Holy shit!
I guess I won't be reading TMQ any more. Whatta snake!

Another tired "Jews control the Media" rant. He doesn't come out and say it, but still. The intent is there.

Is this part of what the Saudis get for their advertising dollars?

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!

Wait, wait wait wait !! This is the The New Republic? And can anyone POSSIBLY say this is NOT anti-Semitism?

WHAT THE FUUUUUUUCK!!

This completely ignores that Quentin Tarantino is NOT Jewish - and he's the one responsible for the movie's violence because HE (a non-Jew) is a violent guy.

OT: The Cubs lost.

We live in an unjust world.

I responded tothe TNR editors with this:

How perfectly revolting. I know it's fashionable in crtain circles now to bash Israel, and, by association, Jews, but this review went far beyond civil fucking discourse. Easterbrook's portrayal of the executives behind the production of 'Kill Bill' as money-hungry Jews is not any kind of journalism that a modern, free press would think is worthy of publishing in any newspaper, excepting of course Der Stuermer (that was a popular newspaper in Germany circa 1940, in case you were in need of an historical primer). It looks like judenhass is back in fashion. Where do we go to get our regime-issued jackboots?

Yours in contempt,

Jeep

Put on your raincoats and galoshes, kufr! The blog shitstorm to end all blog shitstorms doth approacheth!

I am shocked that Martin Peretz would allow such Sturmer-like anti Semitism in his magazine.

Warning major Barf alert after reading this Kapo at the San Fracnisco Chronicle When dispair trumps hope.

What a sick, sad, deluded little man.

Stop this madness! You're trying to silence his freedom of speech!!!

/LLL

Get a grip. Fishing for antisemitism at the New Republic will leave you starving.

I assume that Easterbrook was deeply offended by this movie, and embarrassed that two jews were prominent in its distribution.

You can argue the content of what he said. But is the tone in which he said it any different than the tone in which we reference Adam Shapiro on this site?

"Were not against Jews just Judaism"

Where have you heard this one before?

"Were not against the soldiers just the war"

It is once again Politically Correct, i.e. soon to be mainstream if not in some parts already, thinking that Jews are at the root of all the worlds ills.

Why is that?

An historical view of 2,000 years of worldwide persecution of Jews is a good place to start.

It comes down to scapegoating

Jews, as an prominent group identity are easy pickings for the wide world of haters

How can Jews avoid this - by not being Jewish (i.e. not appearing as such)

Not going to easily identifable group places such as a synanogue, not wearing the star of david etc...

Once again civilization has learned nothing from its own recent past history and is thus dooomed to repeat it once again

This is God's test for mankind and as usuall we are all failing it miserably

Nothing but stupid spew.
Sorry Quentin, 'ol chap, he had to use your film to rant his anti-semitic views.
Optimized crap.

Geez!

For a great listing of good reads guaranteed to be free of anti-semitic remarks such as those, check this out.

Easterbrook's review of Tarantino's latest piece of crapola is right on target until he drags in the gratuitous, loathsome Jooo references.

#9

What a lod of shite!!!

I like the LLL quote gems such as

Such criminal acts and grotesque attitudes (towards suicide bombings and martydom) are the result of a society that has lost all hope and is driven by despair.

or a society that has been taught to hate jews

For Palestinians, as well as Israelis, this catastrophic cycle of revenge is a great tragedy

again with the cycle of violence nonsense.

In fact, the United States bears great moral responsibility for the crimes against humanity that both sides have committed.

WTF? How are we responsible for splodeydopes and islamobots killing infants, women, and children? Because we support Israel?

We should never forget that this intifada, which has killed hundreds of people and maimed thousands more, began in September 2000 when Ariel Sharon entered the holy Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif area with armed soldiers. Before that provocative act, the Israeli people had enjoyed years of relative security.

Total Bullshit, another big LLL lie

Suicide bombings will only end when young people believe in a future with hope, rather than despair.

or when they aren't being programmed on a daily basis to believe that killing is the only way to achieve their goals and that Jews are human beings.

It must be true, it's in the Protocols!

Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?

So there are a lot of Christians and others who behave like evil Jooooos. Does that make it acceptable for Joooos to worship violence? I think that's what he's saying. Doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Evil bastard.

#17 Kragar - I warned you that it was a major Barf alert. She is a traitorous Kapo Kunt from the Peoples Republic of San Francisco. She is too stupid to realize that Hamas and Islamic Jihad would just as much kill her as they would kill me.

Just a guess

But my bet is that rag is on the dole (who reads it except academics, neo-nazis, islamists etc ...)

They were promised and or have been given tons of loot from the Oil Sheiks to do their bidding

Just a guess, but the Saads are a new large ad contributor of that rag so ...

BTW the Kunt's email address is rrosen@sfchronicle.com

he is right about one thing though: quentin t. is the most over-hyped movie director of recent times.

When was the last time someone criticized the actions of say, the automobile industry, and made a point to mention the managers are Christians? It seem that the "outing" of otherwise non-observant, non-religious individuals as Jew is still used a weapon to shame and threaten. Shame on the New Republic - I hope they lose many of the few subscribers that they have.

I have nothing against greed just those who condemn it

The Left hate: greed, capitalism, democracy, rule of law, popular rule, religion, spirituality, optimism, hope, popular democracy, Life, beauty, freedom, choice, divergence, the American Republic - everything the USA is and that makes it great

They want America to be weak - to them that is equality between the nations

How would you like to go to a restaurant nite after nite that you utterly despised?

The Left live it each and everyday

So, if not for anything else take comfort in the fact that the really virulent Lefties out there, in the good ole USA (all of the free Western countries), can't stand every waking second they live in America and that should bring some joy to your day

"Wave that Flag, wave it high and wide"

They just hate that

Recent European history alone ought to cause German (WWI, WWII, the Holocaust), French (Algeria, Indochina), Italian (Ethiopia), Russian (Gulags), Belgian (Congo) executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing...
The Munich comic Valentin came on stage in a cabaret in the late 1920s and said to his assistant: "You see, the Jews and the bicyclists are our misfortune." "But Valentin," she asked, "Why the bicyclists?" "Why the Jews?" he shot back.

easterblogg@tnr.com

And presumably antisemites have LESS responsibility to oppose media violence, Mr. Easterbrook?

My wife wanted to get a subscription to TNR. Guess that won't happen now.

Doofus.

Didn't The New Republic give in to Saudi pressure and disinvite some academic to a conference that they (TNR) was hosting?

I dunno, sounds like someone, some very little someone in a very big pond is sorta jealous of others making it... and that perhaps Jews should jusr stive for regular old 9-5 slave wage jobs.

Probably because I'm not familiar with the work of this jackass, I sit here absolutely astonished by this incoherent rant: Somehow Quentin Tarentino being a self-indulgent Hollywood phony is the manifestation of Jewish greed and general malevolence?
This essay, to use the author's phrase, is pure junk. Only a moronic anti-Semite would put forth such a disconnected diatribe against the shallowness of Hollywood and somehow arrive at the natural conclusion that the Jews are the root of all evil.
Fuck you, Easterbunk, you evil sack of Jew-hating shit.

I don't see why people feel the need to rip apart directors and movies anyhow... don't see it if ya don't like it... I mean come on, there's worse things to criticize like the worlds worst tv show... ed. Even the ads for that show make my skin crawl.

I can answer my own question (#28) thanks to Horsefeathers.

October 13, 2003
FOLLOW THE (SAUDI) MONEY
Horsefeathers has argued that the United States must focus on Saudi Arabia as the enabler of radical Islam. Regrettably, the Bush administration has not yet fully confronted the problem. Saudi Arabia has spent many years and much revenue bankrolling ex-State Dept. officials and pro-Saudi propagandists. Here is the latest story of the corrupting effect of Saudi money:

"...The New Republic magazine is coming under attack for co-sponsoring a recent forum with Saudi Arabia and allegedly agreeing to the kingdom's demand that it withdraw its invitation to a leading critic of Riyadh.

Author Stephen Schwartz told The Forward that he was removed from the panel at the behest of Saudi Arabia, which co-sponsored the October 2 panel discussion on the kingdom's political future and has advertised in the magazine.

"I was deeply shocked," said Schwartz, a convert to Islam and author of "The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'Ud from Tradition to Terror" (Doubleday), in which he accuses the Saudi government of being the principal backer of the Palestinian militant group Hamas and funding the spread of the puritanical form of Islam known as Wahhabism.

"My book says that this evil alliance of the cult of Wahhabism and the House of Saud has had a devastating effect on Islam," said Schwartz, a former Washington bureau chief for the Forward and currently director of the Islam and Democracy Program at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "I'm the person that has caused them the most trouble. It is because of who I am..."

Posted at 05:23 PM by

I just canceled my subscription. I hope a whole lot of others will too.

Now of course if Eisner had refused to release the film, a different, though equally malicious writer would have put it this way:

"Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about censorship and book burning."

Jews can't win - Jews are both communists and capitalists, radicals and neoconservatives, miserly and ostentatious, athiests and religious fanatics, rabid integrationists and bigoted descendents of slavetraders. Whatever one finds evil in this world, a Jew can be found to take the blame.

Self indulgent, phony movies... that about sums up every French film out there.

Well here's another movie I will be boycotting. Not that I would go to the cinema and buy a ticket to watch it. But I will not buy it on DVD, just as I will not buy 'Elf' when it's distributed.
So I wonder what kind of diatribe will be published about the sequel to Kill Bill.

"The pursuit of happiness" is a God given and American protected right to all law abiding citizens

Maybe if Jewish people do not excel in life no one will hate them?

Is that how it works?

Can people be scared into not attaining their full life's potential?

I know it has been tried before unsuccesfully in many variations all throughout time - but will it work this time?

Would the world be "better off" as the haters say?

I know one thing God doesn't like it and neither do I

It stinks, very rancid like - something outdated, archaic, wretching its ugly head all too often

Can Jews be scared into not being Jewish anymore thus solving all the world's problems?

I know it has been tried many times before - but there still seems to be those still identified as Jews around why is that?

Does all the scaring in fact make them more committed rather than less?

Is this what we want?

Is that freedom and liberty - is that why we fight?

Don't the haters know that from an epysteomological (sp?) standpoint not highlighting someones differences will in fact cause them to naturally falter away

Then again it is more fun to hate than to love...

The reasons why the Jews still exist is clearly due to their unrivaled worldwide 2,000 years of persecution - if not for the persecutors trying to rid the world of Jews there may not be any Jews today, weird how things work huh?

"God works in mysterious ways"

Perhaps, Easterbrook had his parking space taken by a Hassid that morning. Or he had a dream with the Jews (money-grabbing (...) power-hungry ones) using his X-ian children's blood for the Pesach bake-off. Or his hemorroids just flared up. When I read it, my jaw just dropped. WTF? His blog, his editorial control and so on, but WTFFFF???? What's next? Calls for Judenrein Hollywood? Or dreams of Tarrantino giyur if he fits so well with the JewsWhoControlTheWorld(tm)?

And this on TNR? Perhaps, recent Saudi-bought page-full ads are starting to take their effect.

Disgusting.

I wasn't aware the Soddies had bought full page ads in the magazine, but the combination of disinviting a scholar at the last minute to a seminar on Islam and then printing an attack on "Jewish" executives in Hollywood aren't a coincidence.

To witness intellectual cowardice is even more loathesome than physical cowardice. Thing is, spiritual, intellectual and physical courage are going to be needed to win this war.

Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.

What is this in reference to? No one who was "helpless" died in that movie. Let's see, O-Ren Ishii, the Vivica Fox character, O-Ren's bodyguards and Gogo, eighty-eight Yakuza swordsmen, Buck (who likes to F*ck), the coma-philiac guy...that's about it. All who died were "bad people".

There is a parable about G-D giving three servants each talents. To one he gave one talent, the second he gave two talents and to the third he gave three.
To make it short, he left for awhile and then returned to see what the servants had done with their individual talents. Two of the servants had done very well and had doubled their talents by using them. The one servant with the one talent had buried his, and of course G-D was very pissed with him because he had wasted his talent. To me Islam is the one talented guy, because he is forbiddened to ever develop or use his G-D given talents by ol' MO. Since there is no art, no music, no literature, no discoveries and no advances in the sciences allowed the talent is discarded. I cannot even imagine the many brilliant minds that have been lost, and in some cases brilliant women, because of the taboos of extreme islam.

Easterbrook is in fine compnay. Here are some other recent film that generated protests against the erstwhile "Jews" responsible:

1988 - The Last Temptation of Christ - protesters staged a rally in front of the home of Lew Wasserman, then chairman of MCA, the parent company of Universal Pictures. Carrying placards proclaiming "Wasserman fans anti-Semitism," protesters chanted that "Jewish money" was behind the film.

2002 - The Crime of Father Amaro - a huge success in Mexico, "Father Amaro" is being distributed in the United States by Samuel Goldwyn Films. The company's president, Meyer Gottlieb, told the Los Angeles Times that he is alarmed by the anti-Semitism in many of the protest letters and postcards the company has received.
"I am sure you don't plan on showing rabbis or Jews in a compromising position, but your hatred is vented against the Savior who gave his life to redeem mankind for their sins," one man from Manchester, Conn., wrote.

[Link: www.jewishsf.com...]

Is the user feature out of wack tonight? Over 4000?

#40

You forgot about the wedding party the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad killed. Those were surely the innocents he meant.

*sigh* Once again, I've read something and came to a different conclusion. Get out yer torches and pitchforks, everyone.

First, it's more of a slur against Christians. As if to say, "it's a natural thing that Christians worship money above all else, but those two Jews? They should know better."

And why? Because of "recent European behavior." He is offended by the "graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement", and is appealing to the consciences of the Jewish executives, who he thinks should be averse to such depictions in light of the perversely casual violence directed at Jews in Europe.

Look how the highlighted phrases twist the meaning: "is Jewish...worship money above all else" The old "Jews love money" stereotype. Charles, I love LGF man, but this is just dishonest.

Roger Simon says that Easterbrook "doesn't know shit from Shinola about the way movies are made or why", and that he's "an asshole" for singling out Eisner and Weinstein to support his argument. But can you say that not one single Jew would have tried a similar tactic had they been involved in the making of Mel Gibson's 'Passion'?

That's all I have. Light 'em if ya got 'em.

Yes, there are plenty of whites who are lazy and perpetually on welfare. Does that make it right for blacks to be lazy and perpetually on welfare? The history of the South ought to cause blacks to experience second thoughts about leeching off the hard work of others.

BH:

First, it's more of a slur against Christians. As if to say, "it's a natural thing that Christians worship money above all else, but those two Jews? They should know better."

Are you aware of a single attack in the media at any time that single out the Christian religion of executives in Hollywood? Nope.

"Jews...should know better." You're full of shit.

But can you say that not one single Jew would have tried a similar tactic had they been involved in the making of Mel Gibson's 'Passion'?

Amazing how Easterbrook's defenders keep bringing "The Passion" controversy into it.

A well-known rule of the ‘liberals’ is that only republicans are racist, rich, and mean. Therefore, all Mr. Easterbrook did was shaming these quintessential Big Media liberals to straighten up and realign.
Should we expect Mr. Weinstein and/or Eisner to understand at last that hating Bush, supporting a Palestinian state and the very misguided Israeli Labor, etc. wouldn’t buy them immunity or save them the from wrath of their liberal ‘friends’? Or to understand that to the liberals they are just useful cash cow idiots? Nah, don’t hold your breath.
So now, mother goose does what she always does: pecks these strayed baby-cheeks’ fat head to a bleed to straighten them up.
Sorry folks, Mr. Weinstein and Eisner got what they deserve; I don’t feel sorry for them or for myself as a Jew here.

galya

Teacake wrote:

Is the user feature out of wack tonight? Over 4000?

It's not out of whack. We've been getting hit by a web bot of some kind, thousands of times within the last few minutes. Probably an attempted denial of service attack.

The IP of the attacker is now banned at the server level, and the user count should now decline rapidly.

Spooge

Good stuff. Saw it on Roger L. Simon's, where I'm posting under my other moniker.

;-)

Does anyone here understand what Gayla just said?

I cannot access TNR's site for some reason, so all I have to go on are the passages cited by Charles.

That said, I think that Kill Bill is a Miramax film, and Miramax is owned by Disney. It looks like Easterbrook was appalled at the Tarentino presentation of the slaughter of innocents as entertainment and was looking to pin the blame on the two executives who supported and ultimately are responsible for its production.

By what I can read, Easterbrook is saying that if the two executives responsible were Christian (nominally or not) their moral transgression would be severe, but, in this instance, the two executives are Jewish and, in Easterbrook's opinion, this makes the moral depravity even worse since, of all the peoples of the world, one would think the Jews above all would know not to make light of the killing of innocents for sport or entertainment.

In other words, it appears to me that Easterbrook is holding Jewish executives to a higher standard due to their cultural and ethnic collective experience. It is not--as some have suggested above--scapegoating in this instance because scapegoating involves pinning the blame for something irrationally on Jews as a whole when it is clearly not something the Jews are at fault for. (Prime example of such scapegoating would be Hitler's blaming the Jews for Germany's loss in WWI). Here, by contrast, Easterbrook is not speaking of collective Jewish responsibility, but the responsibility of two actual Jews who were actually responsible for the production of the offensive film. That's a totally different thing.

Unless I'm missing something, Easterbrook is therefore pinning the moral blame for something he considers a moral crime against the culture squarely on the shoulders of the two men most responsible for its production, and is arguing that due to their ethnic backgound they have even less of an excuse for committing such an act.

That may or may not be correct; however, in my judgment it does not amount to anti-semitism.

in my judgment it does not amount to anti-semitism.

Well, your judgment is very poor, I'm afraid.

I dunno...are you guys reading the same article I just read? I heard Easterbrook saying that Jews should be better than this. That may be a trifle odd, but it's not anti-semitic, not even in a country-club way.

I am going to be ill.....

I heard Easterbrook saying that Jews (emphasis mine) should be better than this. That may be a trifle odd, but it's not anti-semitic, not even in a country-club way.

Really? Explain.

can you imagine these multi culti yucks substituting african american for jooos in that pernicious screed with reference to blaack rap videos or blaxsploitation movies--nooo way--jesse or al would be on their lilly white mofo asses in a ny minute mau mauing them like crazed banshees--so now the jews invented rip offs of jew infested japanese gangster flicks mixed with hong kong chop chop movies "auteured" by a shagitz eyetye asian film wannabe--now lets see was shakespeare a joo with all that gratutitous violence in "hamlet"--maybe his producer was a london yid--that freakin' eisner should have his head circumsized for promoting mickey mouse--did they run this bullshit past marty peretz [owner of tnr]--he's a gonna bust an artery--deesgusting!!

# 54 Kemper Boyd

Dynamite argument. Glad to debate and exchange views in the spirit of this board with you.

Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.

I saw Kill Bill. Perhaps Easterbrook hasn't?

Everyone in the movie who's killed is an assassin, with three exceptions, the parents of one of the villains (O-Ren Ishii) who are killed by yakuza when she's a child, and a Latin American general who's assassinated by said villain.

If he wants to point the finger at mindless Hollywood slaughterfests where the innocent are killed wholesale, he should rent Swordfish.

P.S. to Charles: Lance Armstrong is on Charlie Rose tonight for the full hour.

Kevin V:

I have nothing to argue. I disagree with your long post about what constitutes anti-semitism, and I've tired of people telling jews what or what not to feel.

So, your view offers nothing new or insightful, and I simply am telling you that your assessment of what is and isn't anti-semitism is poor.

I'm not looking to have you expand on it anymore than you have. I'm not interested. I know anti-semitism when I see it.

So, you've made your point.

And I've made mine.

#53   KevinV 

Unless I'm missing something...

Here's a idea: Read first. Comment later. Below is the actual Easterbunk essay which differs from the one you missed:

TAKE OUT THE GORE AND KILL BILL IS AN EPISODE OF "MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS": Is Quentin Tarantino the single greatest phony in the history of Hollywood? I realize that's saying a lot--about Hollywood, not him. But it's the sole explanation I can think of to explain his bizarre prominence.

All of Tarantino's work is pure junk. How can you be a renowned director without ever having made a film that's even good, to say nothing of great? No film student in 50 years will spend a single second with a Tarantino movie, except to shake his or her head.

Tarantino does nothing but churn out shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure--and that, for decades, has been what the least imaginative and least talented of Hollywood churn out. Supposedly it's "revolutionary," or something, that Tarantino films revel in violence to a preposterous degree, but that's like saying it is revolutionary for a presidential candidate to revel in complaints against Washington bureaucrats. Nothing about Hollywood is more hackneyed or trite than preposterous violence--and that's all Tarantino has ever put onto film.

Set aside what it says about contemporary Hollywood culture that the supposed liberal progressives of this city now ceaselessly mass-market presentations of butchering the helpless as a form of entertainment, even, as rewarding self-expression. Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm? Set that concern aside. Tarantino's films are simply trite as regards adoration of violence. In Hollywood, nothing could be less original.

And his supposed innovative screenplays? Spare me. The out-of-sequence technique Tarantino uses is praised as ingenious, yet every first-year film student is taught this device. To laud Tarantino as innovative because events happen out-of-sequence is like lauding The Bridges of Madison County as innovative because it opens with a discovered letter from someone who has died. All novice novelists know that device. Of course, the novelistic device may be used well or poorly, just as time-shifted cinema may be good or bad. Tarantino's out-of-sequence film moments are, uniformly, trite drivel.

And supposedly Tarantino is some kind of counter-genius for getting box-office stars like Bruce Willis and Uma Thurman to debase themselves in his drivel. But commercial Hollywood types debase themselves for a living; most never do anything else. To persuade someone to do that which he or she was eager to do anyway isn't much in the way of accomplishment.

Tarantino must draw his prominence in Hollywood, and among film-buff culture, from the very fact of his phoniness. First, his career says that you can do nothing but wallow in preposterous violence--Hollywood's cheapest and least original aspect--and still be revered. Second, his career validates the idea that you can accomplish nothing at all in any meaningful sense and yet acquire fame. The idea that you can get celebrity, money, and women through the movies without having any merits whatsoever is at the core of the Hollywood's conception of itself. Tarantino is its ultimate expression of this phoniness. Please don't tell me that makes him ironically postmodern.

Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.

Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.

My goosebumb outbreak and rapid heartbeat on-set, is usually an accurate indication.

#59 kevin venal-----wtf does anyone's religion/ethnicity have to do with movie violence--coppola's an italian fascist for making "the godfather"/--ang lee's a militarist chicom for making "crouching tiger"?--john ford's a dumb insensitive white goy for killing all those indian's in his westerns--you reason like a pomo putz--go deconstruct yourself--how's that for a logical positivist rant!!

And Jews get blamed for exploiting white trash because of Jerry Springer... never including that blacks should be blamed equally since Oprah owns that show. grrrrr

This is quite obviously more of the same tired old "Jews should be better than everybody else (this is taken as a given without any explanation), but instead they're money-grubbing Philistines."

What movie studio hasn't wanted to make as much money as it possibly can?

What movie studio hasn't catered to the lowest common denominator?

What movie studio hasn't given the people what it thinks the people want?

Criticize the movie studios for what they're turning out - that's fine. I agree that most of what is produced these days is total crap. But why point out who's Jewish? How does that advance the argument? Are these guys producing these movies because they're Jewish or because they're movie executives? Are these guys more culpable for turning out crap because they're Jewish?

The article struck me as bizarre - it was a polemical lashing out at Tarantino's supposedly undeserved reputation until the very last paragraph, when the Jew business appeared out of nowhere.

Btw, Joel, I take exception to the use of "that word" for women. I find it extremely offensive.

Er, my post #62 should have said "... the actual Easterbunk essay you missed, which differs from the one you imagined."
Like I said, read first, comment later ;)

I'd have to be omniscient to be sure about this, but it really seems to me like this stuff is spreading. Nor is this just academic, idle speculation on my part. I'm actually seeing it happen in my personal life: ugly, ugly anti-Semitism, all around me -- at Church, in conversations with trusted friends, at a recent family reunion . . . .

And here's the kicker: I'm a conservative Christian living in a Rocky Mountain state. Everybody around me supported the war, supports Bush; most of my fellows claim to support Israel, but do so for personal reasons that have little or nothing to do with the true interests of the rank and file Israeli. Deep down inside, somehow, these people still distrust Jews, and that distrust comes out in the strangest of ways at the strangest moments -- in the exact same manner as in Easterbrook's piece. Easterbrook's last paragraph is the journalistic equivalent of what the Cubs did tonight: total meltdown.

I'm not sure if this essay actually does show a darker side to Easterbrook, or if it's just an innanely inept effort to shame the distributors of the movie, but here's the part I find interesting:

In case you didn't know, Gregg Easterbrook is one of the main columnists for Page 2 on the ESPN.com website. ESPN, of course, is the same company that was swamped with controversy two weeks ago over comments made by Rush Limbaugh about the media's treatment of Donovan McNabb compared to McNabb's actual production as an NFL quarterback. Limbaugh resigned before he could be fired, but it's likely the latter would have occurred first if he hadn't left on his own accord.

McNabb's efforts the past two weeks against Washington and Dallas have done nothing to dispel the crux of Limbaugh's argument that so many people found offensive to the point that it was a sin to even talk about it in polite society. Now we have another employee of ESPN -- whose parent, of course, is the Michael Eisner-helmed Walt Disney Corp., distributors of "Kill Bill" -- making remarks that not only can be construed as anti-Semetic, but he's making them against his own boss.

It will be interesting to see if this controversy has any legs and what, if anything, the folks over at ESPN do about it.

You can argue the content of what he said. But is the tone in which he said it any different than the tone in which we reference Adam Shapiro on this site?

Thank you - I said as much on Roger's blog. Jews upbraid each other like this all the time. Let's save the big guns for the Islamists and the French. :-)

What a load of nonsense, everyone whos anyone knows the Stonecutters and not the Jews control Hollywood.

They're actually making a Police Academy 8. I rest my case.

If you tell the Jews that they should have a higher standard of morality than the rest of society,is that not being anti-semetic?.

When you start telling another group of people that they should have higher moral standards than you have,to me that is Nazism in reverse.

All Hollywood producers have mankinds best interests at heart.
They would rather go bankrupt than turn out a bad movie.

Angry.

Do ya know what? It doesnt matter what he was saying. The fact is he droned up some link between whatever it is he was bashing Tarantino about and the Jewish background of the executives that control miramax.

That in itself is wrong. And to link it with money, for whatever reason: utterly despicable.

Folks: The TNR people have probably been hearing about this ... but what about ESPN?

TMQespn@yahoo.com (Easterbrook's e-mail)

[Link: espn.go.com...] (page 2 Editors ... where Tuesday Morning QB appears).

Did he just suggest that Hollywood violence breeds terrorism?

His football columns are way over the "too full of his own cleverness" line, but this is ridiculous.

I'n not sure how this loathsome mess got into New Republic, but I'm damned sure that Editor-In-Chief Martin Peretz will have something to say about it very shortly.

OT

Anyone notice how the LA Times bought the crap that Israeli sub-launched Harpoons are a strategic weapon? They haven't the range to reach Cairo, much less Tehran. Boeing has managed to double the range of the latest model to 170 miles or so, but my info is that Israel is stuck with an older model that has a maximum ramnge of under 80 miles, not enough to hit Damascus.

Something is wrong here, but, as useual, "al-Ahram of the Pacific" isn't talking.

I've heard a saying that the only people who count Jews are anti-semites and Jews.

If a Jew were saying "Jews ought to know better", then that probably would be interpreted as reflecting Jews' status as "the chosen race".

I'm probably putting this in the best possible spin. Partly because I don't want to jump to the wrong conclusion, but mainly because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

(J-e-w-s controlling the media I can live with. But Saudis?)

I don't believe this! it's really too low for words... The final paragraph is really atrocious. He really had to make some leap to fit some jibe at Jews in there.

Gotta love also that "why do we suppose... with Hollywood violence.. distribution in Middle East... terrorists". Now terrorists are influenced by Hollywood movies! what idiocy.

Oh and spot the patronising in "to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles". Ha. Like, you have to have graduated at Harvard to watch Tarantino?

And this crap: Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.

Ah, that was the "thesis"? gee, thanks for explaining it so smartly, I'm so stupid, I just thought it was a pisstake and a fun one too. And so what of the Columbine killers liked it? Besides. I thought it was all Marylin Manson's fault! Or capitalism. Or guns. Or end-of-century angst. Those poor, nice kids without a mind or will of their own, corrupted by such bad external influences...

They're not responsible, obviously. Like with terrorists. It's all the movies' fault.

Unblievably moronic. Violence in film is not "adulation" of violence, it's fictional representation, doh. Has this guy even got a clue what fiction is and what effects it has? I already hated this argument about violence in movies automatically producing actual violence but this is the most stupid, irritating, patronising take I've ever heard.

#73 no daft: exactly - plus, it's not the double standard thing alone, it's the leaps he makes to connect things that are not connected. Wft has violence in movies have to do with either terrorism or antisemitic attacks? And what do Jews producers have to do with Columbine? It's ridiculous.

See also this.

Films causing Columbine? Of course not. It was bowling. (Not actually true, but Michael Moore's been somewhat awful at the truth).

Btw, Joel, I take exception to the use of "that word" for women. I find it extremely offensive.

Too fucking bad, Amy. You have no right to not be offended. The only person who counts at this website in terms of being offended is Charles.

Grow the fuck up and understand the "free" part of free speech. It's assholes like you who support speech restrictions, "hate speech" laws, and so on. You've heard "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me", right? You obviously don't understand it.

I am sorry Amy. I ususally am not that vulgar. That is why I spelled it with a "K". I also was writing after midnight when I was totally ticked off.

#83 Alfred:

Just because someone is free to use "that word" doesn't mean he/she should do so. With freedom comes responsibility, to paraphrase Spiderman...

And Amy has the free speech to comment on the use of "that word". She isn't stifling anyone's dissent.

I have not read all the comments so someone may have made some of these points. I am not oreally offended by the article.

The TNR holds itself out as a liberal mag and to some extent as a jewish liberal mag, the conscience of liberal Jews (by which they mean all Jews). They will view it as Jews holding Jews to higher moral standards. Sort of like african-americans calling each other the n word (but in this case in a 'good way'). Is it anti-Semitic for Jews to hold Jews to higher standards than other people? You could argue yes or no. To treat people different based on religion is bigoted but some Jews would argue since Jews are subject to extra scrutiny by others, that they have a responsibility to act better in order to avoid anti-Semitism. Liberal Jews are constantly holding Jews and Israel up to standards that they do not impose on others. They make these standards up of course.

The Jewish religion, at least in its real form (not recent de/reconstructions) holds Jews to higher standards than others. Jews have to do much more than non Jews to go to heaven. IN Orthodox Judaism, not only can gentiles go to heaven, but it is easier for them to go to heaven than for Jews to go. That BTW is why Jews do not activily seak converts. We hold ourselves to higher standards. It is OK to impose them on us but not on others.

#86 zionblogster: look, personally I don't even care if the author is antisemitic or not, it's that his entire argument, in all its points, is completely dumb, and irritating, and sooo patronising, and not just to Jews. He considers movie audiences a bunch of idiots. He thinks foreigners are even more subject to the eeevil influence of American movies because they may not "get the dialogue". He thinks it's baaad for terrorists to watch violent movies ! . He thinks schoolkids are brainless idiots who go nuts and start shooting around because of watching a horror comedy. And he thinks films like Tarantino's are bound to cause more violence and Jews should be careful in producing movies with violence because it might aah bite them back in the arse, and then what, they'd have deserved it??

How can one not find it ridiculous and offensive, in itself? There's not one grain of sense in there.

Plus, talking about "being careful" - how could he not even think that his last paragraph is so eerily reminiscent of classic nazi propaganda?

He might have meant that too as simply a moralistic tirade, but it does sound really bad.

for what it's worth, Kill Bill is essentially a cartoon - the violence is so over-the-top that it turns into gags. that somebody would get so upset over it that he'd start Jew-baiting speaks volumes about Easterbrook (and the New Republic), not the hollywood suits that he's targeting.

Last, sorry: for anyone saying this is really no big deal, do this mind trick - imagine it was written in Der Spiegel instead... how would you have reacted?

Easterbrook is right and he's wrong. I look at what Eisner funds, and I'm revolted by a lot of it. I'm revolted as a Jew, because its another Jew doing it. Moreover, I can't fault anyone for saying that as a Jew (with or without our history) he shouldn't fund such things. Its plain and simple truth. Jews shouldn't do those things, period. The fact that other Jews do evil, that I might do evil, and the fact that non-Jews do evil is no consolation or mitigation. So in that way, yes. Easterbrook is right, and criticism of Eisner as a Jew is not the special province of Jews, and in fact is appropriate.

On The Other Hand, the Jewishness of Eisner comes out of nowhere. As a subject it just pops up, glaring and naked, after a prolonged rant about Tarantino. This wasn't an essay on the ethics of producing slasher films, its an essay on why Taratino is junk, and why junk is bad. It looks to me as though Easterbrook decided to punch a hot button because he copuldn't figure out a better way to end his column, and hit it very badly. Devoid of context, this sort of paragraph can do nothing but feed the "Jews control the media" , the "Jews love money" and the "Jews exploit violence" viruses. Just wait: it will be quoted on "Radio Islam" in no time.

Is Easterbrook anti-Semitic? I don't know. He was careless, and that's enough.

I just sent the following to online@tnr.com with a copy to Easterbrook:

To the Editors,

I write to complain about the disgusting comments in the last paragraph of the Easterblogg article [Link: www.tnr.com...]

Mr. Easterbrook writes: "..." [quote from article removed]

What purpose does this rhetoric serve? Why does Mr. Easterbrook want to hold Jews to a higher standard? Why does he employ classical anti-semitic Jewish stereotypes here?

By lending its name to such outrageous commentary, The New Republic places itself outside the sphere of reasonable discourse. TNR used to have my respect, if not always my support. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

I am not a big Tarantino fan although I really did like "True Romance" (1993) despite its brutality and violence. It had a gret cast and James Gandolfini had a small role in it as well as Brad Pitt, Samuel L. Jackson.

Alfred E. Neuman (83),

Try using "that word" directly in the face of your wife, girlfriend, mother, sister, and see what happens.

Try using "that word" in conversation with a female friend or acqaintance, and see what happens.

Try using "that word" at school or in the workplace, and see what happens.

It's not going to go over well, I assure you.

It's not going to be tolerated in the name of free speech, for sure.

zaza (#90) is right: years ago, when Der Spiegel described NY Mayor Koch and Bess Meyerson as "the ugly Jew and the beautiful Jewess," a firestorm broke out.
Hollywood produces junk and violence, written, directed and produced by Christians, atheists, Quakers, agnostics, Jews, Zoroastrians (maybe)...unless their religion is in any way mirrored in the junk or violence--there's no reason to bring it up.
The junk and violence is revolting, as Hhar #91 says, but how can you expect "Jewish" (in what way? by birth alone?) executives to apply the lessons of 20th century history to their "work," ie--producing high-grossing blockbusters of junk and violence? How many people, Jews included, bring those lessons to bear on the way they conduct their business or perform in their profession?

Hollywood produces junk and violence, written, directed and produced by Christians, atheists, Quakers, agnostics, Jews, Zoroastrians (maybe)...unless their religion is in any way mirrored in the junk or violence--there's no reason to bring it up.

That's the entire point!! Religions aren't mirrored in the junk or violence of these flicks. If all adherents to the religions stated above followed the tenets of their religions, these movies would NEVER BE MADE!!!!

That was Easterbrook's point. By singling out Jews, he opened himself up for criticism. However, this does not rise to anti-semitism, and I think there is a bit of an overreaction about this.

Another thing - How is this any different when people on this board talk about guys like Adam Shapiro? The "self-hating Jew" pejorative ring a bell? No one has answered this question yet.

TV (Harry)

zionblogster is correct.

easterbrook is saying: "look, glorifying violence doesn't help us, but-- based on nazi germany & the palestinian nutjobs, jews above all should know this, so michael eisner & harvey weinstein: help a brother out, yo."

although it may be annoying to some jews, this is not anti-semitism. if anything, it is giving a presumption of a higher moral authority on this issue to jews in general. he then makes a plea on such to those in control of disney & miramax. additionally, i am not sure if anyone caught this, but he very clearly concedes the terrorism in islamic states. he says so here, while he is upbraiding hollywood for making it worse:

Set aside what it says about contemporary Hollywood culture that the supposed liberal progressives of this city now ceaselessly mass-market presentations of butchering the helpless as a form of entertainment, even, as rewarding self-expression. Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm? Set that concern aside. Tarantino's films are simply trite as regards adoration of violence. In Hollywood, nothing could be less original.

I have long been a fan of LGF & the work charles puts into this place.... however, those immediately crying "anti-semitism" like are acting a bit like CAIR...

Was Esterbrook among those special invitees who saw a closed session of Mel "The Joooos are out to get ME" Gibson's new film about Jesus' waning hours?

And another thing,

The whole Passion thing is a legitimate argument - Mel Gibson is catching much more flack for his Christian movie than anyone else is catching for the overly violent flicks they put out. Jewish, Christian or otherwise.

There is just no arguing against that.

TV (Harry)

Let's not become hair-trigger outrage-puppets like the gibbering dwarves at CAIR.

I agree: How about testing to see if there's a double standard over at ESPN?

I'm going to send them a letter.

Am I missing something? It seems to me that the failure (willful?) to distinguish between ethnic Jews and observant Jews is what makes this attack virulent as opposed to, say, careless. I doubt that a movie producer grounded in his Christian faith would lead a double life and make wretched movies as well.

The attack on faith continues...

#97 tigerjez

mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm?

Seems to me he's trying to blame Hollywood for the attitudes of Islamic terrorists.

#103 roach

Esterbullshit builds up Hollywood as an evil, money worshipping, violent cult that influences Islamic terrorism, who, due to Hollywood "now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing", and then he waits for the very last paragraph to link it with the evil money worshipping jooooooos. Seems there is alot of that in the lefty press these days.

Ok, the reaction to Easterbrook is verging on the hysteriscal. I understood what he was trying to say. Jews should be sensitive to the effects of mindless violence and its consequences. People are just seeing the words Hollywood, money and Jews in the same sentence and losing their ability at reading comprehension.
the reaction to Easterbrook, who is a reasonable and intelligent person makes me question the everyday howls of anti-semitism I hear on this site(and normally agree with). If you all can be so wrong about Easterbrook, maybe all that stuff about CAIR and what not isn't as well informed as I thought. You can't cry wolf about everybody.

I don't say this very often, but I think a few of you are going overboard here.

IMHO Easterbrook had good intentions with this article. He wa trying to appeal to Jewish executives' sense of morality and higher justice, to stop movie violence. In a way, he was giving Judaism a backhanded compliment. Is this inappropriate and silly? Yes and yes. But is it antisemitic? Probably not.

#97 tigerjez: look, I've never had a problem in saying when and where I thought Charles or others were overreacting to something, but this is soo clear. It's not about "spotting the antisemite" - but you know, you gotta think what will people reading this connect it to, when they come across "greedy money-grabbing producers" singled out for being Jewish, that kind of terminology has very bad historical precedents. I myself have no interest in labelling this guy other than a moron because of his argument on violence being nonsense, and his patronising on just about everything and everyone. But you can't escape the resonances of that last paragraph.

So ironic, he's talking about moral responsibility of Jewish film makers, and he doesn't notice he's echoeing items of antisemitic propaganda himself.

if anything, it is giving a presumption of a higher moral authority on this issue to jews in general.

But that's exactly what condescension is, it's not praise or respect, it's moralistic patronising.

It's somewhat like, telling women they shouldn't dress or act sexy if they don't want to be raped or considered whores. It's not exactly holding people to a "higher" standard, is it. It's about telling others, you shall not do this! because you are this or that! and it will be your fault if you do this and are attacked afterwards, because you should have known better than to "demean" yourself. It's bollocks best left to the mullahs.

Inspector Callahan #96,

That was Easterbrook's point. By singling out Jews, he opened himself up for criticism. However, this does not rise to anti-semitism, and I think there is a bit of an overreaction about this.

Try reading what you wrote again. I find it pretty stunning: "By singling out Jews, he opened himself up for criticism. However, this does not rise to anti-semitism..." How about "By singling out blacks, he opened himself up for criticism. However, this does not rise to racism..."? Incidentally, exactly how does something rise to Jew-hatred if not by singling out Jews for characteristics that everyone shares? There was a Harvard President who said that Jews shouldn't be admitted since Jews cheat. Someone replied to him that others cheat too, and he famously replied that something like "let's stick to the subject, we're talking about Jews". And that's exactly what you're doing here.

#99,

The whole Passion thing is a legitimate argument - Mel Gibson is catching much more flack for his Christian movie than anyone else is catching for the overly violent flicks they put out. Jewish, Christian or otherwise.

I personally don't know much about the Passion, but for the purposes of the discussion here, let's assume that it repeats the slander that Jews killed Jesus. That slander, over the centuries, has been used to whip up Jew-hatred repeatedly. Meanwhile, the connection between violent movies and actual violence is tenuous and unproven; while the spread of television in and of itself has been correlated with increased violence, there is little scientific evidence that the content of television has produced more violence.

In short, you're arguing that a proven method of incitement to violence is less deserving of flack then a method that is at best debatable and at worst unavoidable (given a market economy).

#107 roach,

I see your argument. So, he's just lodging an argument against money worshipping Hollywood executives, as opposed to someone who might lodge and argument against Americans supporting censorship?

What irritates me the most, is his accusation that Hollywood is "glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice". Accusing Walt Disney of glorifying violence? Donald Duck??? really! All the good stuff happens in the Warner Bros. Cartoons.

#96 Inspector Callahan:

Another thing - How is this any different when people on this board talk about guys like Adam Shapiro? The "self-hating Jew" pejorative ring a bell? No one has answered this question yet.

Ok, I'm not that familiar with Shapiro or discussions on him, but see, whatever reaction or views anyone has about that, it is obvious that those accused of being "self-hating Jews" are usually people who do take an active public stand *directly* on Jewish issues and on Israel and on Palestinian terrorism etc.

Whereas in this article, the author is expecting some stricter "moral" responsibility from Jews for *totally unrelated things* that pertain to entertainment industry in general -- not "Jewishness" or Israel or anything directly related to Jews - and not even morals. His connection between holocaust-tarantino, hollywod-terrorism/antisemitism is really far-fetched, and pathetic to say the least. The only veeery thin connection he makes is... there's violence AND Jewish producers in Hollywood! it's just so stupid.

Films are entertainment. Entertainment is not about morality. It doesn't produce values. It produces escapism. It can be more or less clever, or artsy, or deep, or shallow, but it's always about entertaining. Movies don't turn poor innocent kids into murderers or vandals or much less terrorists. There's a thing as individual character, will, and responsibilities. Inasmuch as outside influences come into play, it's things like family upbringing and cultural traditions and mentalities and ideologies and direct personal experiences and the values of the society one lives in - that have far more influence on a person behaviour's than any form of entertainment could ever have. Plus, spectacular violence in movies can often be great, and is almost always fun. There's always been violence in every form of fiction and it has a release function, however it's portrayed, even when it's "glorified" in exaggerated ways.

BUT - if you still have to preach tiresomely about Hollywood corrupting the poor idiotic masses, then by all means, damn the whole of Hollywood, or single out producers based on the actual work they did rather than what ethnicity or religion they are. Why didn't he do that?

I don't have much to add to my long comment above, except to note three things:

1) In my comments, I noted that Easterbrook may or may not be wrong, but that is a different argument than the one on topic here. Too many above have missed that subtle distinction. (Well, it is subtle, so no fault of theirs, really.)

2) The number of regular posters here, who we know are men and women commited to fairness and support for Jewish men and women and the State of Israel, who disagreed with the majority opinion that the essay is essentially anti-Semitic demonstrates to me that, at a minimum, the case is not open-and-shut as many above presume.

3) It appears to me that the number of persons above unwilling to debate and convince others of the merits of their argument, and instead resorting to Indymedia-type negative political labels and name-calling, reveals (as it does with the Indymedia folks themselves) an essential weakness in their case.

Let us remember the LGF prayer and *debate* when we disagree.

Isn't The New Republic a conservative mag? Could it be that there is anti-semitism on the right? Oh my.

I may be stereo-typing here, but I've always associated idiotic racism like this with toothless rednecks and Al Sharpton. I've just lost all remaining respect for the New Republic, letting this skin-sack of idiotic racist crap publish his work. Any editor in his right mind would have axed the review, then taken the axe-handle to this bigot's knees. But I doubt anything like that will happen, the New Respublik will possibly apologize with that saccharine sweet insincerity for which liberals are famous, and then promote this scum-bag.

#107 roach:

If it were coming from some Eurotrash in France or England I'd agree that it had a smell of anti-semitism/blockquote>

Ahh, very interesting. I knew that had something to do with it.

What is this, double-standards fest?

Wow, the racism police of the right are just as dispicable as the racism police on the left.
You can disgree on his point (I personally don't find it anti-anything) I also wasn't offended by what Rush said either, and I spend most of my disposable income on McNabb and the Eagles.
I also spend every Tuesday Evening reading TMQ and
Easterbrook is no anti semite. He actually addresses spitituality very intelligently.
Are we to the point where the mere mention of race is racist? Sure looks that way.

KevinV #113,

I don't think that the case is open-and-shut. I understand other's discussions that the fact that this was published at TNR makes it less likely to be an out-and-out example of Jew-hatred and is more likely a slip. However, the idea of holding Jews to a higher standard is a popular Jew-hating method of argumentation. I don't think that it's excusable; in this instance, it's even more likely given the combination with the Jews-control-the-media idea.

oops, sorry for not closing tags - me foreign audience, me dumb.

:P

Rob #114 - No, TNR is center-left. There is Jew-hatred on the right as well, of course - e.g. Pat Buchanan.

Mule #117 - Glad to see you believe that Jews should be held to a higher standad then ordinary human beings. Perhaps we should have affirmative action II - Jews with SATs of 1400 are ok, non-Jews with SATs of 1200 are ok. That'll make everything fair [/sarcasm].

Easterbrook builds up a damning critique of Hollywood.

I wonder what people would think if Easterbrook had written a damning critique of the Bush administration as money worshipping war mongers, then in the last paragraph, singled out Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, particularly drawing on their jewish heritage??

Ariel and Eric: well said there. Now I'm off to watch some Hong Kong movie where people get slaughetered every second. Are there Jewish producers in Hong Kong? No? who are we to blame, dammit? What about Madonna's husband? he's a Tarantino clone and glorifies gangsters, does the moral responsibility of Tarantino's Jewish producers in Hollywood work transitively also for Tarantino imitators in Britain? I think these questions will haunt me all night. Cheers...

This comment is from The Right Coast:

What is going on here? Why is it relevant that the leaders of the Disney and Miramax are Jewish? Perhaps Easterbrook means to say that Jews have a special reason not glorify the killing of innocents. And so they do. But that is not all that Easterbrook is saying here. After all, he could have written: “Eisner and Weinstein are both Jewish and should know from history the dangers of glorifying the killing of innocents.” Instead, he turns his point into a moral condemnation of “Jewish executives.” Sorry, this is bad form. At best, Easterbrook was careless about his writing – one only hopes that this accident was not a Freudian slip. At worst, Easterbrook make antisemitic statements, which are not cured by mentioning that there are “plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives” who do much the same thing. In either event, Easterbrook should explain himself and apologize.

# 121 - Jonny

That, sir, is an excellent point.

Also, to defend the family honor, let me point out that Mrs. KevinV strongly disagrees with me as well:

don't see what being jewish has to do with any of it. it's still evil,its still disturbing, regardless of what remote connection your ancestry has
to the holocaust. it's rather dumb, if you ask me. it's anti semitic to
try to turn it into a jewish issue when clearly its simply about why people
like to see violence in the movies.

Easterbrook's riff is like saying that, due to slavery, black film makers should restrict their output to remakes of What's Happenin' and the African American version of Bambi.

Eisner and his ilk are in charge of profit. That's their job. The talent, ie: writers and film folks, supply the content. Charlie Kaufman and the Coen Brothers are two examples of Jews in this department.

Are they profit motivated? Gratuitously violent?

Easterbrook is a retard.

What about the fact that if Jews are to be treated as equals, that they too are allowed to make violent movies and be greedy like everyone else? Why do they have to have a higher standard to uphold?

The movie sounds ridiculous and too violent for me, so I choose not to see it. I also think it sets a terrible example for teenagers who view it. BUT, it is up to the indivdual and the parents to each come to their own decision whether to see it or not.

It is not just about who makes the movie (Jew or not), but what about the responsibility of the public who will ultimately be the ones who make the movie a sucess or failure?

These are 'regular' people and families who will see this movie, and choose to spend their money on it. Where is their moral esponsibility? Before one expects the entertainment industry to change it's tactics, other things have to change in our society.

How about putting the blame where it lies?

#124 KevinV

Thanks. Putting the Jewish thing aside, I feel that Easteregg is blaming the way terrorists glorify the death of innocents on Hollywood (he says "mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm?").
This to me is the typical left wing self-hating rant - they seem to think that the attacks on the WTC are all Americas fault because they're richer than everyone else.

110 Ariel-

I personally don't know much about the Passion, but for the purposes of the discussion here, let's assume that it repeats the slander that Jews killed Jesus. That slander, over the centuries, has been used to whip up Jew-hatred repeatedly.

Then read it before you make blanket statements. As the Bible presents it is accurate and as Gibson has reputedly presented it- according to Medved, it has been accurately portrayed. Medved believes the movie to be a beautiful piece of art.

The Bible never accused all Jews of Deicide, only some- , some of their leaders. Anyone who has read and understands it knows that it was meant to be- the whole purpose, according to scripture, was for Jesus to die on that cross. It was some of the leaders of the Jewish people at that time who went to Pilot to ask for his removal. Thats the way it was, end of argument.

It is not for the ADL to tell Christians what they can and cannot do with their religion- how Fuc*in dare they to even presume to. Personally, I hope Gibson slaps a a defamation lawsuit on their asses and becomes the second person to nail them with a multi-million dollar judgment.

Robert Brandtjen #129,

Then read it before you make blanket statements.

I specifically said that I hadn't in order to qualify my statement.

The Bible never accused all Jews of Deicide, only some- , some of their leaders.

Wonderful. Meanwhile, that same accusation has been expanded to "Jews did it" many times over history and has led to innumerable pogroms.

Anyone who has read and understands it knows that it was meant to be- the whole purpose, according to scripture, was for Jesus to die on that cross.

While I agree with you, I have no way of knowing how it's portrayed in the movie. And neither do you, I suspect. If it portrays Jesus as needing to die, that's fine. If it instead focuses on Jews out to kill him, it's not.

It is not for the ADL to tell Christians what they can and cannot do with their religion- how Fuc*in dare they to even presume to.

No, it's for Christians to decide when they want to stop killing Jews or ascribing deicide to Jews as a whole, I agree. It's not for the ADL.

(#129) Robert B writes:

The Bible never accused all Jews of Deicide, only some- , some of their leaders.

I suppose that all depends on how one interprets Matthew 27:25:

24: When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

25: Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

26: Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

I can see how that would (and actually has) lead many to blame ALL Jews for the death of Jesus.

And this is without even having to read the Gospel according to John. His favorite word is "Jews."

#128 roach: that's a general principle, but it depends what you're talking about. I disagree here, cos its not a casual statement or a naive remark, the article is all built on a warped argument, and pretty strong in doing that singling out in the last paragraph. Condescending and stupid at best, and offensive and racist at worst. I got to the second paragraph, the one with the movies-terrorist connection, and I was already baffled. I thought it was taking the piss... it's so bad it's embarassing to read.

I don't think it's no big deal, because it echoes pretty nasty stuff. Voluntarily or not, I don't know, but it doesn't matter much in the end. He's preaching about morality and being extra careful for the effects of violent movies on antisemitism, which doesn't even make sense, and then comes up with that crap himself?

So I don't care which paper it is, or which nation it is based in. I think it's very hypocrite to do that distinction, if the effect is clearly offputting.

Even if this article had come out on the Jerusalem Post, I'd still think the same of it.

If on the other hand Charles' or Roger Simon's comments had appeared in The Guardian, I'd still think they're sound.

Guess we just don't see the same thing in it, that's all - and that has nothing to do with where it comes from.

This is what I call..."FIND THE JEW" and then blame it on the Jew. Ive seen this lots of times. Here you have ohhh...Quintin Tarantino..obviously not a Jew (dont think? he is) and the Actors..(Not Jews either or mostly not Jews) . How bout the writers? Jews? Haven't looked yet......Of course all those people, mostly not Jews, aren't to blame for what THEY do...its the nearest JEW you can find to blame this whole thing on. Its JEWS..or if you are a little bit squimish about using that term ..you can plug in the word "HOLLYWOOD" and get the message across.

Another little FIND THE JEW area...RAP MUSIC...It isn't the performers you can blame (plus you can lose your job IF you go after a MINORITY that you are afraid of)...Sometimes its not the Writers of the Rap Song or the Cos that put out the Song that you can blame...the song is also writtin by the other Minority or the CO is owned by the other Minority--A Minority you are afraid of...

SOOOOO then you ...FIND THE JEW..The Distributor? possibly..or just the amorphous "Music Biz"..THERE you go..

Here we go today for another "International" version of FIND THE JEW. Pals kill AMERICANS in Gaza or on the way to or out of Gaza (haven't read it yet) and it ISN'T the Pals fault..Its the JEWS fault.

Its a PATTERN folks. Anything ANYHERE that you dont like or goes wrong, here or Internationally....FIND the JEW and blame it on him....May have to bypass lots of folks..but..........

This is BEDROCK--CLASSIC ANTISEMITISM and I'm getting good and sick and tired of it.

Oh no, not Mel Gibson again, lol...

To respond to Ariel (110):

Try reading what you wrote again. I find it pretty stunning: "By singling out Jews, he opened himself up for criticism. However, this does not rise to anti-semitism..." How about "By singling out blacks, he opened himself up for criticism. However, this does not rise to racism..."?

Let me give you an example: Black people are 50% of the inmates in American prisons, yet only represent 11.7% of the total population. Or another: 70% of all black mothers are unmarried.

Is that a true statement? Is that anti-black? Is it racist? Some would say yes to the last 2, but would call me a racist for pointing out the first. Does that make me a racist? I think not.

The point I was making is that because someone singles out a particular group (something that, honestly, happens all of the time on this blog with Arabs or Islam), doesn't make him an anti-semite or racist inherently. Our society is so damn hyper-sensitive about this.

Incidentally, exactly how does something rise to Jew-hatred if not by singling out Jews for characteristics that everyone shares? There was a Harvard President who said that Jews shouldn't be admitted since Jews cheat. Someone replied to him that others cheat too, and he famously replied that something like "let's stick to the subject, we're talking about Jews". And that's exactly what you're doing here.

No I'm not. The difference between Easterbrook's statement and the Harvard professor is one of lifting a group up versus putting them down. Easterbrook seems to be saying that Jews are at a higher plane than the movies certain Jewish movie moguls have bankrolled and put out. The Harvard professor is putting Jews down. The difference is night and day.

I'll admit, I believe that if he left the "money-grubbing" statement out of the paragraph, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's what changed the tone of the article.

I personally don't know much about the Passion, but for the purposes of the discussion here, let's assume that it repeats the slander that Jews killed Jesus. That slander, over the centuries, has been used to whip up Jew-hatred repeatedly. Meanwhile, the connection between violent movies and actual violence is tenuous and unproven; while the spread of television in and of itself has been correlated with increased violence, there is little scientific evidence that the content of television has produced more violence.

I can't prove it, but I think both instances are equally damaging to society. I believe violent movies seen by the wrong people can cause violence. Just like I believe the slander you mention above causes violence. To me, they're equally repugnant. On the other hand, I like to play violent video games - I haven't killed anyone yet, nor do I plan to. Just like most Christians who see the Passion, will not come out of the theatre with red-eyed Jew hatred. I just don't believe that will happen.

In short, you're arguing that a proven method of incitement to violence is less deserving of flack then a method that is at best debatable and at worst unavoidable (given a market economy).

The above paragraph makes my case on this one. I think both methods of incitement to violence are equally deserving of flack.

JMHO

TV (Harry)

if you still have to preach tiresomely about Hollywood corrupting the poor idiotic masses, then by all means, damn the whole of Hollywood, or single out producers based on the actual work they did rather than what ethnicity or religion they are. Why didn't he do that?

Good stuff.

I agree. I can't speak for Easterbrook, but this is how I react. You see, most of today's movies are garbage - it never crossed my mind to make a connection between that and what ethnic groups the directors and producers belong to.

TV (Harry)

The "charge" of Diocide against Jews is the CORE of ALL Antisemitism. First,, it is NOT true..and maybe its time this issue went to court. Second, keeping quiet..being intimidated into not responding to this biggest of BIG LIES is wrong.

Mel Gibson's Movie does what it is meant to do..ie.. ACCUSE JEWS OF MURDER-The Murder of G-d. or G-ds Son..(if that is what you believe J. is) It IS a Lie. I'M OUTRAGED that he is getting away with this newest little tactic.

HOW DARE WE? object. How day HE and his friends who bankrolled him promote this LIE!!!!!!!!!!!

Inspector Callahan: you sure chose an inconsistent nickname for someone criticising violence in movies ;)

most of today's movies are garbage

Nah! That's just a cliché. Like, "most of today's music is rubbish". People who say that conveniently forget how utterly crap movies (or music) could be in the seventies, not to mention eighties. You always forget the worst of the past, it's a classic. It's how the human mind tricks you. Beware of the deceit of nostalgia ;)

131 SoCalJustice (and Ariel)-

They were all Jews, including Jesus, SCJ. Minus the Romans, of course. So of course John would refer to them as "Jews" or whatever they were calling themselves at that time- this was the period of the rise of Rabbinacal Judaism, was it not?

As per what the Bible says about who wanted him gone. It clearly states it was some "Jewish Leaders"- not "all Jews". Medved is Jewish and has no reason to lie about what he saw- others have seen it and confirmed what he saw as well.

And, so in order to please some Jews, the Christian Bible should be re-written to accuse exactly who of having him apprehended and brought before Herod and Pilot? Should we change it to read that certain Goths did it? Should we change it to read the "some Chinese" did it?

How about your ancient Talmudic scriptures and the references to the "illegitmate son of a Jewish whore" ? They certainly pointed to an awful lot of rabid animosity on the part of Jews toward Christians, now didn't they?
This is a derogatory version of the life of Jesus, growing out of the response of the Jewish community to Christianity. The tradition presented here is most commonly dated to approximately the 6th century CE. The text it self is closer to the 14th c. There is no scholarly consensus on to what extent the text might be a direct parody of a now lost gospel. H.J. Schonfield argued that it was so closely connected to the Gospel of the Hebrews that he attempted to reconstruct that lost work from the Toledoth.

Or from the 2nc century "CE"-

This is your carpenter's son, your harlot's son;[1] your Sabbath-breaker, your Samaritan[2], your demon-possessed! This is he whom you bought from Judas. This is he who was struck with reeds and fists, dishonored with spittle, and given a draught of gall and vinegar! This is he whom his disciples have stolen secretly, that it may be said, 'He has risen', or the gardener abstracted that his lettuces might not be damaged by the crowds of visitors![3]

RobertBrandtjen

How about your ancient Talmudic scriptures and the references to the "illegitmate son of a Jewish whore" ? They certainly pointed to an awful lot of rabid animosity on the part of Jews toward Christians, now didn't they?

why dont you find what Martin Luther wrote about Catholics, or what St Augustine wrote about Jews.

arent we WAY past that sort of hate speech?

Its unfortunate that some people seem to need to go back to this hatred, and see this hatred as the 'true faith'.

the BIBLE says nothing about Jewsus or Jewish leaders...

you must be thinking of the Gospels.....not the Bible

(#139) Robert Brandtjen:

you write:

And, so in order to please some Jews, the Christian Bible should be re-written to accuse exactly who of having him apprehended and brought before Herod and Pilot? Should we change it to read that certain Goths did it? Should we change it to read the "some Chinese" did it?

I'm not saying anything should be rewritten.

BTW, the fact that Jesus was Jewish has hardly stopped anti-Semitism, whether New Testament driven or otherwise.

I'm not particularly worried about widespread anti-Gothism or anti-Chinesism, because I'm not aware of multiple attempted and/or successful genocides against them for any reason, let along based on any holy book.

I am aware of the fact that my paternal granparents' (grandfather was one of eight kids, grandmother was one of five) entire families were murdered because they didn't emigrate to the U.S. back when it was a possibility.

And no, I'm not blaming Nazism on Christianity. Not at all. But anti-Semitism in all its forms, whether Tzarist, Nazi, Euro-Christian or otherwise is responsible for countless atrocities against Jewish people.

Irrespective of what Michael Medved thinks, many Jewish people will always worry about anything that carries with it the spectre of the rise of anti-Semitism. That's what happens when a certain community gets beaten over the head enough times.

BTW, I'm not against the release of Gibson's movie. However, I'm wary of some of his sources, and I'm wary of the history of Passion plays in general. To not be so would be to ignore 2,000 years of history, which I choose not to do.

and Robert honey, if you think your G-d can be killed

or your G_d assumes attributes of the physical world, why cant G-d be a cow?

BTW, I didn't mean to jump into the Gibson discussion.

I kind of feel the same way zaza (#134) feels.

But I just wanted to add some input to the suggestion that the New Testament doesn't blame ALL the Jews for the death of Jesus.

That is highly debatable, IMO. And aside from that, it's been used as a justification by some Christians and some non-Christians to persecute Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever.

So an academic debate on biblical interpretation is all well and good, but it won't (borrowing on a theme in the Gospels), bring back anyone who was killed.

#140 ploome-

why dont you find what Martin Luther wrote about Catholics, or what St Augustine wrote about Jews.

I read them in a poly-sci class entitled "History of Political thought in the Western World" would have been back during the 1980-81 school year.

Its unfortunate that some people seem to need to go back to this hatred, and see this hatred as the 'true faith'.

What hate speech is that? The Christian Bible (which contains the Gospels)?

you must be thinking of the Gospels.....not the Bible

Umm- the Christian Bible contains the Gospels as well as the old testament.

and Robert honey, if you think your G-d can be killed
or your G_d assumes attributes of the physical world, why cant G-d be a cow?

You don't really want to go there do you? Do you?

#141 SoCalJustice-

BTW, I'm not against the release of Gibson's movie. However, I'm wary of some of his sources, and I'm wary of the history of Passion plays in general. To not be so would be to ignore 2,000 years of history, which I choose not to do.

"The Passion" is read, along with plays in some Churches, every Easter Month in every Christian church the world over every year. It has been thus for 2,000 years. I am unaware of any Christian in America being incited to Jewicide over it.

I have noticed, over the years, that the ADL has never attacked anyone for making anyone of the numerous movies which directly attack Christians, nor have they impuned "artists" who have depicted disgusting displays of bigotry concerning Christ.

Attacking "The Passion" (not the movie) is a direct attack upon the Christian Faith itself. If Jewish people in general fear it, then why do they promote the migration of Catholics to America? The American Catholic Church is the fastest growing religion in America- far and away outstripping anything else.

Another Jewish stereotype:

If you can stand it, check out "Countdown to an Assassination" by Uri Avnery on Counterpunch today. His piece should bury, once and for all, the stereotype of the smart Jew. And for that, I suppose, we should be grateful

(#145) Robert Brandtjen:

The Passion" is read, along with plays in some Churches, every Easter Month in every Christian church the world over every year. It has been thus for 2,000 years. I am unaware of any Christian in America being incited to Jewicide over it.

I'm not really worried about American Christians - while there are definitely some Americans who blame "the Jews" for killing Jesus, it is not nearly the problem that it's been in Europe. And, unfortunately, this movie will not only be shown in America.

I am worried about Polish Christians, Russian Christians, Austrian Christians, Romanian Christians, Bulgarian Christians, Argentinian Christians, German Christians, etc...

I have noticed, over the years, that the ADL has never attacked anyone for making anyone of the numerous movies which directly attack Christians, nor have they impuned "artists" who have depicted disgusting displays of bigotry concerning Christ.

That is a failing of theirs, no doubt. And I have not followed their particular criticisms of the Gibson movie all that closely, but they do not represent all Jews or anyone else who might be worried about the potential ramifications of something that might (I stress might) lead to anti-Semitic incidents.

Attacking "The Passion" (not the movie) is a direct attack upon the Christian Faith itself.

I'm not sure I'm the best person to speak about this, but I don't see it that way. Haven't there been Catholic strictures (namely Vatican II) that changed supposedly how Passion plays were interpreted or represented? And from what I understand, there were many European versions of Passion plays - going back some time - that went out of their way to demonize Jews.

And isn't Gibson of a variety of Catholicism that outright rejects Vatican II?

That makes some people worry. Legitimately, IMO, and in a way that is not at all an attack on Christianity.

RobertBrandtjen.......after Paul, the purpose of the 'church' was to replace Jews and Judiasm, as the people of G-d and the Covenant of Moses.......of course these 'new preachers' did and said anything they could to demonize Jews and Judiasm.

What hate speech is that? The Christian Bible (which contains the Gospels)?

you quoted from the Talmud....why dont you quote from the Church Fathers?

[Link: en2.wikipedia.org...]

The Homilies against the Judaizers
Chrysostom wrote of the Jews and of Judaizers in eight homilies Adversus Judaeos (against the Judaizers) [1].

"The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts.

There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts.

I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now." (Homily I, I, 5)

"Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? the whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things.

But do their festivals have something solemn and great about them? They have shown that these, too, are impure." (Homily I, VII, 1)

"But before I draw up my battle line against the Jews, I will be glad to talk to those who are members of our own body, those who seem to belong to our ranks although they observe the Jewish rites and make every effort to defend them. Because they do this, as I see it, they deserve a stronger condemnation than any Jew." (HOMILY IV, II, 4)

"Are you Jews still disputing the question? Do you not see that you are condemned by the testimony of what Christ and the prophets predicted and which the facts have proved?

But why should this surprise me? That is the kind of people you are. From the beginning you have been shameless and obstinate, ready to fight at all times against obvious facts." (HOMILY V, XII, 1)

Many researchers believe that the purpose of these attacks was to prevent Christians from joining with Jewish customs, and thus prevent the erosion of Chrysostom's flock.

Umm- the Christian Bible contains the Gospels as well as the old testament.

ummmm

the Jewish Bible.....the ONLY Bible, and the Gospels

be accurate

You don't really want to go there do you? Do you?

is this a threat? LOL...I dont really care, actually. Doesnt threaten me. One billion Hindus believe cows are holy....you are going to tell them they arent?

..........Like I said before......we are WAY past this, there is no quarrel between Synagogue and Church.
Jews are sons of the covenant at Sinai.....Gentiles are sons of the covenant with Jesus.

we have different and expanded understanding...dont bring up the hate of the past.

Ploome, sometimes I think you are the only Christian who understands something which is so simple and obvious... I just don't get why others don't get it.

143 SoCalJustice-

But I just wanted to add some input to the suggestion that the New Testament doesn't blame ALL the Jews for the death of Jesus.

Frankly, I have never known a Christian who cared who was responsible- it is made clear that he was to die for man's sins. Below is a good link- I now nothing of the site, other then that this article is something that would agree with what I was taught. Take the time to read it.
There was also Jewish culpability in the events leading up to Jesus' death. Unfortunately, the emphasis is usually placed on the Jewish people as a whole, rather than on the small number of Jews who were actually involved. The Passion Week events seem to focus on a few Jewish people carrying out the events, led by some-but not all-of the leaders of Israel. The phrase the Jews used in the Gospel accounts is not a condemnation of the entire nation but, contextually, of a small group of Jewish people.

Rather then argue the Christian Bible itself is bad, you should argue that there are those who choose to misunderstand it, or use it to their own ends.

RObertBrandtjen

tell me, how many ROmans have been humiliated and excoriated by the Church as Christ killers?

(#150) Robert Brandtjen:

Frankly, I have never known a Christian who cared who was responsible- it is made clear that he was to die for man's sins.

Count yourself lucky. Do you really think there are no people who call themselves "Christian" but also care - and I mean care a lot - who killed Jesus?

I wish you could know what it's like to be Jewish for just one day.

Rather then argue the Christian Bible itself is bad, you should argue that there are those who choose to misunderstand it, or use it to their own ends.

I'm not arguing that the Christian Bible is itself bad. I'm arguing that it has been, is being, and will be used to persecute Jews in the future. The fact that the majority of Christians won't be doing the persecuting doesn't change that fact, or minimize the effects.

My wife just cancelled her subscription. More than Easterbrook, I fault the self-hating Jews that allowed this to be published. Hey. At least Easterbrook didn't mask his garbage with the usual liberal-bigot cloak of "neoconservative" and "Zionist".

#148 ploome -

the Jewish Bible.....the ONLY Bible, and the Gospels

Well ploome, I have seven Bibles here, the oldest dating back to 1892. They are all Christian Bibles- If you want to denigrate them as such, I and 1 billion other Catholics could care less- they are Catholic Bibles.

There are no Homilies in the Catholic Bible, if yours has them, then I suggest you speak to whomever is responsible for it.

we have different and expanded understanding...dont bring up the hate of the past.

The only hate I see is for Mel Gibson and that which is known as "The Passion".

My 12 year old daughter's response to "do you think Jews were Christ's killers"? "no, some of them were, but mostly Romans"

Boy, that sure sounded hate filled, didn't it?
Any vitriolics, ploome?

152 SoCalJustice-

I wish you could know what it's like to be Jewish for just one day.

I was mistaken for being Jewish the whole time I was growing up- as is my son now. Don't know why. I was called "hebe" by some illiterate moron types- these were not kids educated in Christianity. They were children who most likely never entered the Church except on holidays.

I understand your fear, I do. But lashing out is not the way to deal with it. Frankly, there is at times waay too much lashing out at Christians here for various reasons. The whole point of the Christian fatih is the Passion- it is what He came here to do- without it, it's meaningless.

It won't do Jews any good to attack the only people who care what happens to them outside of themselves- this isn't the Middle Ages.

If you want to know how Christians (the main body) think on it, read the link I posted

Here's another:

It is only in the gospel of Matthew, that we find Pilate washing his hands and claiming innocence in Jesus' death. Pilate can try to claim such innocence. But the fact is, it was ultimately his authority and his judgment--no one else's--which sent Jesus to a Roman death.

I don't remember ever being taught anything else but what this preacher is preaching.

(#150) Robert Brandtjen:

Robert, I know we've had similar conversations in the past - and I just want to make it clear that I do not have a problem with Christianity or Christians at all (at least I don't think I do) - it's not something I even think about unless the topic is broached.

I just don't think looking at the historical connection between the Gospels and anti-Semitism, and even modern ramifications of such, is an attack on Christianity. Maybe that's because I'm not Christian, although I hope that's not the case.

(#155) Robert Brandtjen:

But lashing out is not the way to deal with it.

Do you think any of my posts on this thread qualify as "lashing out"? Or are you talking about the ADL's response to Gibson's movie? Both?

I don't remember ever being taught anything else but what this preacher is preaching.

Then you have had great teachers and preachers. Would that everyone had the same guidance.

SCJ-

One last point-

Roman Catholics, at least here in America, are circumcised. When I asked my mother why this was so, her response was something along the lines of it being an "enherited Jewish tradition" that we continue to follow because Jesus was a Jew.

We all know He was a Jew-

ploome (142)

and Robert honey, if you think your G-d can be killed...

Has anyone on this site ridiculed Judaism (other than trolls)? Why are you ridiculing Christianity?

SoCal Justice (131),

And this is without even having to read the Gospel according to John. His favorite word is "Jews."

John WAS a Jew. Didn't you know that?

156 SoCalJustice-

I just don't think looking at the historical connection between the Gospels and anti-Semitism, and even modern ramifications of such, is an attack on Christianity.

No - I don't think discussing it is anti-Christian. Nor do I think you are.

Do you think any of my posts on this thread qualify as "lashing out"? Or are you talking about the ADL's response to Gibson's movie? Both?

I don't think you are, per se. I do think the ADL is, however. Especially since there will be another "Passion" movie coming out that depicts Jews in extremly unflaterring ways. The ADL says nothing about this movie, but then it's producers are Jewish- according to Medved.

As I posted above, there are posters here who regularly impune Christians- and there are many Jews who do so as well in the media at large. This is not helping anyone in the least bit. It just makes most Christians roll their eyes and smirk- not a response you or anyone else wants. The more they are critisized, the more they will simply tune it out. The tuning out is in effect turning a deaf ear, as it were and runs the risk that it will tune out anything to do with Jews, over time.

Then you have had great teachers and preachers.

I cannot speak for anywhere else but here were I live. I have been in nearly every denomination's Churches and never heard anything but. As I have said in the past- maybe what we had here was nearly idyllic, but it is the way it was. We all just got along- knowing full well there things we would never agree on. If we had agreed on them, one or the other faith would not exist.

For my own part- I seek knowlege. I want to know what Jews know and believe and why- they carry the roots of that which I was raised to believe in.

(#159) Marianne:

Yes I did. So what? That has no bearing whatsoever on how frequently his words have been used to persecute Jews.

More importantly, the fact that Jesus was Jewish hasn't exactly been a mitigating factor in the persecution of Jews over the last 2000 years.

Ploome..Like I ALWAYS say..more things change..more they remain the same.

And NO..Ploome no one organized and carried out pograms for the Romans or their ancestors involved in the "incident" . Gee I guess its the same old.."Find the Jew" to blame it on.

THE ROAD...to Antisemetism STARTS at the Charge of DIOCIDE. The Passion Play is ALWAYS a Charge of Murder against Jews. How DARE Gibson charge ME..and mine with murder? WONT have it.

AND if the road to support for Israel from others requires me and mine to admit to THAT LIE or shut up about the lie...Thats too high a price and Im not paying that price.

(What will we do with such an UPPITY Jew?)

151 ploome -

Dude- they fed "us" to lions for sport- how many Catholics do you think find them favorable? Why do you think the Northern Europeans hated the Italian Popes so much? The Chrsitian Bible has plenty of stories about Roman persecution of Christians. Go rent the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Told"- Catholic kids grew up with it. It makes Roman presecution very clear- hell, they hung Peter from a cross upside down.

Try reading those links.

162 Leah -

You have your contients mixed up- this is America, not Eastern Europe.

(#160) Robert Brandtjen:

I don't think you are, per se. I do think the ADL is, however. Especially since there will be another "Passion" movie coming out that depicts Jews in extremly unflaterring ways. The ADL says nothing about this movie, but then it's producers are Jewish- according to Medved.

Is there a link to that Medved article? I'd be interested to know why there's a double standard.

Unfortunately for Gibson, he is a bit of a lightening rod because of his father and because of certain things he's said.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing the movie. I want to see what all the fuss is about. I would really like to see it as Gibson intended (this going by media reports) before they removed the scenes based on Anne Emmerich's visions and without subtitles.

I cannot speak for anywhere else but here were I live. I have been in nearly every denomination's Churches and never heard anything but.

As I've said before, I don't think American Christianity has been the problem. Relative treatment of Jews is one of the things that sets the U.S. apart from much of the world.

And I agree with you that Christian bashing, by Jews or anyone else, is not the least bit helpful.

I live in D.C. and I go to High Holy Day services at Georgetown University - and at every service one of the Jesuit priests participates in some manner - often by reconfirming Georgetown's commitment to interfaith dialogue. There have been a few anti-Semitic incidents on campus, but the University itself, especially its Ministry, is absolutely amazing.

SoCalJustice,

Oh, so this --

And this is without even having to read the Gospel according to John. His favorite word is "Jews."

-- was a reference to the way the Gospel of John has been misused by others? I thought it was a reference to the Gospel of John.

Whatever you say...

#162 Leah -

The Passion Play is ALWAYS a Charge of Murder against Jews.

Really? And exactly how many have you seen? I'm 44, I have seen 44 of them. I have attended Passion Week masses all of my life. Never hear that one. Have you ever heard the "Apostle's Creed"? it dates back to the Second Century, it goes like this:

The Symbolum Apostolorum was developed between the second and ninth centuries. It is the most popular creed used in worship by Western Christians. Its central doctrines are those of the Trinity and God the Creator.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

Tell me, where is the word Jew in that? This prayer is spoken in every mass in every Chrisitan Church. All I see is "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried"

I know JUST where I am and what Im hearing from YOU Robert. Antisememtism always has spread everywhere because of the charge of Diocide.

I will NOT allow this lie to go unchallanged...You aint seen nothin yet when you try to get this LIE past me.

Blood of Jews is being spilled right this second in Israel helped along by people who believe that lie that have joined in with the Pals. (Incidently the Arab World has been oh too happy to remind Christians of that lie)

I **never allow others to define Antisememtism for me..certainly NOT the ones that perpetrate it.

This BIG LIE..it is Mother of Hate Speech.

(#166) Marianne:

No, it was a reference to the fact that he uses the term "the Jews" where others often wrote "the Pharisees." And, it was a reference to how the book is written, or rather, how it is translated into English.

I have no idea how it was written in its original form, or when it was actually written, or if it was written by the person many people say it was, or not.

That gospel is attributed to John, and he may have written it, or he may not have - I don't know.

However, his religion/ethnicity has no bearing on how the book has been interpreted by some as a reason to persecute Jews. And, even if he wrote it, the fact that he was Jewish does not mean he would have been all too upset if other Jews who decided not to follow his particular Messiah were persecuted. Maybe he would be, maybe he wouldn't be. In light of history, it doesn't really matter.

But thanks anyway.

147 SoCalJustice-

I'm not sure I'm the best person to speak about this, but I don't see it that way. Haven't there been Catholic strictures (namely Vatican II) that changed supposedly how Passion plays were interpreted or represented? And from what I understand, there were many European versions of Passion plays - going back some time - that went out of their way to demonize Jews.

Well, my understanding was that they wanted it put forth in it's proper mode- not politicized. I cannot not address what Europeans did, nor would I ever accept responsibilty for something that I personally did not do and was an ocean away.

That being said, it is fundemental to the Christian Faith. It is the whole reason for His having come and gone. I know there is no such thing as "original sin" (and frankly, I don't give it much either- why would a loving G-D hold children responsible for what Adam and Eve did) in the Jewish Faith, however, His purpose here was to take "on the sins of the world" and cleanse the souls of man. He could not do that without dying. At the last supper he had with His apostles, he foretold of the events to come- he told Judas that he would sell him out for gold and Peter would deny him 3 times. Jesus told all of them what would happen. He knew it was coming- it was preordained.

Without the Birth and the Death, there is no Christian Faith. They are one and the same.

In the 11th century, a theory emerged that shifted the common understanding of the Cross. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, proposed that our sins constituted a debt to God that could not be simply erased without unbalancing justice. The debt was too immense for any human to pay, and only Jesus’ death could be an adequate sacrifice. Protestant Reformers retained the same theory substantially intact, but during the Enlightenment some theologian proposed instead that Jesus’ suffering is meant to unite us in grateful love toward the Father, rather than pay a debt.

In both cases, Jesus as the God-Man takes on the sin of the world, bears its crushing weight, and accomplishes divine reconciliation. The movement in this drama is from earth to heaven, and the Cross means “suffering.”

This is a very good link- and represents the main. Remember, Protestants are not subject to Vatican II. Vatican II in iteslf did not cause a fundemental change in the "Passion"- it was more of a unifying act forcing a consistent viewpoint.
The study of the four passion accounts in this book has taken a more literary and theological approach to the gospel texts. We have probed these passion stories not so much for what they can tell us about the precise historical circumstances of Jesus' passion but what the meaning of the suffering and death of Jesus might be in the light of Christian faith. The section on the history and archaeology of the passion obviously moves in a more historical fashion, while the segment on devotion to the passion gives some leads on the way different periods of Christianity have reflected on the death of Jesus.

#168 Leah -

Blow it out your ass.

Robert Brandtjen

As a Christian do you believe that all the Jews except for 144,000 must die before the return of Christ. This seems to be the belief of fundamental Christians.

Marianne.......regarding your response to.

"and Robert honey, if you think your G-d can be killed..."

Has anyone on this site ridiculed Judaism (other than trolls)? Why are you ridiculing Christianity?

I am NOT rediculing Christianity

thousands of volumes have been written on the atributes of G-d

and eternal and incorporeal are essental atributes of the transcendant G-d of the Bible.

165 SoCalJustice -

I cannot find a textual version of that- I over heard him one day while listening to his show on the radio. Below are excerpts from an online interview he did as well as the USA Today article.
Washington, D.C.: Well how does the film portray the Jews? Specifics, please?

Michael Medved: For specifics, read the Gospels (particularly John and Matthew). The term "the Jews" is never used in the film since nearly all its characters are, of course, Judean (with a few brutal Romans in the mix as colonial oppressors). It's very important, as I made clear on my radio show (aired daily on DC Radio 700 (AM), from three to six pm) that he avoided identifying the Temple authorities with contemporary Jewish symbols -- prayer shawls, skullcaps, side curls, etc. -- as did previous cinematic treatments of Jesus (like the genuinely anti-Semitic work of D.W. Griffith, for instance, in "Intolerance.")

...Washington, D.C.: Um, you sound really dimissive of the ADL (a snarky comment about not having government control "yet") and really chummy with "Mel". I think you should admit that you are not perhaps an objective resource for concerned citizens of all faiths who are worried about the implications of this kind of film. Please be aware that Mel Gibson funds a church that decries the ruling of the Pope Council that cleared the Jews of Christ-killing. Anyone who bankrolls a church like that needs to be looked at carefully on issues like that. And sadly, you sound like you are more interested in being pals with a movie mogul than in being a concerned man of faith. (Self-hating Jew?)

Michael Medved: I served fifteen years as a synagogue president, and I'm on the board of a half dozen national Jewish organizations. I've addressed the ADL frequently -- once as a keynote speaker for their national convention. When it comes to charges that I'm a "self-hating Jew," I don't think they will stick. (By the way, both my father and my brother made Aliya more than a decade ago and live their lives as patriotic Israelis). I admire Gibson (okay, Mel) for his work and his courage. In his recent film choices (The Patriot, We Were Soldiers, Signs) he has taken risks on behalf of some of the conservative and patriotic values that I've endorsed for years as a film critic and public figure.

Michael Medved: Of all aspects of this controversy, the most despicable is the attempt to smear Mel Gibson by reference to his 84-year-old father, Hutton Gibson. My father lives in Jerusalem and maintains ties with the extreme right wing in Israel. I still love and admire him -- he's my dad, and one of my personal heroes. I profoundly disagree with some of his political ideas. Should I be tarred with my father's sentiments just because I still love and admire my parent? Mel Gibson has given not the slightest indication at any time in a long, productive career, of anti-Semitic sentiments of any kind.

In fact, the plea that Gibson's movie should place exclusive blame for the Crucifixion on Roman authorities contradicts not only mainstream Christian teaching, but also elements of Jewish tradition. In a courageous piece in the national Jewish weekly The Forward, Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer points to Jewish sources more than 1,000 years old that "teach that Jesus died at least partly thanks to decisions taken by his fellow Jews."

Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are "Christ killers." But the fact that persecutors and bigots have distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel purposes doesn't mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work of cinema.

I would think that this is the issue -- not whether John used "Jew" or "Pharisee" and how many times:

The Gospel of John "... engages the reader with a subtle pressure to adopt the viewpoint of the evangelist about who Jesus is, forcing the reader to see the decision for or against Jesus Christ as an either/or which ultimately determines one's eternal destiny. As the characters in the narrative choose to follow Jesus Christ and thus choose eternal life (like the Samaritan woman and the royal official from Capernaum in chapter 4 and the man born blind in Chapter 9), or reject him and choose eternal darkness (like the obtuse paralytic in Chapter 5 or the Pharisees at the end of Chapter 9) so the reader of the Gospel is also drawn to make this incalculable choice."

In other words, written by another theologian: "Each book of the Bible has a prominent and dominant theme which is peculiar to itself. Just as each member in the human body has its own particular function, so every book in the Bible has its own special purpose and mission. The theme of John’s Gospel is the Deity of the Savior. Here, as nowhere else in Scripture so fully, the Godhood of Christ is presented to our view. That which is outstanding in this fourth Gospel is the Divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus."

Isn't that the heart of the matter?

SoCalJustice wrote,

I just don't think looking at the historical connection between the Gospels and anti-Semitism, and even modern ramifications of such, is an attack on Christianity.

Sometime it is an attack on Christianity, and sometimes it's not. Depends on how it's done. Depends on the tone, the wording, the intent, the ... well, you know what I mean.

#172 Rob -

As a Christian do you believe that all the Jews except for 144,000 must die before the return of Christ. This seems to be the belief of fundamental Christians.

My lord your ignorant. I've never heard of such a thing. As a Jew, do you believe Jesus was the bastard son of a whore? This seems to be the belief of some Orthodox Jews.

who cares what fringe fundies with no power believe....

and so much of the historical rhetoric was just aggressive posturing, going back and forth.

we are WAY past that.

and going back there is destructive.

176 Robert Brandtjen

I'm ignorant? These are the beliefs of some of your fellow Christians. You know the born again fundamentalists. Surely you've heard how 144,000 Jews will be saved by conversion to Christianity and the rest will die. Reminds me of the view that G-d doesn't hear the prays of Jews and that Jews can't get into Heaven since they don't believe in Jesus. Perhaps you're the ignorant one.

177 ploome

powerless like George W. Bush who wouldn't answer whether he believed Jews can't get into heaven since they don't believe in Jesus?

Powerless like those idiots Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertsons who do say that G-d doesn't hear the prayers of Jews.

Seems to me that Jews have much to be concerned with our so called friends.

This seems to be the belief of some Orthodox Jews

Actually Robert, its worse than that... they and some of us non orthodox don't believe he ever existed. A fairy tale character refashioned from greek and roman mythology.

SCJ-

As per Vatican II and Gibson's rejection of it. The central focus of Vatican II was not how Catholics should or should not view Jews and Judaism. It had to do with modernizing the Catholic Church. It was done at the behest of American and European Catholics who wanted a more lenient lifestyle akin to their Anglican fellows. This even involved re-writing (on-going) the Bible to make it more politically correct. As well as dropping the Latin Mass and a host of other requirements.

Most of the Catholic world outside the West rejects Vatican II if not out-loud, then on principle. I do- I do not like the re-wording of the old Testament and New- I did like hearing mass sung in Latin and I do wonder at many of the changes in requirements vis-a-vis moral codes. That disagreement does not make one an anti-semetic. As I said, the view towards Jews was a very small part of Vatican II. It is more like the shism between Orthodox and Conservative Jews and Reform Jews. Each is more liberal then the other.

A former Southern Baptist Church president and founding father of the Christian Coalition (no small fringe group), The Rev. Bailey Smith, said, at the 1987 Southern Baptist Convention general meeting, "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew." He was given a standing ovation. In 1994-JUN-24, during a talk before 15,000 people at a Religious Roundtable meeting in Dallas TX, he said: "With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

The Old Testament. Now there's another topic. The Old Testament is the Christian version of the Torah. Why don't Christians use the text of the Torah instead of the Old Testament? The Old Testament is not an exact translation of the Torah. Many words were changed in the Old Testament from the Torah. Perhaps the Torah doesn't back up the New Testament the way the Old Testament does.

180 Teacake-

I know that Teacake- it means nothing to me. I could care less what people believe or don't believe in.

As far as his non-existence though, thats pure falacy. Check the Medved links up above.

In a courageous piece in the national Jewish weekly The Forward, Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer points to Jewish sources more than 1,000 years old that "teach that Jesus died at least partly thanks to decisions taken by his fellow Jews."

It would appear that your own "Jewish sources" say otherwise. As do Roman documents.

Go up and see some links I posted to ancient Talmudic scriptures. It's fun reading, if nothing else. I have been studying, of late, the sea change with in Judah at the time of Jesus' life. It seems there was a major battle going on with-in, the winners were Rabbinacal (sp) Jews, and not the other Jewish sects. This was something I was unaware of until recently. The texts of the Talmud date from that time- they are really not much older then the Gospels. Rather I should say, they were re-written at that time and much personal spin was placed upon their various meanings by those who were doing the interpreting.

#178 Rob -

No rob, I have never heard that- I'm Catholic, not a "fundementalist". I think you and some others around here should lay off the pot- makes you paranoid, ya know.

#183 Rob-

The Christian version of the Torah was taken from the Greek translation from Hebrew- which, as I stated above, was liberally translated by Jews, not Christians, it was done before Jesus time, not after it. It is, as far as my research goes, faithful to that Greek translation. I don't know- as I speak no Greek nor do I understand Hebrew- do you speak Hebrew rob?

if you do, maybe you could write a PHD thesis on the matter and tell the world how well it was translated.

Paranoid of Christians? What would ever give us reason to think that Christan's have nothing but the best intentions when it comes to Jews?

Jerry Fawell has stated

Millions of Jews will be slaughtered at this time but a remnant will escape and God will supernaturally hide them for Himself for the last three and a half years of the Tribulation, some feel in the rose-red city of Petra. I don't know how, but God will keep them because the Jews and the Chosen People of God." (December 2, 1984 sermon)

For Falwell, the Jews -- while they are very nice people that Christians support -- are the martyrs and the cannon fodder of Armageddon, enacting war, suffrage, and destruction only to have their remaining few souls converted to Christianity. Jerry Fawell also claims the Anti-Christ is a Jew.

Pat Robertson is another who has no use for Jews except either to get them converted or else slaughtered in the final cataclysm. Go read "The End of the Age" Pat Robertsons vision of the apocalypse. According to Pat, "The Jews will cry out to the one they have so long rejected, and He will come in heavenly power to give them deliverance.

The evangelicals like Fawell and Robertson and their followers belive Christians will be raptured to heaven before all the fighting between Jews and Muslims starts. Everyone left will face mass death and destruction. They are definitive and absolute about the future, and their theology does entail the destruction of millions of Jews in the battle of Armageddon

These same evangelicals are the powerbase behind the Republican party and the Bush administration.

#187 Rob-

No where in Revelations does it say that. And every Christian (to my knowlege) is warned against reading it- it is far to vague to make a clear interpretation of it. It was not meant for mere mortals to consume, unlike other Gospels.

Reading Revelations is like reading a good, scary story- sends shivers up your spine.

#186 Robert Brandtjen

Here is an example of the difference between the Christian Old Testament and the Original Torah passage.

Isaiah 7:14

Torah: Therefore the L-rd Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

KJV Translation from Greek New Testament
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,”(1) which being interpreted is, “God with us.” (1) Isaiah 7:14

King James Version Translation
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.(2) 2) Matthew 1:23

A review of the three translations reveals significant differences between the Jewish translation and both KJV renditions

#178 Rob-

I'm ignorant? These are the beliefs of some of your fellow Christians.

Christians are not a monolithic bloc- in fact, one of the central tenets of Western Christendom has always been individual responsibilty as well as individualism. We are not, unlike the early Christians and, dare I say it? Jews, a people who are prone to collectivism- just the opposite. When was the last time you heard a Chrisitian asking for money to help poor white trash? You never have, have you?

Nope, we Chrisitians are the least tolerant with "our own" then with "outsiders". We raise money to help people all over the world- just they are not "westerners".

We also number some 1.5 billion and growing- faster then Islam, yes indeed. "The Final Battle" will not come down to Jews and Muslims or Jews and Christians, it will come down to Christians versus Muslims. Billions and Billions.

Then again, it could also come down to Buddahists versus Hindus. Depends on who succumbs first to the initial onslaught- which has only just begun.

:-)

188 Robert Brandtjen

Do you believe in the Rapture? Do you believe only those who believe in Jesus will come back to earth? Wht will happen to all the disbelievers like the Jews?

Rob, please try to keep your insults straight. We Catholics have been vilified as idolators (because of the saints and the statues, I believe) and Papists, not as End Timers. Puh-leez!

189 Rob-

I think the KJV is pretty close to the Greek translation- the Greek was done by Jewish Scholars. Personally, I wish I could read Hebrew so I could read it myself. Life is short, I don't know that I have time to learn Hebrew- especially if I hang out here.

It would be really nice if the Jews would make an English translation, then we could all read it ourselves and decide for ourselves.

Looky looky what happens if you DARE to say..."THAT ISNT TRUE." Push that button and guess what comes out...This is just how it always starts HERE as well as in Europe. This is the reason I have NO relatives living in the Ukraine..They are dust inside a )(*+) DITCH. Good Object Lesson Robert. Thanks but all too easy--UNFORTUNATELY.

More things change............

-----

A...all you emails from both addresses coming back..ck whats wrong.

Answer at VV?

Re: an English translation of the Torah, I received as a gift, this publication which is written in Hebrew and English:

The Torah
A Modern Commentary
Edited by W. Gunther Plaut
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
New York - 1981

Yeah right Leah, "it always starts" with one Catholic wishing he could read the Torah in English to learn more, and another Catholic providing him with a referral.

#191 Rob-

No rob, I was only making light of it up above. Though I do not believe the world is headed toward a magical place of muli-cultural nirvanna. I believe that those who think it is and can are deluded "end timers" who may or may not want to admit that they are trying to make prophesy come true. There are many, Jewish and Christians who want to make it happen and are working toward that end.

I think they are misguided and are not accurately judging human nature. Only the West thinks that it can shove people together willy nilly with a good outcome- notice the harsh no immigration policies of India, China, Japan, South Korea, the Middle East, etc. They have no desire for outsiders and have no fondness for them at all.

The West will be over run and will lash out, or it will succumb- those are the only two alternatives. If the West succumbs, the world will become Chinese over time. If the West survives, then the final battle will come between East and West (for never the twain shall meet) and it may just look like armegeddon, but I doubt "we" will see the "Messiah" arriving at that point.

How soon? In my children's lifetime, if not my own. Things are moving very fast now. For 2,000 years the Far East was not a factor in the West. The Near East was and the West survived- this time, however, it is all of the East versus the West. Can't trust the Chinese. If I was Russia, I would be very wary- all they have to do is start walking. And here we sit, a devided polyglot.

195 Marianne-

Thanks, Marianne. I'll get it for Christmas.

:-)

It looks like Christmas has come early for you Robert.

English Translation of Hebrew Bible (Torah)

What's kinda funny about people like Leah is that without us terrible American Christians, there would be no Jews left in the world. American Christians built this country, never harrassed the Jews here as others did in Africa and Europe. And the decendants of those American Christians went off and fought WW2 and kicked Hitler's ass, regretably, many Jews were lost while waiting for an end to the war, but none the less, none would have survived without us- we financed Russia's war effort as well.

Don't even launch into the tired old myth of the 1926 anti-immigration bill- one ship hardly amounts to the whole 6 million killed. Most were eastern european and knew nothing about Hitler's plans until they were being rounded up to be killed. They wouldn't have thought to emigrate prior to 1938 and after that, it was too late. The rest of Europe (and America) should have had a refugee policy and taken the German Jews in as refugees once he made his initial intentions clear. Once Germany took Poland, there was nothing anyone could do but fight Germany.

After WW2, it was Americans who befriended Israel and the Jewish people in general- America was 90% Christian in 1965. Since that time, the mostly Christian taxpayers have helped fund Israel and essentially bank rolled it's military. And today, we are the only people in the world who stand by Israel- the only ones. There is no money in it for us - never has been. We do it because it is the "Christian thing to do".

Good Night.

#199 Rob-

Thank-you , Rob. Can you tell, is it accurate?

What's kinda funny about people like Leah is that without us terrible American Christians, there would be no Jews left in the world.

You can't be serious.

I didn't know the Hebrew Bible in English was available online. That's wonderful.

I will say this..We are not going to get into a position of agreeing to what is NOT TRUE just for temporary support for Israel. It wouldn't be real support for Israel anyway.

I think my little group survived almost SIX THOUSAND years NOT to come to come to that ridiculous position.

Just a little tidbit here..I dont believe an almost Six thousand year tradition and people operates or depends on what MICHAEL MEDVED says... My G-d..that is almost too "rare". for words..

(#181) Robert Brandtjen:

Sorry - I've been away from the computer all evening (and probably will be again after this post).

You wrote a lot of interesting things, and I won't be able to respond to all of them, but for now I'll address this:

Most of the Catholic world outside the West rejects Vatican II if not out-loud, then on principle. I do- I do not like the re-wording of the old Testament and New- I did like hearing mass sung in Latin and I do wonder at many of the changes in requirements vis-a-vis moral codes. That disagreement does not make one an anti-semetic. As I said, the view towards Jews was a very small part of Vatican II. It is more like the shism between Orthodox and Conservative Jews and Reform Jews. Each is more liberal then the other.

Yes, but the part of Vatican II that deals with Jews is the tenet most important to interfaith dialogue.

I do not mind if masses are sung in latin - I'm sure it is very nice. I imagine I have no brief with the pre-Vatican II moral codes either.

Myself, and many Jews and non-Jews are keenly interested in what an institution such as the Catholic Church has to say about "collective responsibility" of the Jews. Personally, I'm amazed that it's an issue, but obviously the Church felt it was. I don't care about the other aspects of Vatican II one way or another, because they involve internal Catholic/Christian beliefs - and as long as they don't hurt or demonize anyone, that's great. But there was that one, little portion that did deal with Jews - and that peaks interest in many.

Which brings us back to Gibson. You write in post #170:

Remember, Protestants are not subject to Vatican II.

Yes, but Mel's not a Protestant. So he can pray in Latin all he wants, can be old school in other aspects too, without being in danger of hurting anyone. But since Vatican II is known for changing the Church's position on "collective responsibility" of the Jews, then that's where people's concerns lie.

Again, I'm not saying the movie will endanger anyone. And I'm not saying the intent of the New Testament was to hurt or persecute anyone. I'm just saying people have been persecuted over these very issues for centuries.

Lets get some history straight. Jews have been in America going back to the Mayflower. Jews financed the Revolutionary war. Jews have been American citizens since the beginning. America gave very little aid to Israel until 1973. France of all people was Israels closest ally during the early years..

There it is.!..whats really in there...Thanks Robert and good night to YOU.

Am I glad he shows himself to be what he is?..YES..Am I sorry that this is here in America..mostly NOT expressed OUT LOUD, but here just the same. YES- I'm very sorry to hear it..

Heres the diff..about America. tho compared to Europe. We have ALOT of other American Christians that are horrified to see just how close this "old" hatred is to the surface and condemn this..Also condemn this "ultra Alpha" behavior..ie..Jews shut up..or else...(Lots of or -elses-just use your imagination)

201 Robert Brandtjen 10/15/2003 06:34PM PST 201
#199 Rob-

Thank-you , Rob. Can you tell, is it accurate?

You're kidding right? Here read this. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/jps1917.htm

There is no money in it for us - never has been. We do it because it is the "Christian thing to do".

Actually, it's the human thing to do.

There is no money in it for us - never has been.

It is not quite the one-way street that you're suggesting, now is it?

More History Rob: In the time OF Columbus..many of his fellow citizens knew and said that Columbus was a Converso...so????? Where are we on who was here first? Geeze..Start with this business and it is GUARANTEED to degenerate into this.

But have to answer..there isn't anything else to do. Quiet DOESN'T WORK..We learned THAT.

As to what happened during the run up to WW2..Luckily we are learning lots more of the REAL STORY..not MYTH...of what happened in America. Several European Countries Declassified their material from the time along with the US who also Declassified material from the time pd. Who knew what..and who DIDNT care is in black and white for all to see..even tho SOME (its the same people that back the Pals and the Arab World now) hoped the facts would never come out. John Loftus has a lot of the facts..Thank you JOHN...(John isnt Jewish..so MAYBE his research will be accepted)..

Just read THAT again. WOW..is Robert CLASSIC or what? CLassic!!!

And today, we are the only people in the world who stand by Israel- the only ones.

Throwing things in people's faces is uncouth. Sorry Robert, but it is. Don't do us any favours, comes to mind ...

#209 zulubaby-

Actually, it's the human thing to do.

If it were the human thing to do, then Jews would not have been persecuted so much, nor would people still be persecuting them. Jesus taught his followers to be tolerant of others, not to be mean. As it grew out of the G-D of Abraham, it was a religion of peace, originally, a religion for a poor, outcast group of people. What it became is a different matter.

For the most part, American Christians have, I think, striven to be that which was meant to be- that is why they originally came here, so they would be free to practice Christianity at it was meant to be practised. You are your brother's keeper- and you should be a good samaritan.

#210 zulubaby-

It is not quite the one-way street that you're suggesting, now is it?

Not at all. I was pointing out that we do it out of the "goodness of our (collective) hearts". In todays world, and really since time immemorial, money has been most people's highest motivator. No other group of people in the world has raised more money and given away that money, then American Christians as a whole. They give it to all sorts of different people all over the world- and get nothing tangible in return- which is part of Christianity, not expecting anything in return. It is not a part of Eastern religions at all, nor of "animists". Christians have, from the begining, sought to help those in need- though I personally think it should all be along the lines of "give a man a fish, he eats for one day, Teach a man to fish, he will eat for the rest of his life". Charity should be done in a way that promotes self-reliance, not dependance. Like wise, they have given their lives for other people more so then anyother group of people on earth.

Robert Brandtjen (200)

There is no money in it for us - never has been. We do it because it is the "Christian thing to do".

That's just patently false. A few articles for you (there are many more where this came from no longer available online):

U.S. Military Employs Israeli Technology

The U.S. Navy also uses anti-missile systems developed by Elta Electronics Industries of Ashdod, as well as other items as you can see. The systems is slated to be used on civilian aircrafts as well.

Some of the more famous items Israel collaborates with the U.S. on are the Arrow missile and the unmanned drone projects (and read here. Here are some more 'made in Israel programs'. And Here are some more.

Of course, aside from just military hardware, Israel has quite a bit of experience in urban warfare, which is why there are so many training operations held with the Israeli Defense Forces. You can see why that would be important to us.

It's hard to argue that the relationship is a one way street .

And today, we are the only people in the world who stand by Israel- the only ones. There is no money in it for us - never has been. We do it because it is the "Christian thing to do".

Boy is that utter nonsense. It's in America's interest to stand by Israel. Israel was vital to American interests during the cold war. Israel gives America leverage in the middle east. Do you think if there were no Israel that the Arab world would really be friends the US? No money? bwhahahahahah. Please.

202 zulubaby-

You can't be serious.

Umm, what part of "90%" christian do you and leah not understand? What proportion of the "Allied Forces" was Jewish, what percentage Christian? If we had not beaten Hitler, who else would have stopped him? Stalin? Before our intervention, Hitler was kicking his ass. I didn't see Israel storming the beeches at Normandy, nor supplying hundreds of millions to England and Russia to fend him off and slow him down.

I suggest you and numbnuts leah rent "Saving Private Ryan" and note Spielbergs illoquent thank-you for just exactly what I wrote. He made Private Ryan as a way of saying thank-you to those men who saved what was left of his people.
Next up is a special message from Steven Spielberg that is included both after the main feature, and is selectable on the special features menu. Basically, Spielberg gives us a little more background on D-day, and why he made the movie. Not really the most in-depth feature in the world, but nice to see Spielberg involved nonetheless.

You need to rent the DVD and view it to hear him.

206 Rob -

No they didn't. The colonial congress printed paper money that was worthless and taxed the colonists and got the rest from the King of France.
V. Religion

A. Population overwhelmingly Protestant

1. 250,000 Catholics, 2000 Jews

2. Many did not attend any church

I think we could have survived without 200 Jews, though I'm sure it was nice for them to be there. Especially since I might not be here had they not been.

On the issue of who gives what to whom- surely you jest.
Unquestionably, Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since World War II. Estimates for total U.S. aid to Israel vary, however, because of the uncertainties and ambiguities described above. An Oct. 27, 2000 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, using available and verifiable numbers, gives cumulative aid to Israel from 1949 through FY 2000 (which ended Sept. 30, 2000) at $81.38 billion. On the other hand, last year the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs estimated total aid to Israel through FY 2000 at $91.82 billion.

Boy is that utter nonsense. It's in America's interest to stand by Israel.

Umm, we only get 10 to 15% of our oil from Israel, it is more so in Europe's (based upon your logic) to stand by Israel since they get well over 60% from the middle east. Hmm- what's wrong with your reasoning?

Further more, had we not beaten Hitler, there would be no financial aid from Germany.

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

Nahh, you don't need Christians-
WASHINGTON, May 21, 1997 -- As Congress readies to determine the U.S. foreign aid budget for the next fiscal year, Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Reform Jewish Movement's Religious Action Center, today challenged Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed to honor a commitment to bring his organization's political clout to bear in support of U.S. aid to Israel.

Nuff said-

Umm, we only get 10 to 15% of our oil from Israel,

Should have been Middle East, not Israel.

I didn't see Israel storming the beeches at Normandy

perhaps that's because Israel wasn't a nation yet? You do know that during the nazi era the US banned European Jews from coming to the US and prior to the ovens, the British mandate banned European Jews into "Israel." And because Europe had no where to send Jews... not to "Israel" and not to the US... it was off to the ovens. Thats the facts Jack.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently expressed his gratitude for the support of the evangelical Christians.

Address of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the 24th Annual Christian Celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, sponsored by the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem.

But then Ariel Sharon has been accused of being "uncouth," too, so maybe he doesn't count.

213 zulubaby-

Throwing things in people's faces is uncouth. Sorry Robert, but it is. Don't do us any favours, comes to mind ...

ahh, I see, but it's ok for those who are beholden to spit in the face of those they are beholden to? Hmmm? I wonder if Jews in Israel feel that way, somehow I doubt it.

Now that I think about it, considering Rommel was kicking Montgomery's ass all up and down the African coast line, damn good thing for little Israel that Patton and the US army showed up when it did- ever think about that one? Hmmm? What do you suppose Hitler would have done with the "Zionists" ?

I'm not mad at you zulubaby, leah and a few others who spent the day excoriating American Christians.

218 Robert Brandtjen 10/15/2003 07:46PM PST

206 Rob -

No they didn't. The colonial congress printed paper money that was worthless and taxed the colonists and got the rest from the King of France.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Hyam Salomon, Financier of the American Revolution (1740-1785). Hyam Salomon was a hero and a fervent patriot whose love of liberty and business acumen combined made him a vital force for the War of Independence.Born in Poland, to a Sephardic family in 1740, he was forced to flee for his life due to his fight for freedom alongside Pulaski and Kosciusko, who later became military heroes in the American Revolution.

After Salomon landed in New York, he immediately became a successful broker because of his education and his remarkable talents. He married Rachel Franks, who came from a famous American Jewish family. While New York was the seat of British power, and he was doing business with the wealthy loyalists, Salomon joined the Sons of Liberty, a group of revolutionary patriots. When the Revolutionary War started in 1776, the British arrested him and flung him into prison as a SPY.

The British recognized his linguistic abilities-he could speak 10 languages and put him to work as an interpreter. He was finally released and went back into business, aiding the Colonists with his mounting fortune. Salomon was arrested again for his pro-revolutionary activities. This time
he was tortured and condemned to be hanged. With the aid of his friends, he managed to escape to Philadelphia, where he arrived penniless. Salomon quickly retumed to business, using his profits to buy food for the starving Colonial Army. Generals Washington, Lafayette, Von Steuben and others oftencame to him for food and material aid.

In the West Point Jewish Chapel, there was a display about Hyam Salomon and the Revolutionary War. He died penniless, having used all his resources to aid the newly formed and poorly supplied American"army".

During the cold winter of Valley Forge when American soldiers were freezing and running out of food, it was Hyam who marshalled all the Jews in America and Europe to provide money in relief aid to these stranded American troops and turned the course of history. Without this help, our "Army" would have perished before they could have defeated the British.

If you want me to pick apart the rest of your post I will. You will have to give me some time though.

Thank God i am an agnostic.

Higgs Bosons dancing on the head of a pin.

Translation of Robert and too many others just like him-alas.

In the 60's this was a CHRISTIAN Nation. (Oops sorry)

To be followed usually by: You are GUESTS here. (Funny..Grandfather, Father and ALL OF us were paying REAL Taxes not Guest Taxes here all this time..REFUND? then possibly???) Guests need to be GRATEFUL to the nice people. NOT uppity. AND to show you aren't uppity..and are grateful..YOU will accept any definition WE the ALPHA people, the ORIGINAL Americans,we the REAL Americas give to you.

....And Jews didn't fight..actually didn't really get your hands dirty (you cowardly people) in WW2.... Well.. thats news to MY FAMILY..ALL The men in my family were in the War..ONE in a German Prison Camp. MY FATHER..never got out of Military until he was so sick they had to remove him... And thank G-d MOST American Christians were NOT like Robert or else MY COUSIN, in the German Prison Camp would have been DEAD! He threw away his Dog Tags and all his fellow American Prisoners didn't let on that my Cousin was Jewish.

What was that jibe about MONEY...Ooo wonder what all that meant? I just cant image what that remark could mean. Never heard Jews and Money discussed before...WOW..Could that be Stereotyping Jews by a BIGOT? Nah...course not.

FYI-A Converso is a JEW to HAD TO pretend to be Catholic in Spain to save his own life in the Good Ole Inquisition Times .. Soooo...in 1492 Columbus stuck out to the New World..while ALL the Jews who woudnt convert were thrown OUT of Spain with ten cents on the dollar worth of their generations of possessions..and sometimes with totally nothing at all... We all know that it isnt a Co inky dink that Columbus just happened to leave AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME as the time of the "Expulsion". So who is living in WHOSE Country..(that is IF you want to get into this rediculous thing) Who actually IS the Guest in the New World?

220 Teacake -

They weren't banned during the Nazi era, all immigration was curtailed in 1926 after having had the flood gates opened for 35 years. The "Nazi Era" didn't begin until 1932, Hitler was in jail in 1926, or thereabouts. Most of the Jews were killed in Eastern Europe, not Germany. The ones in Eastern Europe had no way of knowing (unless you believe they could forsee the future) that Hitler was coming for them until it was too late. None of them tried to emigrate to America- that's a myth. One boat came to America- it should have been granted refugee status. But then all German Jews should have been granted refugee status by the rest of Europe. Blaming America for the Europe's failures is just plain bizaare.

How do I know they didn't talk about emigration before Hitler showed up in Poland? Because I have known several (now passed on) Jews who survived the Warsaw Ghetto, that's why.

Got any more fantasies?

Robert Brandtjen:

ahh, I see, but it's ok for those who are beholden to spit in the face of those they are beholden to? Hmmm? I wonder if Jews in Israel feel that way, somehow I doubt it.

Your comment was uncouth. I don't hold all Christians responsible for that, just you. But nice try.

Without Hyam Soloman (Sp) there might not have been a United States. He was the main financer of the revolutionary army ... loans he procured, that the newly founded US never paid him back after the war and he died in utter poverty.

Rob - its not that I didn't see your post about Soloman... guess I was writing while you posted. lol

I'm not mad at you zulubaby, leah and a few others who spent the day excoriating American Christians.

I haven't excoriated American Christians. I'm going after world wide Christians who has slaughterd Jews for the good part of 2000 years.

And please, America did not fight WWII to save Jews. They fought WWII for their own interest.

Teacake. LOL. I figured as much. Thanks

I'm not mad at you zulubaby

I'm not mad at you either, Robert, I just think you get a little ahead of yourself when you state your opinions as though they were facts. I've had this issue with you before where you've cast yourself as the spokesperson for "all Americans". Now you feel you should speak for all Christians? Speak for yourself.

223 Rob -

Hate to burst your bubble, bud, but it took more then "thousands of dollars" to fight the war. Now, I'm not deprecating Solomon one bit- his family has always been big financiers, from that time one but:
One of the few monuments to honor non military personnel, this statue shows General George Washington clasping hands with civilian supporters, English born Robert Morris and Polish-Jewish emigre Hyam Salomon. These men were financiers of the Revolutionary War, raising thousands of dollars to support the American Army in its battle against the tyranny of the British.

When he was in London in 1766 Benjamin Franklin tried in vain to convince Parliament of the need for a general issue of colonial paper money, but to no avail. The constitutional struggle between Britain and the colonies over the right to issue paper money was a significant factor in provoking the American Revolution.

When the war broke out the monetary brakes were released completely and the revolution was financed overwhelmingly with an expansionary flood of paper money and so the American Congress financed its first war with hyperinflation. By the end of the war the Continentals had fallen to one-thousandth of their nominal value. Yet although the phrase not worth a Continental has subsequently symbolized utter worthlessness, in the perspective of economic history such notes should be counted as invaluable as being the only major practical means then available for financing the successful revolution.

It was the French:
The French extended considerable financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their purchase.

See, there is a big difference between "financing" a war and actually paying for it- and in your case, he "raised" the money,
Unless you want to take credit for the horrible financial aftermath of the war..............

Took Pearl Harbor for the US to get involved. Not faulting the US for not getting involved in a foreign war... just saying Americans should'nt be so quick to take credit for "saving" Jews so late in the game. Had it not been for Pearl Harbor, hard to say how long ww2 would have gone on for. Saving Europe yes, saving Jews... nope.

Inspector Callahan #135,

Let me give you an example: Black people are 50% of the inmates in American prisons, yet only represent 11.7% of the total population. Or another: 70% of all black mothers are unmarried.

Is that a true statement? Is that anti-black? Is it racist? Some would say yes to the last 2, but would call me a racist for pointing out the first. Does that make me a racist? I think not.

No, it would make you a racist if you added a racist trope to it, by, e.g. saying that black men have been involved in rapes disproportionately because there is something inherent to being black that makes them want to attack white women. (I'm sure you've heard this trope as well.) This chap did it by invoking "money-grubbing" and Jews.

The point I was making is that because someone singles out a particular group (something that, honestly, happens all of the time on this blog with Arabs or Islam), doesn't make him an anti-semite or racist inherently. Our society is so damn hyper-sensitive about this.

There's nothing wrong with singling out a group. There's something wrong with using a racist libel that has been used repeatedly against a group against that group. This critique of Jews would be as though someone were to say of Ali Z., one of my clients and an Arab, that he should be especially sensitive to attacks against innocents since Arabs have been terrorists. Ali Z. has, to my knowledge, never been involved in terrorism or support of the same - but if I were to say something suggesting that he should be especially sensitive about it, I'd expect him to be insulted.

Hiam was the middleman who borrowed from the French for the war. He was the one in debt to the French, not Washington.

233 Robert Brandtjen

It kills you to think Jews played any part in your beloved Christian America.

Beholden to you? After your fellow Christians MURDERED Jews for nearly 2000 years. sure hope you don't sing God Bless America or White Christmas. I wouldn't want you to have to dirty yourself singing any songs written by a Jew.

Simply put Robert, as you are certainly not the only "Christian" to say so, but we are not GUESTS in this nation. We helped to build it along side everyone else. Are blacks guests as well and beholden to you "real" Americans?

Rob, this beholden business is almost hilarious... if so many Americans didn't think just like this guy, who none of think anything is wrong with that line of thinking. Scary!

Robert is a Christian Supremacist and no friend to Jews.

228 Teacake -

Need to study your history better, dear. It was France and printing presses- though Solomon was a big help. There was no money to him back with, though he did not lend them his money it was OPM. American money was worthless and she had no credit at the end of the war. Many Americans lost more then Solomon- they lost everything and their families to boot. New York was held by the Britts through most of the war. NY did not contribute much to the war effort as a result. Virginians and South Carolinians paid the highest price. It is the reason most of the early presidents were Virginians.

232 zulubaby-

Robert, I just think you get a little ahead of yourself when you state your opinions as though they were facts.

I have factual links all up and down this thread. Read them. Whats more is, they are easy to verify with google searches on the subject. As is mass quantities of anti-Christian shit as well, granted. But I chose links that are verifiable.

Believe reality or not, matters not to me, but I though this one was rather telling:

WASHINGTON, May 21, 1997 -- As Congress readies to determine the U.S. foreign aid budget for the next fiscal year, Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Reform Jewish Movement's Religious Action Center, today challenged Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed to honor a commitment to bring his organization's political clout to bear in support of U.S. aid to Israel.

And no, I don't think much of Ralph and company. Real History is found in books, kiddies, not on the internet, at best you get someone's opinion which is seldom backed up by verifiable sources. Solomon was a patriot and a banker, no doubt about it. But it was the French who saved America's bacon.

Rob... Lots of people believe that, but I think and hope most don't.

#238 Teacake -

Simply put Robert, as you are certainly not the only "Christian" to say so, but we are not GUESTS in this nation. We helped to build it along side everyone else. Are blacks guests as well and beholden to you "real" Americans?

You're putting words in my mouth - which is a tactic of weak minded people. Facts, kiddies, facts.

My paternal great grandmother's family were Jews from Holland, New Amsterdamn Jews to be exact. You and others like you are disgusting wretches. No matter what the gift, you spit on it. Why don't you write a letter to your local paper and tell america as a whole how big a shitheads Christians are?

236 Teacake-

Simply put Robert, as you are certainly not the only "Christian" to say so, but we are not GUESTS in this nation. We helped to build it along side everyone else. Are blacks guests as well and beholden to you "real" Americans?

Oh I see, and Ben Franklin was just partying hardy in Paris for kicks, right? hehe

A financer is not a banker. Jeez.

No matter what the gift, you spit on it.

That's what I'm talking about. Uncouth.

Teacake and co.-

I woldnt vest much in the history taught in ethnic studies classes- they are usually easily blown away by real historians writing books subject to peer review.

Why don't you write a letter to your local paper and tell america as a whole how big a shitheads Christians are?

Not all Christians. Just those who think like you.

Robert... please don't ell me you are suggesting that the Jewish Encyclopedia is less than compared to your "real" sources.... or is some nuevo ethnic study.

#244 Teacake -

Your right, he's a money lender. but, unlike the banker, he loans other people's money just what I said up above. He had money in 1781 at the end of the way- lost it and died in 1785. None of the patriots were paid anything for their troubles. If they lived long enough, they were elected to office, nothing else. That's why they were patriots, among other reasons, because they weren't doing it for the money. Many many colonialists gave their silver, crops, horses, etc. for the cause- they never got it back either

Sheesh-

#245 zulubaby -

Well it's true- some people are never greatful. BTW, is "uncouth" your new word for the day?

248 Teacake
You're a head case- I found your exact entry online in a heartbeat in a google search. That page went on to cry, like you, that "he never got his money"- totally negating that none of them did. Not one of them ever got a dime for it- they were founding a country, a nation, not starting a business.

237 Rob-

Beholden to you? After your fellow Christians MURDERED Jews for nearly 2000 years. sure hope you don't sing God Bless America or White Christmas. I wouldn't want you to have to dirty yourself singing any songs written by a Jew.

You need to see a shrink, ASAP, you need to learn not to project historical events onto those living today who had nothing to do with it- such pathological hatred will only make you sicker then you already are.

I often wonder what deep neurosis leads some non-christians to hate christians so much.

That isn't the point Robert.... point is, there were Jewish men who helped build the United States along side non Jews... as patriotic as everyone else.

Robert you better go re read your own posts. We are reacting to your words.

Hey, guys -

Brandtjen is the same gem who told me some months back that we American women should be grateful to "white men" for "giving us" the rights we enjoy today.

I wouldn't waste your breath arguing with him - he has some kind of weird fixation about how Western white men have graciously bestowed favors upon the world's lesser beings. And he gets really really angry if the lesser beings aren't sufficiently grateful.

Robert Brandtjen

Thank you Master. Thanks for giving us everything we have. We disgusting wretches should bow down to you. Where would we be without you?

See how cute you are... saying that a historic source states that he died in poverty is a sign of Jewish whining. You need a lot of self examination because you are being very dishonest to yourself.

you need to learn not to project historical events onto those living today who had nothing to do with it- such pathological hatred will only make you sicker then you already are.

Robert you are a perfect example of a white supremesist that Jews must be on guard against. You're ideas about Christian America sound alot like Nazi ideas about Christian Germany.

Well it's true- some people are never greatful. BTW, is "uncouth" your new word for the day?

You know what, I'm leaving this thread because you're making this ugly and there's no arguing with you, I've learned that about you. Think what you want, I don't really care. I am grateful for our Christian friends but your attitude is unbecoming (prefer that to uncouth?)

And if you're going to take petty jibes, your spelling could use some work. I used "uncouth" twice, to illustrate my point about you. You can dish is out, eh? I think it's time for you to take an honest look at yourself. Read what you've written on this thread and be ashamed. Christian, you say?

Goodnight Robert.

Well, It was fun watching you four completely distort and make a wretched mess of a logical, factual defense of the Christian belief in the "Passion"- disgusting and gut wrenching but fun in an interesting sort of way. You managed to completely turn the conversation around over a hundered or so posts and turn it into an "anti-semitic" diatribe when all along it was an anti-christian one, but there at the end, Rob and company couldn't quite contain themselves.

What really bothers you is that although you hate Christians, you are in the unfortuante situation of relying on a country that grows more Christian every day= some 3,000 new Christians enter the country every single day. Hispanics are now 43% of Catholics in America. The Church grows by hundreds of parishes every year. Worst of all, Israel needs this country to survive- or at least it appears so judging from the amount of money America sends it. And that reliance is what pisses you off.

Sick little puppies you four are.

I often wonder what deep neurosis leads some non-christians to hate christians so much.

Let's talk about anti-Semitism now!

#253 Laura SF -

Umm, I don't see any "women's rights" anywhere else but in the West, do you? Or do you believe that wearing a burka is liberating?

You seem to have forgotten that it was men who voted to enfranchise women, Western men.

Darn those little facts.

#259 zulubaby-

You don't recognize that? I give you too much, I guess.

That's the inverse of what some Jewish scholars (psychs) said about non Jews.

And you seem to forget that rights are "G-d-given" and not bounty. That is, it was white Western men who deprived of us our rights in the first place - and we're supposed to be grateful that they actually saw the light?

Oh thank you sir, for taking the boot off my neck! I am so utterly grateful.

Feel better now?

Robert, I know.

Laura..Thanks for the info..That certainly completes the picture. Oh ma Gawd..Why didnt anyone warn me. Id have spoken up even sooner. Yep..checks in all the places...a perfectly rounded Bigot.

BTW, kiddies, reminding you (after being told relentlessly how evil we are) that it was mainly Christian soldiers who saved what was left of European Jewry is neither anti-semitic nor is it crass (better fit here then "uncouth")- it is simply the truth.

If you cannot deal with truth, then you have a problem, not I.

You're the sick little white supremacist Robert. When I read your BS it sickens me. But this isn't the first time you've sicken me. I don't hate Christians but I do hate Christians like you. What really bothers you is Jews won't be second class citizens to you. We are strong and we have power. We are here and we are everywhere.

Christian soldiers? Wasn't it also Christian solders who slaughtered Jews during the holocuast. Thanks for all you do.

Robert Brandtjen (218)

Oh, it's been so long since I've seen the laughable CSMonitor aid figure. How sad to see another gullible pawn fall for that tripe.

Reread that article, and feel free to explain why Arab countries aligned with an opposing superpower wouldn't have attempted to use their newly found "oil as a weapon" strategy regardless of Israel's actions or U.S. support for Israel. While your at it, feel free to explain how you would convince an entire Arab world that already believed the U.S. supported Israel before 1967 that they should align themselves with the U.S.

But, since your so into making up numbers, let's have a go. Let's view aid to Israel in the same perspective this anti-Semitic hackjob - David R. Francis - does. Let's take the costs of all Cold War proxy wars and come up with a random, totally bullshit number to put in an article as a cost saved the U.S. by not having to fight a proxy war in the Middle East. Let's figure out and add in the potential earning power of 58,000 Americans killed in Vietnam, transcribe a similar number to the amount of Americans that would have been killed fighting Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria with Soviet backing. Then lets add the benefits the increase in oil costs generated - a marked increase in the search for alternative feul sources and oil supplies - add that to the Israel column. In total, I'll say something like 2 trillion - just a random, scientifically irrelevant number - just like Mr. Francis'. There you have it... the U.S. has made 400 billion dollars of their relationship with Israel.

It's not hard to be as stupid and feeble minded as David Francis, but it takes a special level of stupidity for anybody to fall for that garbage.

You should be ashamed of yourself. It's one thing to disagree with the aid and it's benefits or drawbacks, but to use that absurd joke of an article as a source is beyond the pail.

SecHumanist

Roberts use of CSMonitor and Washington Report, two pro Palestinian web sites shows Roberts true feelings about Jews. He's just a typical anti-semite.

Theres even MORE inside Robert. More discusting bigotry..

I would say..while we are paying close attench. to ONE set of dangerous haters..that doesnt mean we should ignore another set of "old" haters that mean ALL of us ill. We can chew gum and walk at the same time. Keep your attench. on BOTH. We need to.

Oh ma Gawd..he ran into a bunch of mouthy Jews and friends of Jews..that arent "minding" him..We are..way too uppity..and we had better watch out cause HE and his friends from S. America and Mexico- no less...are growing???(did he actually say that..isnt that JUST like the Nazis plans?) Christians? Havent I heard this before..in WAR? For all of you..WAR is WHITE ARIAN RESISTANCE. Yes..I did..thats just where I heard that concept...Out breeding...the "coloreds"..and Joooosss.

If we dont show our graditude ..His kind of Christians will then do WHAT to Jews? What WAS that threat to us?

Big loud alarm bells go off anytime someone uses the Washington Report as a source.

This is the hate speech and where it started:

I know JUST where I am and what Im hearing from YOU Robert. Antisememtism always has spread everywhere because of the charge of Diocide.

I will NOT allow this lie to go unchallanged...You aint seen nothin yet when you try to get this LIE past me.

Blood of Jews is being spilled right this second in Israel helped along by people who believe that lie that have joined in with the Pals. (Incidently the Arab World has been oh too happy to remind Christians of that lie)

I **never allow others to define Antisememtism for me..certainly NOT the ones that perpetrate it.

This BIG LIE..it is Mother of Hate Speech.

That's one sick little puppy. I can just see you slobbering and spitting all over your keyboard and screen while typing it.

In case Robert hasn't noticed, everyone outnumbers us... we are less than 1/10 of 1 percent of global population. So few of us and he still feels threatened. Why is that Robert?

Let's see...most of the camps were in Germany and Poland. The Polish camps would have been liberated by the Soviets, who were atheists (or closet Orthodox Christians, Sunni Muslims and Jews)

271 Teacake-

Well, I confess to knowing nothing about "Washington Report". A google search for "American aid to israel" returns 10's of thousands of hits- all about the same amounts of monines invloved. I can't believe you would even bother to deny it- it's plain to everyone in America how much we give Israel.

Wow are you bizaare people- do you look under your bed at night for boogey man as well?

I'm starting to feel sorry for you Robert.

You sure are insecure about your Religion Robert. Whats up with that? A few Jews can really rattle that little Jew hating mind of yours.

Don't look under the bed Robert, plenty of you nutcases in plain sight.

Let's see...most of the camps were in Germany and Poland.

That is not exactly right. The death camps were in Germany and Poland. There were about 600 concentration camps scattered all over Europe.

Austria major death camp zone.