Dude, Where’s My Movie About Stalin?

5
215

 

by Jonas E. Alexis

 

Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield

Sometimes whenever I want to laugh, I’d just pick up some crazy articles by some members of the Dreadful Few and start reading some of the blatant contradictions.

Yesterday was one of those days.  I was doing some research on North Korea and trying to catch up with my reading during vacation and suddenly I stumbled upon Daniel Greenfield’s article entitled “Hollywood’s Last Stand.”

Keep in mind that Greenfield is “a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center,” “a New York writer focusing on radical Islam,” and “is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.”

Now let us read a few lines from the article:

“Americans are the only people in the world who go to see movies in which they are the villains. Russians stayed away from Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit with its Slavic villains (though Chinese audiences liked it well enough).

“And movies with Chinese villains can’t get made because the People’s Republic has more devastating penalties for offending studios than a mere hacking. Instead of leaking private emails, the studios simply aren’t allowed to release their movies in the world’s second biggest film market.

“Hollywood’s titans take a break from patting themselves on the back for their commitment to freedom of expression and eagerly rush to work with the censors of the Chinese Communist Party to make their movies acceptable to China.

“Muslim villains can’t appear in movies at all since September 11. The last time a movie had a villain named Mohammed, the filmmaker ended up hauled out of his home and tossed into jail. Hillary Clinton, Hollywood’s choice, had assured grieving Benghazi family members that instead of punishing their son’s killers, she would ‘have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.’

“With script control like that, it’s no wonder that you don’t see many Muslim movie villains.”[1]

Muslim villains can’t appear in movies at all since September 11? Is this man living in the twenty-first century? Don’t movies like Iron Man (2008) and Dark Knight Rises (2012) implicitly portray Muslims (or countries in the Middle East) and Russians as diabolical villains?

Did Greenfield see Equalizer, which explicitly portrays Russians as thugs, pimps, and drug dealers? How about Salt, starring Angelina Jolie?  Why don’t they ever portray Israelis as villains? Why don’t the Dreadful Few make a movie about the Levon Affair? How about the bombing of the King David Hotel? Don’t they boast about being opened-minded?


stalinNow let us turn the table around. When Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ came out, Jami Bernard of the New York Daily News wrote that it was

“the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.”[2]

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen wrote that

“Gibson’s film takes the fetishizing of horror and death that exists within Christianity to some sort of sickly logical conclusion.

“Visually, iconographically and symbolically, Gibson’s ‘Passion’ is a sadomasochistic, orgiastic display that demonizes Jews as it degrades those who revel in viewing the horror…Its orgy of unsurpassed and virtually unremitting sadism restores this part of the Jesus story—de-emphasized by the Catholic Church since the Vatican II reforms—to center stage, to haunt all those who would follow Jesus with indelible, iconic images of cruelty. Gibson has thus unwittingly exposed the misguidedness of this cult of death.”[3]

You see, when the Goyim are humiliated and denigrated in movies, that is freedom, but when Gibson tries to get closer to the historical accounts, he is by definition an anti-Semite!

But in order to attack Gibson, the Dreadful Few and their allies also had to attack the books upon which the movie was based. They had to attack the gospels. After the movie was released, Charles Patterson blamed all the horrors of Jewish suffering on the gospels’ accounts.

“The trouble with Mel Gibson’s film ‘The Passion’ is not the film itself,” he writes, “but the gospel story on which it’s based.

“The gospel story, which has generated more anti-Semitism than the sum of all the other anti-Semitic writings ever written, created the climate in Christian Europe that led to the Holocaust. Long before the rise of Adolf Hitler, the gospel story about the life and death of Jesus had poisoned the bloodstream of European civilization.”[4]

This is the prevailing way of looking at the gospel accounts or anything that portrays Jews as villains.

Jewish professor Paul Fredriksen declared when The Passion came out,

“When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.”[5]

The Los Angeles Times added that the movie is “a gasoline-soaked rag tossed on the already roaring flames of anti-Semitism.”[6]

Rabbi Tovia Singer was more pessimistic. He said,

“By the time the first nail is hammered into the cross, viewers in Germany will be passing around knife sharpeners in the theater. Israel may have to absorb a massive flight of European Jewry.”[7]

Jewish novelist and television writer Howard Fast wrote in The Jews: Story of a People that

“unless Christians finally come to understand the bitter and almost inadmissible truth, that the murder of six million Jews by the Germans was the final, hideous outcome of a Christian ideology that had spent two thousand years teaching mankind to hate the Jews—then the crucifixion of the Jews and the connected inhumanity of the Christian will continue, on and on, until finally mankind, in the name of that gentle Jew Jesus, who died without ever hearing the word Christian or knowing what agony his own people would suffer in his name, destroys itself.”[8]

Finally, if people like Daniel Greenfield are that open-minded, why do have literally hundreds of movies about Nazi Germany or the “Holocaust” and not a single one about Joseph Stalin? Why do we have literally dozens of movies about slavery and not one about the people who actually were the slave masters? Are the Dreadful Few really serious about “diversity”?

The answer is a resounding no.

Greenfield certainly has to seriously explain why we have not seen a movie about Joseph Stalin torturing and pillaging peasants, Christians, political dissents, etc. Until he does that, we will continue to laugh about his moaning.

Meow.


[1] Daniel Greenfield, “Hollywood’s Last Stand,” FrontPage Magazine, December 30, 2014.

[2] Ben Child, “Jim Caviezel Claims the Passion of the Christ Made Him a Hollywood Outcast,” Guardian, May 3, 2011.

[3] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, “Mel Gibson’s Cross of Vengeance,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 5, 2004.

[4] Gentry, Navigating Revelation, 183.

[5] Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, 2.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Howard Fast, The Jews: Story of a People (New York: Dial Press, 1968), 325.


EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

5 COMMENTS

  1. And of course the bankers communities have adopted the usury at large especially within merging communities of Christian and Jewish and today they are selling it as a if it was a product of their not as a service. There was also need for fluctuation of money or assets in the old and oldest of communities so Jahwee came up with the plan of tens to keep the fluctuation going. Today we have taxes and calculated exponential interest that their sole goal is not at all fluctuation but only ownership and slavery. And culmination of course the Wall Street and the City, the creation of money out of thin air thus destroying the values of talents, work, natural goods, nature itself. That is another reason why Muslim communities are demonized largely because of this anti-usury stance. Jesus was also very specific about pursuing life of luxury he said it endangers your identity and character.

  2. The Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus death was/is universal as was/is the sin. Jesus alone said that his death was decided by him and his father and not by any earthly means. And Jews do not hate Christians. Jewish society problems remain completely with the Old testament, usury being number one and falling into devil’s all-in trick of the chosen people. The notion of the chosen people has haunted back almost or 100% every nation on this planet and ultimately jeopardized its own security and statehood or even annihilation. Why they don’t associate more mercy with usury is of their own making. The Torah is very specific of mercy.

  3. What is the opposite of humility? I Forget. I never lived in the time of Vatican I but understood it as a sad time to reflect on how we need to improve our attitudes to accept an existence that incorporates forgiveness, sharing our lot in life, and attempting to avoid the chauvinistic attitudes. In short, be the better man. I think that the premise Gibson was trying to bring back, and with it the absolute paranoia and insidious insanity from those who feel threatened by it. I feel sorry for them even when they go so low as to describe Jesus as “that jew on a stick”. Pinning the absolute horror of war on the Catholics is another great lie given what ISIS is doing. Is the Church responsible for making a few genocidal Arabs into an army of indestructible monsters through premeditated war that brought the famine, disease, and misery while using the man made hell to enlist recruits? Dont think so.

  4. And it was the old testament that brought forth the critique of jewish communities for usury which was legitimate but most of the times unfairly practiced specifically when it discards mercy, later it developed into an devilish form of persecution for all the associated groups of people. The gospels did not ignite anyone to commit such acts. It seems that the first intelligence officer was Jesus because he had knowledge on heavens that noone had. He even responded to the people that asked him who is the greatest among us, so he foresaw this human desire for knowledge on primacy and he didn’t judged it, that many of us still do. His answer wasn’t something the Sanhedrin liked to hear so they pretended they didn’t. Today the four gospels are still number 1 book on Intel, human psychology and among populist quotes and it seems that especially intelligence and propaganda communities are very aware of it.

  5. Gibson has definitely hit the spot right there. The Jews are not sole responsible for the death of the most famous Jew but they are still reliving the Sanhedrin spirit of those times. Also the film portrayed Romans much more violent than any other group. But that someone might find analogy between words of Jesus and German third Reich that is fascinating level of mind development. For example Jesus is often cited especially in the 9/11 aftermath George Bush “If you are not with us you are against us” those are Jesus’s words not some supersmart CIA Mossad brainstormer. So why would CIA Mossad cite Jesus on that occasion, was it a lack of knowledge or just putting forth the authentic Jesus supremacy on the intel of heavens? Still 2000 years after the very same spirit of Sanhedrin is misinterpreting the message and story of a man who forgave his murderers (which is all of us) just before is death.

Comments are closed.