insensitive that his depiction of Jews as Christ’s killer could inflame religious tensions. He was called names by numerous Jewish leaders and a few people literally spat on him. “The criticism was still eating at me,” he told me. “This was a different kind of hammering. A very personal attack.”

Based on my exchanges with Gibson and my own reporting on his transgressions, I’ve stopped doubting him. He worked in Hollywood for 30 years without a single report he was anti-Semitic.

In his second apology on the anti-Semitic statements, Gibson promised to reach out to Jewish leaders. Gibson followed up by meeting with a wide variety of them. He gave me their names when I asked, but Gibson asked me not to publish them because he didn’t want them dragged into public controversy or worse, think he was using them. The meetings were not some photo op to him, he told me, but rather his desire to understand Judaism and personally apologize for the unkind things he said. He has learned much about the Jewish religion, befriending a number of Rabbis and attending his share of Shabbat dinners, Passover Seders and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur dinners. I believe that effort, along with our conversations, helped him understand why Jewish people reacted as they did to The Passion Of The Christ and why there was Jewish support for the Second Vatican Council. Gibson has quietly donated millions to charitable Jewish causes, in keeping with one of the highest forms of Tzedakah in the Jewish faith, giving when the recipient doesn’t know your identity.

Gibson went well beyond a mea culpa tour. He came out of that experience determined to film the Jewish version of Braveheart. He set at Warner Bros a film about Judah Maccabee, who with his father and four brothers led the Jewish revolt against the Greek-Syrian armies that had conquered Judea in the second century B.C. That seminal story is celebrated by Jews all over the world through Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights.

While talent including director Roman Polanski (drugged and sodomized a minor, and fled), Mike Tyson (rape conviction), Chris Brown (beat up ex-girlfriend Rihanna), T.I. (weapons charge), and many others are repped by major agencies, no agency has touched Gibson since Emanuel discharged him as a WME client after those tapes surfaced and he used the “N” word. Gibson has been shunned not for doing anything criminal; his greatest offenses amount to use of harsh language.

Weiner knows that Gibson’s “greatest offense” isn’t “harsh language” aimed at women or blacks, and they aren’t responsible for his “quiet blacklisting”. Weiner identifies herself as a jew and dedicates the bulk of her words to Gibson vis-a-vis jews exactly because she understands that it is jews who have not-so-quietly blacklisted him.

The demonization and blacklisting of Gibson is a reminder that in jew-run Hollywood, talent, popularity and profitability aren’t the primary considerations – jewish sensibilities are. And Gibson will continue to be blacklisted as long as jews collectively regard him as “the most notorious ‘anti-semite’ in America”. Weiner’s explicit appeal to jews, to attempt to convince them otherwise, only calls attention to their power.

Weiner describes Gibson’s grovelling, trying to please and befriend the jews who despise him, as “gutsy”. Yet it is quite the opposite. Even Weiner’s own version of Gibson’s story comes across as serial gutlessness: Lashing out in drunken rage, Gibson bit the hand that fed him, and ever since has been licking the boot that kicks him. Weiner’s suggestion that Gibson’s problem is alcohol, or anger, or both, is also disingenuous. Though he has far more fame and fortune than most of the rest of his race, he has the same main problem. The jewish problem. He could fund and direct some wonderful films about that, but instead gives his love and money to the enemy. Whether such pathological behavior is fueled by Christian beliefs, greed, ambition, or even alcohol – it certainly isn’t guts.

As usual, the jews have tried to make themselves out as the ones who have been harmed. And as usual, this serves to distract from the harm they have done to others. In this case, their handwringing about whether Mel Gibson is or isn’t good for the jews is a distraction from the monstrous harm done by the lies, filth and poison delivered by the judaized media.

Blog

How to Create Grotesque, Toxic Stereotypes

11 Comments

Oliver Stone Controversy – Media Decoder Blog – NYTimes.com:

In an interview with The Times to promote his documentary “South of the Border,” which is about South American politics, Mr. Stone defended Hitler. “Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein,” he said. “German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support. Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people.”

Mr. Stone then proceeded to discuss what he called “the Jewish domination of the media,” adding with an expletive that Israel had messed up “United States foreign policy for years.” Bloggers quickly picked up on the comments, and the American Jewish Committee issued a news release condemning him. “By invoking this grotesque, toxic stereotype, Oliver Stone has outed himself as an anti-Semite,” the committee’s executive director, David Harris, said in the release.

In January the director told a gathering of television critics that “Hitler is an easy scapegoat” while discussing his Showtime nonfiction mini-series, “Secret History of America.” At that time the Simon Wiesenthal Center harshly rebuked him for the remarks.

On Monday afternoon, Mr. Stone released this statement:
“In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret. Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry.”

Turns out Stone is as easy to scapegoat as Hitler. The poor guy was just trying to say that the Germans (and Americans and British) are worse than Hitler. No big deal. Now that he’s apologized for implying that jewish influence was hindering that work he can get back to it.

Billionaire Haim Saban crusades against Oliver Stone | Hollywood Jew | Jewish Journal:

The Israeli-American billionaire is reportedly campaigning among Hollywood’s higher-ups to have Stone—and his upcoming 10-part series, “A Secret History of America,” blacklisted. According to TheWrap.com, Saban called CBS chief Les Moonves to urge him to cancel the Showtime series, becoming the first industry figurehead to criticize the director’s controversial remarks from earlier this week.

“This guy should be helped in joining Mel Gibson into the land of retirement, where he can preach his anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in the wilderness where he belongs,” Saban told TheWrap.

Saban, who is a huge supporter of Israel and a major donor to the Democratic party, told The Wrap.com by email that he had also called William Morris Endeavor chairman Ari Emanuel to help pressure CBS.

That Saban is launching a crusade against Stone isn’t surprising: In a New Yorker profile of Saban published last May, Saban said, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

Whoops. Turns out the “conservative” side of the “grotesque, toxic stereotype” won’t forgive so easily. I see a film hugely supporting Israel in Stone’s movie-making future – if he has one.

Blog

Javerting Attention

12 Comments

Mangan’s The One-Man NAACP of the Right links Pat Hannagan’s Purging the Faux White Right. Mangan and Hannagan dismantle Lawrence Auster’s latest attempt to pathologize “the anti-semites” who see jewish ethnocentrism in the defense of Polanski and attack on Gibson.

What makes Auster notable is that he’s the tip of a little jewish iceberg of Polanski defenders, sticking out more than others due to his usual pose as an traditionalist anti-“liberal” convert to Christianity. The clear jewish pattern emerges from the long list of people quoted in my series of posts concerning Polanski. In a nutshell, Polanski is a jewish OJ. His plight neatly polarized jews, who tend to view him as a victim, wronged and hunted by a cruel, puritanical system, and everybody else, including Whites, who tend to see him as a celebrity pervert who has long escaped justice.

When Polanski was first arrested, the immediate, morally outraged reaction from a number of jews with various social and political orientations was generally sympathetic to Polanski, and in some cases, like Auster’s, they went so far as to condemn broad swathes of people misperceived as Polanski’s “persecutors”. From the comments their own reader’s considered this behavior shocking – probably because they generally did not see the ethnocentric connection. It is fair to presume that the early defenders did not coordinate their arguments, though they nonetheless shared a number of transparently bogus excuses, and conveniently overlooked or minimized the most damning facts. More than a few made an issue of Polanski’s status as a special kind of jew – a “holocaust survivor”. Applebaum called it a “mitigating circumstance”. Many used language indicating a deeply emotional state of mind – even those, like Auster, who claimed to have never met Polanski. Patrick Goldstein was as eagerly defensive as Applebaum and Auster, and also alluded to Javert. Bruce Crumley, at Time, went beyond Javert, invoking Dreyfus, the poster child of jewish persecution. See my original posts for many more examples.

After the nature of this initial defense and the reader backlash started to gel, many jews either shut up, moderated their defense, said something vaguely disapproving about Polanski, or tried to divert attention and blame elsewhere – to the Swiss, the French, the British, Puritanism (a swipe at “WASPs”), America, Hollywood, “liberals”, “the Glenn Becks” (a swipe at Tea Party Whites). First and last come “the anti-semites” – the eternal scapegoats for jewish misbehavior. Evidently, broadly bad-mouthing these groups of people is ok in the “Javert Nation“.

Mel Gibson, on the other hand, gets drunk, is alleged to beat his mistress, and says a few politically incorrect things about jews and niggers. For that Gibson must be shunned and his career must be over, because, after all, the blacks who run Hollywood say so.

What explains this behavior if not jewish ethnocentrism? From their terms and themes it’s perfectly reasonable, obvious really, that what the Polanski apologists and obscurantists share is a view of jews, collectively and individually, as blameless victims. Even the ones who happen to be absconding pedophile rapists, like Roman Polanski. Recognizing this fact is “anti-semitic”, just like the Tea Party is “racist”, and wanting a government that isn’t biased against Whites and doesn’t impose genocidal levels of immigration is “hate”. These are terms of abuse. The purpose is to pathologize, intimidate, and manipulate. They are fighting words used by arrogant and dishonest enemies whose chutzpah knows no bounds.

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”.