“I am heartsick that people like Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem could incite anti-Semitism all over the world and are oblivious to the damage they have caused.” Actor Jon Voight
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Hollywood actor and actress Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz have recently realized that there are certain topics that celebrities ought not to discuss publically if they value their lucrative careers and great accolades.
Both individuals have played in major Hollywood movies for years. Penelope has played in top grossing films such as Vanilla Sky, Sex in the City 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tide; Javier Bardem, for his part, has played in movies such as No Country for Old Men and James Bond: Skyfall.
In other words, both individuals have paid their dues in the ministry of propaganda known as Hollywood:
But now Penelope and Javier are finding out that their careers are in jeopardy because they signed an opened letter saying in part that “the genocide perpetrated by the Israeli army” is deplorable and unacceptable.
The letter also says that “Gaza is living through horror…while the international community does nothing.”
That sentence itself was a code red. It seems that Penelope and Javier were reciting their death sentence. Jon Voight, who is a Zionist shill, responded by saying,
“I am asking all my peers who signed that poison letter against Israel to examine their motives. Can you take back the fire of anti-Semitism that is raging all over the world now?”
The Inquisitr, a magazine that celebrates the entertainment industry, declared in an article entitled “Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz Could Be Casualties of Gaza War After Hollywood Backlash” that
“Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz should, perhaps, have taken more note of Mel Gibson’s assertion that the Film Industry in general — and Hollywood in particular — is controlled by Jews, before making their now infamous anti-Israel remarks.”
The simple fact is that Jewish analysts, writers, and scholars have agreed with Penelope and Javier. For example, Melvin A. Goodman, a national security intelligence expert who worked as an analyst for the CIA department and who taught at prestigious schools such as Johns Hopkins, has recently declared,
“The latest disgraceful Israeli attack at a United Nations school sheltering displaced Palestinians is one more indication of Israel’s lack of moral compunction in the killing of innocent civilians, particularly children.
“At least six UN schools and shelters have been attacked, and more than 140 Palestinian schools have been struck in a campaign to terrorize the people of Gaza.
“The many Israeli wars against the Palestinians and their aftermath in recent years have demonstrated Israel’s ease in destroying homes and olive groves, but the increased killing of children raises serious questions about the absence of any moral compass among Israeli leaders, both civilian and military leaders. It is long past time to address Israel’s mindset…
“The United States doesn’t even challenge the obnoxious personal attacks on its leaders by Israeli officials. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon called Secretary of State Kerry “obsessive and messianic” in pursuit of a peace agreement. Israeli intelligence chief Yuval Steinitz called the secretary’s comments “offensive, unfair, and insufferable.””
“One top producer who has worked with Cruz says he privately has vowed not to hire her again. Another top Hollywood executive also privately expressed his disapproval, saying he’s ‘furious at Javier and Penelope’ and wasn’t sure about working with the Spanish couple again”
In a similar vein, Damon Linker of The Week and consulting editor at the University of Pennsylvania Press has said,
“The bigger, more decisive problem is the broader moral context in which the killing is taking place — and the lies that the Israeli government and its American defenders have been telling to obscure that context.
“American friends of Israel and supporters of the Zionist project — I have always been both — need to stop believing and repeating lies conjured up to justify unjustifiable policies.
“The endless occupation and slow-motion expropriation of Palestinian land, punctuated by the periodic infliction of punishment by military assault when the prisoners resist their captivity, is taking Israel in a deeply disturbing direction.
Jewish feminist Naomi Wolf has recently had a heated debate with America’s most famous rabbi, Schmuley Boteach, about the same issue. She wrote:
“Rabbi Boteach..do we really want to be the people who say — it is only 419 (now with Ibrahim, God rest his soul, 420) children dead — ‘it is not a genocide’? Is that the side of history we wish to stand on?
“Do you think this is what God asks of us, to split rhetorical hairs like this in the face of the murder of children…?
“Please check the Geneva conventions definitions of genocide — they support my use of ‘genocide’, not yours …”
Wolf’s argument here is quite inconsistent with her views on abortion and other issues. Leaving this aside, her views here are quite congruent with the letter that Penelope Cruz has signed. So, does Voight really want to be that stupid to say that Wolf is spreading the seed of anti-Semitism around the world? Well, he has already made a fool of himself. He has declared that Jonathan Pollard is in jail because of anti-Semitism!
The fact is that Israelis themselves brag about what their country has done in Gaza. Recently,
“An Israeli soldier has been spotted laughing and drinking in a bar wearing a T-shirt with the slogan ‘Deployed, Destroyed, Enjoyed, Gaza 2014′ emblazoned on the back.”
Here is a decent video by a decent person who is trying to say something constructive about the Gaza massacre:
Did you catch the fact that Israeli officials tried to strengthen Hamas to deceive the masses? Did you catch the line that says that “Hamas, son of Israel”? Do you remember the quote from Avner Cohen in the previous article which explicitly says that Hamas is Israel’s creation? Now listen to this (this was written in 2006!):
“Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.
“Israel ‘aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),’ said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic [and International] Studies.
“Israel’s support for Hamas ‘was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,’ said a former senior CIA official….
“In addition to hoping to turn the Palestinian masses away from Arafat and the PLO, the Likud leadership believed they could achieve a workable alliance with Islamic, anti-Arafat forces that would also extend Israel’s control over the occupied territories.”
Justin Raimondo of Antiwar wrote then:
“In a conscious effort to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization and the leadership of Yasser Arafat, in 1978 the government of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the application of Sheik Ahmad Yassin to start a “humanitarian” organization known as the Islamic Association, or Mujama.
“The roots of this Islamist group were in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and this was the seed that eventually grew into Hamas – but not before it was amply fertilized and nurtured with Israeli funding and political support.
“Begin and his successor, Yitzhak Shamir, launched an effort to undercut the PLO, creating the so-called Village Leagues, composed of local councils of handpicked Palestinians who were willing to collaborate with Israel – and, in return, were put on the Israeli payroll.
“Sheik Yassin and his followers soon became a force within the Village Leagues. This tactical alliance between Yassin and the Israelis was based on a shared antipathy to the militantly secular and leftist PLO:
“the Israelis allowed Yassin’s group to publish a newspaper and set up an extensive network of charitable organizations, which collected funds not only from the Israelis but also from Arab states opposed to Arafat.
“Ami Isseroff, writing on MideastWeb, shows how the Israelis deliberately promoted the Islamists of the future Hamas by helping them turn the Islamic University of Gaza into a base from which the group recruited activists – and the suicide bombers of tomorrow.
“The Hamas infrastructure of mosques, clinics, kindergartens, and other educational institutions flourished not only because they were lavishly funded, but also due to being efficiently run.
“Sheik Yassin and the future leaders of Hamas acquired a reputation for ‘clean’ governance and good administrative practices, which would greatly aid them – especially in comparison to the PLO, which was widely perceived as corrupt.
“Indeed, ‘clean government’ – and not the necessity of armed struggle – was the main theme of their successful election campaign.”
The plot thickens. If you are still not convinced, consider this. The Times of Israel has recently reported that
“Sharif As-Safouri, the commander of the Free Syrian Army’s Al-Haramein Battalion, admitted to having entered Israel five times to meet with Israeli officers who later provided him with Soviet anti-tank weapons and light arms.”
So the logic is pretty clear: Penelope and her husband’s decision—although both individuals have been used by the dreadful few in Hollywood for money and fame—is firmly planted in historical grounds.
But they need to start asking for forgiveness, since they have committed an unpardonable sin; if they need to get back to the big screen and continue to work for the dreadful few and corrupt our generation, they need to write a letter of apology saying that they will never cross that line again in the future.
Penelope and her husband need to recognize that there is no such thing as “diversity” in Hollywood, although this is what the industry has superficially promoted in countless movies over the last sixty years.
Penelope and Javier are learning very quickly that you need to either agree with the Zionist project or you are out. You are free to defend Zionism (as in the case of Voight), but you are not free to defend innocent Palestinians.
Penelope and her husband need to learn from Gary Oldman, who quickly realized that he needed to remove his “anti-Semitic” sins from his dark and corrupt mind.
You see, according to Hollywood’s unwritten rules, you are corrupt if you attack what the dreadful few like. You are in good company if you seem to espouse an undying hate for what they are fighting against.
Oldman in particular has served the dreadful few for his entire career, and they paid him quite well for his dedicated service.
Oldman played Jack Grimaldi in the 1993 semi-pornographic movie Romeo Is Bleeding, directed by Peter Medak, a Jewish filmmaker who fled his native Hungary in 1956 during the Hungarian Revolution.
In the movie, Grimaldi ends up being seduced by a psychotic Russian female who uses sex and money as a potent vehicle for covert assassination. The story ends up in tragic death and existential despair:
The implicit message here is that so long that the Goyim get to die, even though they have been dedicated servants to their masters, then everything is fine. The Goyim’s job, as rabbi Ovadia Yosef told us, is to serve the Jews. That is why we were all created:
“Goyim (gentiles, non-Jews) were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.
“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created. [An ‘effendi’ is a lord, or a master, in Arabic].”
The good rabbi is not finished: “With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”
In short, Hollywood is a huge Zionist juicy factory that sucks the life out of the Goyim and spit out the pulp.
People like Robin Williams, Heath Ledger, and Philip Seymour Hoffman could have been decent individuals, serving their family, saving lives and making sacrifices, helping their fellow human beings, and perhaps ultimately accepting Christ, which probably would have made a significant improvement in their own personal lives.
Yet after working for many years in the juicy factory, after amassing millions upon millions of dollars, after seducing multiplied millions of innocent and unsuspecting viewers (both young and old), those same celebrities suddenly wake up and realize they have been scammed and lied to—not materially or economically but morally and spiritually.
When that happens, they begin to realize two things. They discover very quickly that money cannot be a substitute for the moral and spiritual order.(Remember the Beatles’ song, “Money Can’t Buy Me Love”?)
Man is a moral and spiritual being living inside a physical body. Whenever that moral and spiritual dimension is denied or suppressed by sophisticated means, man becomes an existential threat both to himself and to others.
The reason people like Eli Roth and David Cronenberg can be considered as existential threat to the culture is because they suppress the sexual order and replace it with essentially Talmudic subversion, which is to say that they will seek to degrade the Goyim and reduce them to a sort of metaphysical nothingness.
This is one reason why they can never stop unleashing pornography in the name of “art.” As Jewish novelist Howard Jacobson has put it,
“In its written form, pornography’s only convincing conclusion is death, for ecstasy without restraint wants nothing less. Pictorially, too, in the mortuary fixity of its imagery it is essentially morbid, refusing change of mood or flux of feeling.
“Either way, pornography is a trance, demeaning all parties to it, those looked at and those looking, locking them into a perpetuity of shame…
“In its ominous nothingness, pornography familiarizes us with humiliation and humiliation with despair and loss.”
Then Jacobson put the issue into proper perspective when he said,
“Whenever I encounter a man who says he has never visited a prostitute, either because the thought appalls him or, as is more commonly asserted, because he doesn’t need to pay for sex, thank you very much, I believe that he is lying, or, worse, that he is a fool….
“Thus the nothingness one goes in search of in a brothel is, by the wonderful inverse law of eroticism, not a nothingness at all.”
Here Jacobson was indirectly articulating Talmudic perversion: if you want to be wise, you have to visit a prostitute; conversely, if you want to be a fool, stay away from her.
Jacobson seemed to have perceived that the Church has been fighting against this type of Talmudic perversion for centuries, and if one needs to be free, he has to liberate himself from those religious dogmatists. He again asserted,
“It is for this reason that we are fools ever to be censorious about the sexual lives of others. It is fair enough that a Catholic bishop should castigate Max Mosley for his romps with prostitutes dressed in pantomime military uniforms.
“Churchmen exist to excoriate the fleshly. But the rest of us have no business being superior. And no business laughing either…
“We grow a little freer when we read De Sade’s One Thousand Days of Sodom, though we know we cannot live up to its lawlessness.”
Jacobson’s internal contradiction is too vast to be dealt with here. Let us just mention one: how can you “grow a little freer” with De Sade’s sexual metaphysics when “we cannot live up to its lawlessness”?
The only way to understand Jacobson’s premise here is to go back to what St. Peter said thousands of years go:
“For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage” (2 Peter 2:19).
In nutshell, Jacobson cannot to see pornography as a form of slavery because he is morally and spiritually blind. Not only that, he is asking all of us to rebel against the moral order and follow what we all know to be Talmudic subversion:
“In art, which is the province of the imagination, we do not judge as we judge municipally, as magistrates or policemen. Which is why, whatever our education and our civic institutions try to lull us into believing about the nature of desire, we must find the space to think, and where possible to act, rebelliously, refusing all attempts to confine us to the hell of the normative.”
Jacobson does not want to say what “the hell of the normative” is, but it is pretty obvious that it is the moral order. He has been infected indirectly by the Talmudic shackles and now he is spreading this poison among the Goyim. Jacobson is blind to higher realities which Talmudic disputations fail to deliver. And he wants you to see that pornography is a form of freedom.
In that sense, Jacobson is squaring off with Augustine, who declared quite convincingly in the City of God that
“Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”
Jacobson proves that Augustine was right, and we can easily prove this through Jacobson’s own essay here. Jacobson postulates that pornography is freedom but in the same breath declares that it leads to death. Because he is blind, Jacobson cannot understand that a person is only free to do what is right, not what he likes.
Jacobson’s ideas are quite congruent with what Hollywood has been promoting since the past sixty years, and this has begun to take a toll on even celebrities, who quickly discover that there is no ultimate existential life outside the moral and spiritual order.
What Hollywood celebrities—and most recently Robin Williams—have been teaching us is that if there is a life, it is artificial. This artificial life might lead to suicidal tendencies and perhaps even tragic and untimely death.
As a corollary, many celebrities soon realize that money cannot fulfill their existential emptiness, their immoral acts through entertainment, their corruption and inability to deal with that corruption.
In an interview with James Kaplan of US Weekly, Williams, who used to consider himself an “honorary Jew,” described how he brings out some of his best performances:
“Yeah! Literally, it’s like possession ‑ all of a sudden you’re in, and because it’s in front of a live audience, you just get this energy that just starts going…But there’s also that thing ‑ it is possession.
“In the old days you’d be burned for it…But there is something empowering about it. I mean, it is a place where you are totally ‑ it is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, where you really can become this other force.”
William in particular lived an artificial life for more than half of his career. He made many people laugh in public, but in private the man was as miserable as a person in a psychiatric asylum. In the end, Williams realized that he would be better off dead than living a life that is based on a lie.
“Robin Williams hanged himself with a belt Sunday night while his wife slept in a nearby bedroom… He had several superficial cuts on the inside of his left wrist. A pocket knife with what appeared to be dried blood was discovered nearby.”
Williams in a sense represents a person who is quite consistent with the nihilistic culture. If you cannot deal with life’s ultimate problems which are strengthened by years of alcohol and drugs, why not committing suicide?
If Williams would have talked to Nietzsche, Nietzsche would have said something like, “Go ahead.” If Williams had a chance to dialogue with Richard Dawkins before he died, Dawkins would have probably regurgitated what he propounded in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life:
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference…DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we just dance to its music.”
If Williams had a talk with Christ, however, he would have said something like,
“I understand how you feel because I went through much pain two thousand years ago. In fact, I died for your misdeeds so that you can have a chance to live abundantly. You see, you were not an accident, Williams. You are not just the product of billions of atoms and molecules. You have a spiritual dimension which cannot be denied or replaced by other things.
“The truth is that you have been seduced by the dreadful few, who incited the Romans to put me on that cross and who later bragged that they were glad to do it. Moreover, they have explicitly said that they would do it again. If you doubt me, just watch Sarah Silverman.
“The dreadful few are blind because they do not understand that all things work for good to those who love God. They put me on the cross and thought that everything was over.
“But they did not understand that I am more powerful than they are. Remember what I told a former persecutor? ‘It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.’
“Williams, you have been struggling with meaninglessness, depression, and ultimately suicide, because you have refused my offer and therefore have fallen into the guiding hands of my enemy. You have worked for them for more than forty years, and they have taken away your being and turned you into something that you are not.
“You have been revered all over the world, you have amassed millions upon millions of dollars, and you have received great accolades from colleagues and fans. But you know too well that this is all a lie. You idolized Jonathan Winters and you know too well that he was a tormented man.
“You also should have learned a lesson from Heath Ledger, who, during the filming of the Dark Knight, was also tormented. If you doubt this, read some of his biographies.
“Ledger idolized Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols, who sang songs such as ‘I am the Anti-Christ.’ Vicious, like Ledger and others, met his untimely death at a very young age.
“You see, Williams, the moral order is in a sense like gravity. You cannot break it and think that you won’t pay the consequences. In short, you do not break the moral order—it breaks you. The way to survive is to submit to that order.”
As DMX, who has been into that business for a long time, himself put it, the industry “has nothing to do with talent; it’s about playing the game…The industry, dead or alive, wants new artists to sell their souls to survive. You test the wrong one in the industry and you will get hurt. The industry don’t give a fuck about you, but the industry couldn’t make a dime without you.”
Hollywood celebrities create pain on the big screen, but the pain and their sins always “find them out.” In order to deal with the internal pain which they hide from the public but which they discuss in private with closed friends and relatives, many of those celebrities find suicide as the way out.
And with the metaphysical incoherency and anarchic nature of heavy metal music—like Metallica’s Fade to Black—the entertainment industry eventually produced a form of psychological anarchy, which the masses hardly recognize but which they blindly and unsuspectingly follow. As the Chinese philosopher Mencius (385-303/302 BC) put it:
“To act without understanding, and to do so habitually without examination, pursuing the proper path all the life without knowing its nature—this is the behavior of multitudes.”
If you think Mencius is wrong, listen closely to Metallica’s Fade to Black:
Many rock gods followed Metallica’s advice by committing suicide or choking to death on their own vomit. People like Marc Bolan, Bon Scott, John Bonham, Brian Jones, Elvis Presley, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Keith Moon, Jim Morrison, Pigpen McKeman, Sid Vicious, Kurt Cobain, and more recently Amy Winehouse, have all met their untimely death in a tragic and miserable way.
Plato declared in the Republic that when the modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state change with them. With the Zionification of the entertainment industry, with the rise of sex symbols like Madonna (she actually converted to Judaism), the moral harmony had already been shaken.
Madonna, following the Rabbinic perversion in an indirect way, declared way back in 1985 that “Crucifixes are sexy because there is a naked man on them.” How did Madonna think that people would react to her sex scene? Take it from the former porn star:
“They digest it on a lot of different levels. Some people will see it and be disgusted by it, but maybe they’ll be unconsciously aroused by it…If people keep seeing it and seeing it and seeing it, eventually it’s not going to be such a strange thing.”
Another point that needs to be addressed is that most of those celebrities seem to realize that they are corrupting our culture and their moral intuition and instinctive nature seem to tell them exactly that.
Eva Mendes, who starred in the 2007 film We Own the Night, confided that she needed a cocktail to work up the courage to shoot the sex scene.
“Eva Mendes may have confidently showed off her body in tiny bikinis on magazine covers, but she wasn’t so keen on baring even more on screen.
“‘I wasn’t comfortable at all,’ she told reporters Friday at the Cannes press conference for We Own the Night, which contains a steamy sex scene—her first—with Joaquin Phoenix. ‘They were very sweet and they poured me a vodka and orange juice and then I was fine,’ she said.”
She does not feel comfortable filming a sex scene consciously, so she has to do it unconsciously. Yet she expects moviegoers to watch her acts consciously. What message does that send to the young people who are viewing the movie?
Yet Mendes was far from alone:
“Rosie Perez says shooting a steamy sex scene with her good friend John Leguizamo for their new movie, ‘The Take,’ was ‘very awkward.’
“This is not my first time working with John. We are friends, I’ve known him very long; it was very easy working with him. We have an easy dialogue and between each other there is no ego, no competition…
“It was in the sex scene between husband and wife that things started to go bad…It was the hardest scene, very difficult,’ she said.
“‘I respect him so much and he respects me so much. I know his wife, he knew my husband and introduced me to my boyfriend. It was very awkward. Like brother and sister having to do a sex scene.”
This poor chump does not even believe in her own message, yet she is expecting movie goers to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Mendes has suggested that in 2010, five years after We Own the Night was released, that the sex scene seemed to have haunted her:
“I remember calling my acting coach after seeing that first [sex] scene and telling her how embarrassed I felt, and she said, ‘It means you bared your soul.’ I was like, ‘Right,’ she says in agreement, adding earnestly, ‘I’d never felt that before.’”
Sure. When it comes to money, power and sex, some would do just about anything, including baring their souls, for a temporary gain. Mendes continued,
“I know I walk a fine line between being a respected actor and being what they call a sex symbol. It’s a hard one to walk if you want to be known as a real, credible actor.
“But I’ve never felt objectified. Nothing you see me do is an accident. I might act like it’s an accident, but the opposite is true. I’m incredibly calculated when it comes to my career.”
Going back to Oldman, he said in part,
“I don’t know about Mel. He got drunk and said a few things, but we’ve all said those things. We’re all fucking hypocrites. That’s what I think about it. The policeman who arrested him has never used the word ‘nigger’ or ‘that fucking Jew’?
“I’m being brutally honest here. It’s the hypocrisy of it that drives me crazy. Or maybe I should strike that and say ‘the N word’ and ‘the F word,’ though there are two F words now.
“He’s like an outcast, a leper, you know? But some Jewish guy in his office somewhere hasn’t turned and said, ‘That fucking kraut’ or ‘Fuck those Germans,’ whatever it is?
“We all hide and try to be so politically correct. That’s what gets me. It’s just the sheer hypocrisy of everyone, that we all stand on this thing going, ‘Isn’t that shocking?’”
Aside from the course language, Oldman perhaps said something which bears repeating and which deserves personal reflection: Who has never said something that needs redemption? Whoever is without that sin, please cast the first stone.
If you say something wicked in private, and Oldman says the same thing in public, the only difference is that Oldman got caught and you did not. But deep inside you know too well that both you and Oldman said the same thing and therefore deserve the same punishment.
In the Zionist ether, only Oldman should be punished! This is where Zionist ideology breaks down. Oldman’s mental capacity has every reason to be insulted because the Zionist mumbo jumbo is existentially unlivable.
Abraham Foxman was quickly mobilized to teach Oldman a lesson. He said,
“We have just began a conversation with his managing producer. At this point, we are not satisfied with what we received. His apology is insufficient and not satisfactory.”
Oldman, like many other Hollywood celebrities, voluntarily walked into the Zionist ether and saw contradictions everywhere, which obviously again made him more confused than ever before. He said,
“[Mel Gibson] is like an outcast, a leper, you know? But some Jewish guy in his office somewhere hasn’t turned and said, ‘That fucking kraut’ or ‘Fuck those Germans,’ whatever it is?
“We all hide and try to be so politically correct. That’s what gets me. It’s just the sheer hypocrisy of everyone, that we all stand on this thing going, ‘Isn’t that shocking?’
“Well, if I called Nancy Pelosi a cunt — and I’ll go one better, a fucking useless cunt — I can’t really say that. But Bill Maher and Jon Stewart can, and nobody’s going to stop them from working because of it.
“Bill Maher could call someone a fag and get away with it. He said to Seth MacFarlane this year, ‘I thought you were going to do the Oscars again. Instead they got a lesbian.’ He can say something like that. Is that more or less offensive than Alec Baldwin saying to someone in the street, ‘You fag’? I don’t get it.”
Oldman began to draw some disturbing conclusions which are not compatible with Hollywood’s modus operandi. He declared
“that the culture in Hollywood during the past awards season was such that ‘if you didn’t vote for ’12 Years a Slave,’ you were a racist. You have to be very careful about what you say.’”
Douglas Urbanski, who perhaps knew Oldman more than his accusers, does not think that Oldman is a racist or an anti-Semite. He wrote in his defense,
“I have looked at the Playboy interview a few times now—in fact I was in the room during the entire 8 or 9 hours. I am unaware—as I have seen reported–of Gary Oldman defending any anti-Semitic remarks in the interview, or, for that matter, anyplace! He would not do so, and in fact he finds any kind of bigotry, homophobia, anti-Semitism, racism or sexism unacceptable and disgraceful. Period.
“If you read the Playboy piece correctly and entirely, and in context, it is the hypocrisy of political correctness that Gary is addressing, nothing else. It simply cannot be read any other way, and to put it any other way is simply cherry picking something, stating it inaccurately, and creating news where there is none.
“If you read the thru line of that segment closely, it is clear that it has only to do with Political Correctness and is in no way a defense of anti-Semitism.
“Political Correctness is a thing that drives Gary and many many others crazy!—goodness, this theme he addressed in his film ‘Nil By Mouth,’ in 1997! In this interview Gary is doing what many intelligent people do: he is illustrating the absurd by being absurd.”
Yet that defense was not enough. Oldman was on his knees begging for mercy and asking the dreadful few to wash away his sins. He said,
“I am deeply remorseful that comments I recently made in the Playboy interview were offensive to many Jewish people.
“Upon reading my comments in print — I see how insensitive they may be, and how they may indeed contribute to the furtherance of a false stereotype. Anything that contributes to this stereotype is unacceptable, including my own words on the matter.
“If, during the interview, I had been asked to elaborate on this point, I would have pointed out that I had just finished reading Neal Gabler’s superb book about the Jews and Hollywood, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. The fact is that our business, and my own career specifically, owes an enormous debt to that contribution.”
Interestingly enough, Gabler, who is Jewish, basically articulates the same thing that Oldman is saying. The only difference is that Gabler is a Jew and gets accolade for saying that Jews controlled Hollywood. Oldman cannot get that special privilege.
Oldman continued in to apologize and say that the Jews are “surely the chosen people.”
Oldman will probably be absolved from his sins. Probably Penelope and Javier’s egregious mistake will be washed away. Only time will tell. But they certainly were not the only ones to be abandoned by the Zionist kingdom in Hollywood.
Remember Jim Caviezel? As soon as he played Jesus Christ in Gibson’s The Passion of Christ, his career was virtually over.
Remember Rick Sanchez?
Sanchez, a popular liberal CNN news anchor, made the mistake in the fall of 2010 of sarcastically questioning whether Jews could be considered an oppressed minority anymore, hinting at preferential treatment of Jews and prejudicial treatment of non-Jews. The next day, he was fired by CNN.
Sanchez later tried to explain the broader point he was trying to make, but it was too late.
 Jon Voight, “Jon Voight Slams Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem for Bashing Israel,” Variety Magazine, August 2, 2014.
 Fiona Keating, “Hollywood Studios Blacklist Penelope Cruz over Gaza Letter Accusing Israel of ‘Genocide,’” International Business Times, August 9, 2014.
 Voight, “Jon Voight Slams Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem for Bashing Israel,” Variety Magazine, August 2, 2014
 Melvin A. Goodman, “Israel’s Carte Blanche for War Crimes in Gaza,” Counter Punch, August 5, 2014.
 Keating, “Hollywood Studios Blacklist Penelope Cruz over Gaza Letter Accusing Israel of ‘Genocide,’” International Business Times, August 9, 2014
 Damon Linker, “The 3 big lies supporting Israel’s war in Gaza,” The Week, August 5, 2014.
 Jennifer Newton, “Disgust as Israeli soldier spotted laughing and drinking in Jerusalem bar wearing a ‘Deployed, Destroyed and Enjoyed Gaza 2014′ T-shirt,” Daily Mail, August 13, 2014.
 Elhanan Miller, “Syrian Commander Says He Collaborated with Israel,” Times of Israel, August 13, 2014.
 Quoted in Dan Murphy, “Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, In His Own Words,” Christian Science Monitor, October 7, 2013.
 Quoted in Natasha Mozgovaya, “ADL slams Shas spiritual leader for saying non-Jews ‘were born to serve Jews,’” Haaretz, October 20, 2010.
 Howard Jacobson, “In Praise of perversion,” The Independent, September 17, 2008.
 For a cultural history on this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).
 James Kaplan, “Robin Williams,” US Weekly, January 1999.
 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Book, 1995), 133.
 James Legge, translator, The Works of Mencius (New York: Dover Publication, 1985), 451.
 MTV Examined, VHS, directed by Eric Holmberg (American Portrait, 1993).
 Courtney Rubin, “Eva Mendes: I Needed a Cocktail to Film Sex Scene,” People Magazine, May 25, 2007.
 “Rosie Perez: Filming Sex Scene with John Leguizamo for ‘The Take’ was ‘Very Awkward’,” Fox News, April 7, 2008.
 Do they really think that they will get away with this? Perhaps they should start reading Dante’s Divine Comedy.
 “Eva Mendes Talks Sex Scenes, Having Kids,” Huffington Post, June 14, 2010.
 Ryan Reed, “Gary Oldman Apologizes for Stereotyping Jews,” Rolling Stone, June 25, 2004.
 David McNary, “Gary Oldman Blasts Hollywood Politics, Defends Mel Gibson and Alec Baldwin,” Variety Magazine, June 23, 2014.
 Reed, “Gary Oldman Apologizes for Stereotyping Jews,” Rolling Stone, June 25, 2004.
 Lauren Parvizi, “Jim Caviezel: ‘Playing Jesus Christ cost me my acting career,’” San Francisco Chronicle, May 3, 2011.
Some of his main interests include the history of Christianity, U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book ,Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict Between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the first Century to the Twenty-first Century.
He is currently teaching mathematics in South Korea. He plays soccer and basketball in his spare time. He is also a cyclist. He is currently writing a book tentatively titled Zionism and the West.
Alexis welcomes comments, letters, and queries in order to advance, explain, and expound rational and logical discussion on issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, the history of Christianity, and the history of ideas.
In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, Alexis asks that all queries be appropriately respectful and maintain a level of civility. As the saying goes, “iron sharpens iron,” and the best way to sharpen one’s mind is through constructive criticism, good and bad.
However, Alexis has no patience with name-calling and ad hominem attack. He has deliberately ignored many queries and irrational individuals in the past for this specific reason—and he will continue to abide by this policy.
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on August 15, 2014, With 0 Reads, Filed under Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.