http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110100617.html?hpid=sec-religion
From Wiki:
"Barrie M. Osborne was born in New York, New York, the son of Hertha Schwarz and William Osborne."
Why would a Jew make a movie that makes Muslims look good?
Didn't liberal Jewish media lambast Muslims and make us Western gentiles hate Muslims and Arabs at a primal level?
Maybe Hollywood is trying to clean up its image as an "Islamophobic" industry. For quite awhile, Jews used their media power to make us loathe Muslims. Muslims are one people we can freely blast and demean without much repercussions. Since Muslims are bitter enemies of Israel, it's been in the Jewish interest to make us hate Muslims. Since this mission has been accomplished--indeed most Americans do hate, despise, or loathe Muslims--beyond all expectations, Jews may now be trying another tactic to wash their own hands of "Islamophobia", thereby making it the sickness of white Christians.
Remember Pilate's clever trick in shifting the blame for the killing of Jesus? Romans wanted Jesus the troublemaker dead but didn't want to be blamed for the murder. So, the Romans did everything possible to achieve their desired goal--death of Jesus--while appearing as if they they had little or nothing to do with the process or outcome. JEWS got all the blame. Jews must be great students of Pilate.
Just consider...
Jews have used their formidable media power to turn us against Muslims. Most Americans are indeed 'rabidly and virulently Islamo-phobic' as a result. Since we are NOW and will be INDEFINITELY reliably anti-Muslim without much further input on the part of Jews, Jews may now be seeking a way to 'wash their hands' of the sin of 'Islamophobic' prejudice.
So, we have a this warm fuzzy movie about how Muhammad was a man of peace, a proto-multi-cultural figure, and all-around nice guy. (Similarly, remember how V for Vendetta would have us believe that people-of-color Muslims and gays are both victims of evil white male Christians? Jews manipulate and use white Christian hatred toward enemies of Israel but then also slyly condemn white gentile anti-Islamism as just another example of 'white racism'.)
With this movie about Muhammad, Jews can say they respect Islam, Arab peoples, the diversity of world religions. It's rather the white gentiles who are viciously and virulently anti-Muslims.
There is a French General in the movie PATHS OF GLORY who thinks/acts very much like of today's Jews. He would goad his officers to take great risks, but when things fell apart, wash his own hands of the tragedy and push the blame on 'overzealous', 'vain', or 'cowardly' underlings. He himself remains aloof and trans-political, looking down on everyone as a chess player looks down on chess pieces. For many Jews, "post-racial" and "trans-national" really mean Jews get to look down on us from above and exploit the racial and national hostilities and antagonisms for the good of Jews.
So, when it comes to the Middle East, Jews feed, encourage, and harness our anti-Muslim anger against those 'terrorist' Muslims. In the West, Jews feed, encourage, and harness anti-white rage among 'people-of-color' against 'racist' whites.
Notice how Harvard plays this game. It is one of the most virulently Zionist institutions in the world, yet it also makes generous concessions to Muslim students. Harvard Jews want us white gentiles to support their policies in the Middle East, but they also want Muslims--and other 'people of color' on campus--to support their anti-white and anti-Christian agenda in the name of 'diversity'.
Jews turn Western gentiles into mad dogs against mad Muslim dogs and then throw a bone at the mad dog Muslims as if to say, 'It's the Christians who are barking at you; we Jews are your friends.' Of course, Jews go to Christians and say, 'We Jews don't hate you; it's those crazy Muslims who want to kill you'. It's the Jerry Springer tactic of using big gentile guests against one another. Could be why Mel Gibson said, "Jews start all wars." Outrageous(and drunken)charge to be sure, but not without a kernal of truth.
We should never think that Jews are the natural or permanent friends of Christians. Most Jews are on the liberal/leftist side of the spectrum and committed to the destruction of white civilization. Jews also know that Jewish life under the Muslims had been more tolerable than under the Christians until relatively recently. Jewish merchants and scholars had been protected in Muslim-controlled Spain. Christian Crusaders slaughtered Jews who had thrived under the Muslims. The Jewish-Muslim divided happened as a result of secularization of Jews, which made them feel closer to the Rational West than to the religious East. Also, the rise of Zionism drove a wedge between world Jewry and the Muslim world. Had it not been for the creation of Israel, it could well be that many or even most Jews would be championing the Arabs and Muslims against whites--just as Jews have done so with the blacks and illegal Mexican 'immigrants' against whites. Jews always and primarily ask, "Is it good for the Jews?" When will whites come to their senses and ask "Is it good for whites?" before all other considerations? We don't have to like but should be like the Jews.
-------------------------------------------
I wish someone would really make a critical historical biopic in which someone plays the role of Muhammad. Since when should we care about spiritual taboos? Artistic freedom means artistic freedom. Religious artists may have to follow their creed, but free artists don't have to.
Sadly, we wimp out so often. We try to be sensitive and 'progressive'. Multiculturalists insist that we must be sensitive to the point of self-censorship. Sensitivity is a virtue but not when it's politically correct, censorious, cowardice-masquerading-as-progress, selective, hypocritical, etc.
If we must restrain what we say based on the reaction of certain groups, we might as well flush freedom of speech/expression down the toilet. Freedom of speech would be a matter of speaking freely only about groups without the power/vocality/numbers to threaten us to shut up; in other words, we'd be able to criticize the powerless Cambodians and the Cambodian-American community but not Jews nor blacks because we are afraid of their power and/or influence. Such taboos make a mockery of freedom of speech and truthful inquiry in both journalism and academia. Why is it that Don Imus was fired but not Talk Radio or media people who put down Asian-Indians or Chinese? Because blacks are more powerful in American culture and politics than Hindus or Chinese. If we can crack jokes or put down Hindus or Chinese, we should be able to do so with anyone. Freedom of speech should mean freedom from fear of powerful groups who want to destroy the freedom of speech of their rivals or opponents.
The problem isn't just about Muhammad and crazy Muslims but the sacred myth of Martin Luther King and all the vocal groups in the West who denounce any criticism or satire of their sacred cows as 'racist', 'homophobic', or what-have-you, and insist on 'hate speech laws' so as to ban 'hateful' speech. If anyone draws a dismissive cartoon or says something critical in public about Martin Luther King, he will not only be denounced by demagogues like Al Sharpton but also by whites--conservatives included!! Even whites who don't like King urge that we be 'sensitive' and keep mum. Why? Pure cowardice.
Freedom of speech is useless unless we are willing to say what we feel, even if it leads to controversy and even violence.
Even King understood this. He knew that his words, tactics, and maneuvers would instigate threats, hostility, and even violence on the part of whites. Did that stop King and blacks from provoking American society? No, King believed that freedom of speech and equal rights meant that a person has the right to say and do things even if such offended the sensibilities or the values of many people. If advisors had told King that it would have been 'sensitive' and 'multicultural' to respect the attitudes and cultures of Southern Whites, he would have laughed and mocked such notions. King would have been right on this account(though he was a fraud because he only used the promise of peace as a Trojan Horse against white society--like Mandela would use it later in South Africa).
This Muhammad movie in production sounds stupid, but I would like to see an honest movie about Muhammad or Martin Luther King the pervert. In Cuba, any criticism of Castro land one in jail. In North Korea, a funny cartoon of Kim will get one killed. In Muslim countries, naming a Teddy Bear "Muhammad" can get one beheaded. Why should WE think and act the same way in a free society? Everyone--especially the powerful--should come under revision, criticism, and scrutiny. The myths of King and Muhammad--or any other 'great man'--should be examined.
If hell breaks loose as a result, so be it. We should make even more such movies until the other side will eventually have to accept that they cannot intimidate free peoples as to what they can say, write, make, read, or see. Whatever happened to 'Give me liberty or give me death'?
Suppose someone said no anti-Hitler or anti-KKK movies should be made since it would be insensitive to white nationalists or might lead to acts of terrorism by far right nuts. That would be ALL THE MORE REASON to make an anti-Hitler or anti-KKK movie. To show that we are for truth and won't be cowered by threats or violence.
Suppose Christians in the 19th century threatened violence unless all books by Charles Darwin were burned. Should the books have been burned for the sake of social peace? What kind of peace is that? One founded on cowardice and censorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment