- "The Passion of the Christ" directed by Mel
Gibson; written by Benedict Fitzgerald and Gibson; director of photography,
Caleb Deschanel; produced by Gibson, Bruce Davey and Stephen McEveety.
Released by Icon Productions and Newmarket Films. In Aramaic and Latin,
with English subtitles. Running time: 120 minutes. Rated R.
-
- We live in the age of Judaic supremacy. In such an age
Judaics cry "Holocaust!" when they stub their toe on a fire hydrant
and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is that fire-hydrant.
-
- The Zionists of our time are accustomed to calling the
shots -- in the White House, the European Union, the Vatican, in American
finance and education. The silver screen has been their bailiwick since
the original gentile inventors and pioneers like Thomas Edison and D.W.
Griffith were elbowed out of the way by quondam glove merchants, furriers
and sons of ragmen such as Louis B. Mayer, Samuel Goldwyn and Kirk Douglas.
Years ago this sorry fact was denied, but in our Age of Judaic Supremacy
the moguls can afford to celebrate their dominion with a certain amount
of public gloating.
-
- The gang, the crowd, the cartel, the crime syndicate--call
them what you will--are accustomed to having the goyim work in the motion
picture industry at their sufferance. Into that totalitarian fiefdom enters
Mel Gibson, seeking to expiate on screen for various sins he feels he has
committed in the past. He chooses for his expiation a movie about Jesus
Christ's trial, torment and execution. By so doing, he trespasses on the
sole proprietorship of the high caste that predetermines how Christ, Pilate
and Caiaphas will be portrayed in the approved manner.
-
- Because Gibson shows, for a few on-screen moments, the
villainy of the Chief Priest Caiaphas, and the existential angst of Pilate,
"The Passion of the Christ" has been adduced as only slightly
less bigoted than the Nazi movie, "Ewige Jude." The goyim see
the smoke of this customary Judaic hyperbole and assume that Gibson has
lit some kind of fire that illuminates the Gospel Truth about Jesus.
-
- Would that it were so. The fact is, there are only three
incentives for seeing this movie: 1. Watching Pilate rehabilitated and
restored to his rightful New Testament role as a ruler who sought to avoid
Christ's execution. 2. Witnessing for a few moments the rare sight of the
chief priests depicted as vengeful and reprehensible. 3. To satisfy one's
curiosity concerning the hoopla and hype surrounding the movie. With regard
to the first two incentives, these scenes represent approximately ten or
fifteen minutes of footage out of a total of 120 minutes.
-
- Political Correctness
-
- Even Gibson's portrayal of the Sadducees and Pharisees
is not without compromises with political correctness. Caiaphas and his
priestly entourage, for example, are shown as saddened by the scenes of
Jesus' torture by laughing Roman soldiers. The leaders of the Jews take
no pleasure in Christ's torment, unlike the Roman soldiers.
-
- One of the most egregious betrayals in the film is when
Christ, from the Cross, is shown asking for forgiveness for his Judaic
tormentors, "because they know not what they do." But this forgiveness
can only pertain to the Romans, since only they were ignorant of the spiritual
contests of the Jews. But Gibson makes it patent that Jesus is beseeching
God's forgiveness for Caiaphas as well, in spite of Christ saying to Pilate,
speaking of Caiaphas,"He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater
sin" (John 19: 10-11).
-
- But if Caiaphas did not know what he was doing, as Gibson
implies, and Caiaphas was ignorant of the fact that Jesus was the Messiah,
how then did Caiaphas transgress by demanding Jesus' death? If the high
priests didn't know what they were doing and truly believed Christ to be
an impostor, then they were only being faithful to the law of God in requiring
that He be put to death, and thus, the founders of Judaism are vindicated.
We observe Gibson's confection of a new theology, which he expanded in
his conversation with Diane Sawyer on national television, with the unscriptural
proposition that "we're-all-equally-guilty."
-
- Jesus had said of the high priests, the Pharisees and
Sadducees, that they were the murderers of the prophets and responsible
for the spilling of all the righteous blood since Abel, and were damned
to hell: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape
the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and
wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and
some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from
city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon
the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechariah
son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar."
(Matthew 23:33-35).
-
- In I Thessalonians 2: 14-15, Paul decreed they were deicides,
"contrary to all men" and "under wrath." How are they
then forgiven on the basis of "not knowing what they do"? Why
does Gibson seek to conflate the chief priests with the Romans and absolve
them all, when Jesus did not?
-
- When Gibson first came under fire from Zionists, he shot
a new scene and inserted it into the movie, a scene of Jesus preaching
forgiveness for one's enemies. Gibson has stated in interviews that he
did this so that viewers would understand that Jesus was advising forgiveness
for the Pharisees and chief priests, but there is no Biblical warrant for
this novel interpretation. Jesus clearly stated that the Pharisees and
Sadducees were "the children of hell." How could my forgiveness
or your forgiveness spare them from their fate? Jesus was preaching to
us about forgiving our own enemies, those who steal our merchandise or
punch us in the nose. To extrapolate an authority or mandate for humans
to forgive God's enemies is an imposture.
-
- As part of his political correctness, Gibson sought to
imply that Jesus was requesting that we forgive His sworn ideological foes
who, after His death, committed the heinous oral "traditions of the
elders" to writing, and founded the antichrist religion of Judaism.
They should be forgiven for this? Who among us may usurp the role of God
and forgive these counterfeiters of the religion of Israel? This is bogus
and reveals the extent of either Gibson's woeful theological confusion,
or his futile attempt to appease the commissars of Hollywood.
-
- Political correctness comes to the fore again when the
crowd of Jews screams "Crucify him!" Well, I surmised that's
what they were screaming, because Gibson did not allow subtitles for that
historic, spine-tingling scene from the New Testament. The Jews scream
in Aramaic and we must guess what it is they are saying. A monumental icon
of the Passion story is thereby vitiated.
-
- Another politically correct Gibson vignette has one of
the Roman soldiers swear contemptuously at Simon, the man who helped Jesus
carry His Cross, "Come, you Jew!" Obviously the Roman soldier
was intended as a stand-in for a German SS trooper, and Simon was substituting
for some Khazar in the Warsaw ghetto, the intent being to "combat
anti-Semitism." Gibson confirmed the intent of this scene in an interview
with Bill O'Reilly of the Fox TV channel (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112436,00.html).
In that interview he also nullified the good he had done in portraying
Pilate fairly in his movie, by telling O'Reilly that Pilate was "a
monster."
-
- Almost all of the Israelites in the movie are either
played by Italian actors who look like Khazars or by actual Khazars. Peter
has a big nose and Mary, the Mother of Christ, the subject of so many portraits
of tender pulchritude by the Renaissance painters of serenity and light,
resembles a gypsy fortune-teller. Obviously Gibson imagines that today's
Khazars, who run around calling themselves "Jews" are genetically
the same nation that peopled Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. I don't think so.
Gibson is not afraid to have the devil personified by a Nordic-looking
woman, however, there being no powerful Nordic Anti-Defamation League to
mollify.
-
- "The Passion of the Christ" starts with Christ's
agony in the garden. Here Gibson portrays Jesus as a blubbering, effeminate
cry-baby, exhibiting no manly characteristics until the very end of the
scene, when he stomps on a demonic snake.
-
- With a couple of exceptions, actor Jim Caviezel is not
convincing in the role of Christ. He lacks the authority, the presence,
the inherent spirit. When he speaks to Caiaphas or Pilate he seems like
a weak, perhaps demented man who is without a spark of command or divinity
about him.
-
- The Process Advances: Gorefest of the Defeated Jesus
-
- The violence in the movie is dehumanizing. It is not
opposed to, but part of, the hyper-violence of the modern media. As part
of the alchemical processing of humanity by the Cryptocracy, the entertainment
industry has become ever more violent. Each successive film must surpass
the previous entry in terms of gore and bloodshed, or risk leaving the
insatiable audience drowsy and distracted. For this reason, Gibson has
to out-Herod Herod and blast us out of our seats with an unprecedented
level of bloodshed. This movie is a veritable blood freakout. Western Europeans
have typically not obsessed about blood, but blood is known to be a documented
fascination for Talmudic Judaics and those spiritualized Judaics who wear
the habiliments of gentiles.
-
- In the 1940s and 50s, the highest cinematic artistry
consisted in the suggestion of violence, not its actual full-fledged realization,
and there lies the authentic artistic norm of western civilization. Gibson's
movie violates those norms. There is nothing traditional about "The
Passion of the Christ." It is revolutionary cinema; Antonin Artaud
would have recognized it as the "theater of cruelty." Gibson's
flick would have been condemned as strictly infra dig fifty years ago.
-
- "The Passion of the Christ" does not represent
a restoration of a hallowed vision or a return to a venerated tradition,
but rather a revolutionary departure from the cinematic canon of John Ford,
the early Alfred Hitchcock and Elia Kazan. Gibson's "The Passion of
the Christ" is the next stage in the devolutionary process from Videodrome
to Matrix to Kill Bill. It exhibits a morbid sado-masochist obsession that
borders on psychosis.
-
- Appeal to Satanists
-
- The movie quotes from Isaiah 53:5: "By His wounds
we are healed." But this film is a negation of that prophecy, since
the wounds of Christ are never allowed to heal. The victorious Christianity
of Vivaldi and Bach, Raphael and Da Vinci, is nowhere to be seen. Instead,
we are shown a relentless series of images of a defeated Christ. I can
envision "The Passion of the Christ" being shown at Satanic get-togethers
where for an hour or more, the diabolists cheer and giggle at scene after
scene of the relentless beating, whipping and torture of Christ.
-
- Indeed, in Stanley Kubrick's 1971 movie, "A Clockwork
Orange," the anti-hero, Alex, a rapist and murderer, fantasizes that
he is a grinning Roman soldier deriving ecstasy from flogging Jesus. Kubrick's
footage of these cruel fantasy sequences, wallowing in technicolor sadism
directed at the person of Jesus, were the only footage of this type extant,
until Gibson's film debuted.
-
- As part of its Jesus-on-steroids ambiance, the movie
relies heavily on melodramatic, Exorcist-like music, computer-generated
sound effects and slow motion camera work, which gives "The Passion
of the Christ," a feverish, psychedelic quality that detracts from,
rather than enhances, our lucidity.
-
- On the rare occasion when Gibson departs from this digital
overkill to show us the Last Supper and the Sermon on the Mount, crafting
the peace and stillness of a divine milieu, Caviezel does appear Christ-like,
does seem to possess a certain authority and the scenes work beautifully,
with cinematographer Caleb Deschanel coming close to his aim of imitating
the painterly quality of a Carvaggio portrait. But if you blink you'll
miss these fleeting moments of authentic hagiography and insight into the
nature of the Christ. We are all-too soon whisked back to the ponderously
telegraphed, digitally enhanced abattoir.
-
- "Dangers of anti-Semitism"
-
- "Dangers of anti-Semitism" as a result of this
film? How so, when nearly everyone in it is shown to be equally culpable,
with only the Nordic Romans and the Nordic Satan serving as the standout
paradigm of evil. Moreover, I know of no movie critic, no Catholic bishop,
no Protestant TV preacher who ever worked themselves into a lather over
the possibility that one of the hundreds of "Holocaust" movies
that have been churned out over the last four decades would result in persecution
and hate being directed at Germans. In the case of the Germans and the
"Holocaust" movies that denigrate them, it is always a matter
of, "Too bad if the truth hurts."
-
- I don't sucker in for any special pleading for the Zionists
on this count. They should learn to take their lumps like everyone else.
They've dished it out to the Arabs and the Germans on TV and in movies
for years with shameless impunity, and hardly anyone in the Establishment
has ever raised a whimper of protest.
-
- The racket about Gibson's movie is just the usual Judaic
paranoia over the slightest deviation from their anti-Pilate, anti-Christ
dogma; part and parcel of their religious fanatic mentality. If in the
weeks and months ahead we learn that Gibson has been boycotted by Hollywood,
or attacked by some other means, it will not be due to the fact that he
is a genuine enemy of Judaism or Zionism. Indeed, the gentile shills for
those murderous ideologies, from Pat Robertson to Cal Thomas, are full
of praise for Mel and his movie.
-
- Rather, if Gibson is targeted, he will be targeted because
the least deviation from the Judaic party line cannot be tolerated, and
must be publicly punished as a warning to other, perhaps far more daring,
would-be rebels and dissenters. Gibson is not an enemy of Churchianity
or the Vatican. He shares their reductionist, universalist theology. But
he has exhibited an iota of independence in his portrayals of Caiaphas
and Pilate, and even this tiny bit of autonomy is a stone in the shoe of
such Hollywoodberg capos as Jeffrey Katenzenberg and Stephen Spielberg.
-
- But for us to become embroiled in rivalries between two
wings of the same dialectical synthesis, is a waste of time and energy.
It causes us to derogate substance and elevate tinsel, to mistake the chimera
for the cause.
-
- The fact is, we've been had. "The Passion of the
Christ" is an over-rated, politically-correct bore (unless gore is
your bag). Gibson must be one seriously troubled soul to have made this
mess. His movie will appeal to Biblically-illiterate "Christians,"
the Marquis de Sade set, and to the staff and management of Icon productions,
who will realize a handsome return on their investment.
-
- Witnessing this gorefest's immense popularity among the
churched, I can only wonder at the degraded state of Christendom in 2004.
-
-
- Hoffman is the author of Secret Societies and Psychological
Warfare
- Copyright 2004 by Michael A. Hoffman II
- Independent History & Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho 83816 USA
-
- http://www.revisionisthistory.org/wire8.html
|
