This link is to an article "explaining" for us what Mel Gibson meant in his now infamous, drunken rant of late. http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/young/young2.html
Don't bother reading this post unless you have read this article.
The argument behind this article is flawed in a few ways. First, it presumes to explain what Mel Gibson actually meant--that he blames Zionists (as opposed to all Jews) for the bulk of the government-initiated violence in the Middle East. The problem with this is that, once sober, Gibson did not qualify his statement in this manner. Instead, he apologized profusely for saying very awful things.
Secondly, the author presumes to know Gibson as "intelligent" and "thoughtful" because he (the author) has either read or heard several interviews of the actor. Is the author really suggesting that Mel Gibson is not an anti-Semite because Mel Gibson interviews well?
As far as the first part of the article (the one about the history of Hollywood and Jews), I'm not really sure where he's going. Is he saying that Hollywood is run by Zionist Jews who celebrate "the war-mongering, terrorist, American state" and are thus complicit in Israel's war in Lebanon or that Mel Gibson cannot be an anti-Semite because he works in an industry founded and run by Jews?
What's with the author's suggesting that Gibson cleverly uttered his notorious exclamations concisely so as to capture the attention of the American people without bogging them down with details that an editor (presumably the author of the article) will later, without having consulted Gibson at all, expand in much greater detail?
He states, "It's a fact that Jewish men were founders and primary players in the Hollywood media business." In doing so, he ignores another fact, that gentiles were founders and primary players in the Hollywood media business as well. He also uses the proper adjective "Jewish" when later he distinguishes between the collective Jew and the Zionist Jew. He does not call these "founders and primary players" Zionist Jews. He simply calls them Jewish men (a.k.a. Jews--the collective). Ironically, the author calls this very same equivocation error one of Gibson's mistakes (the other one being his having consumed and excessive amount of alcohol).
The author also states, "Most people, unfortunately, do not carefully listen and analyze the words of others." Hopefully, in his case, the majority of his readers are among this flock.
The article is either by an anti-Semite who is trying to defend an alleged anti-Semite or a very poorly reasoned apology by a Mel Gibson fan who happens to despise the Israeli state. I'm inclined to assess the latter as the most likely.
As far as I'm concerned, there is not enough evidence to convict Mel Gibson as an anti-Semite. What he said is clearly anti-emetic, but that doesn't make him an anti-Semite for a couple of reason. People say and do stupid things when they are drunk. People also make general statements that they do not really believe.
He could be an anti-Semite. It appears that his father is, but we shan't judge the son by the father's sins. Supposing that he is an anti-Semite, will I shun future Gibson projects? I doubt it. Just because the guy is an idiot doesn't mean that I won't enjoy his movies. I think that most Hollywood types are idiots (e.g. Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Susan Sarrandon, Tim Robbins, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, etc.), but this has not prevented me from watching movies. Many musicians are idiots too, but I listen to their music because I enjoy their music.
That's about all I've got to say on this topic, unless someone else has something to add.
I have know a lot of drunks and have been with a lot of people when they are drunk and the one thing I have found is that when a person is drunk they speak their true heart or mind. Come to think of it, I don’t know why we don’t use it as an interrogation tool. I wish entertainers would keep their mouths shut when it comes to political and social issues. Their view is no more important than yours or mine yet because of their built in bully pulpit their views seem to carry more weight. How sad. I also wish entertainers would refrain from exposing their views so that I wouldn’t have to make a decision with regards to viewing or listening to them practice their trade. While I like Mel Gibson movies, I would hate to think that I am supporting (providing income) a person who truly feels one way about an issue but publicly (unless he is drunk) states the opposite for the sake of his career. Is Gibson anti-Semitic? Probably. Would I stop viewing his movies because he is? No. Will I stop watching his movies because he is being two-faced about it? Probably.
ReplyDeleteI would like to agree with your analysis, but not without qualifications.
ReplyDeleteFirst, sometimes people do speak their true heart or mind when they are drunk; however, this is not always true. Sometimes people really do say things that they don't mean. Since I have no way of effectively measuring what Gibson's true heart and mind is, I cannot say much about this with any certainty. Just because some people some of the time expose hidden truths or dark secrets while drunk (e.g. Seinfeld's Elaine on Schnapps), we can't accept anything that comes from drunken mouths as valid.
Try this one: Gibson's father seems pretty anti-Semitic, so it's likely that Gibson grew up hearing and saying anti-Semitic things. Not being a hard-core anti-Semite (like his old man), Gibson no longer speaks this way regularly. However, when he drank too much and was busted for it, he exploded in an anti-Semitic tirade--one probably not unlike what he heard as a boy from daddy.
Or, he could be anti-Semitic and just (usually) good at hiding it behind those dreamy eyes.
There are also, I would like to say, degrees of anti-Semitism. Like burns, 3rd Degree is the worst and 1st Degree is the best (if there's any such thing as a good burn).
There's the "Final Solution" kind of anti-Semites who support a genocidal policy towards Jews because Jews as a whole control the media and banking empires of the world for their own purpose, that they use their power for their own purposes, be them political, economic, or social. We'll call these ones "3rd Degree" anti-Semites. They can be found openly certain Moslem circles, but are taboo in Western society. This doesn't mean that they don't exist.
"2nd Degree" anti-Semites might be those who believe that Jews as a whole do indeed control the media and banking empires of the world for their own purpose, that they use their power for their own purposes, be them political, economic, or social; but these "2nd Degrees" do not support a holocaust. What they do support is not often clear. It is occasionally violent, but usually it's just verbally belligerent. My guess is that Mel Gibson's father belongs in this category.
Then there's 1st Degree anti-Semite who says things about Jews and maybe even believes certain things about the race (e.g. stereotypes but not conspiracy theories), but he keeps it pretty quiet and usually judges any Jews whom he knows personally by their character rather than their heritage. This, I think, is Mel Gibson and a great many--possibly even a majority--of the gentile population.
As for wishing "that entertainers would keep their mouths shut when it comes to political and social issues," I agree. Fame does not suggest wisdom. It can just as easily exclude it. As for Gibson exposing his views, I'm pretty sure that he did not do so intentionally (if those are, indeed, his actual views).
As for enriching him by seeing his movies, I do not worry about it. I exchange my ticket or rental fee for viewing pleasure. I do not much worry about what happens to my few dollars. If you worry that much, then I hope that you're a Democrat. Otherwise, you should avoid paying for any movies, for virtually any movie that you pay to see generates funds for that party because most actors (it would seem) are Democrats (but not Kurt Russell--he's a Libertarian!).
As for me judging Gibson trying to cover his ass (saying he's not anti-Semitic even if he really is), I don't see how you can blame him. Look at all that's being said even though he a. apologized for everything that he said, and b. denied being anti-Semitic. Only an idiot would stand up and say, "Yep, you caught me. I hate Jews. Thank God that it's finally out!" If I judged him for this, then I'd have to judge myself harshly the next time my wife asked me if it looks like she's gained weight.
Here, I thought I'd bash some more terrible logic I found on STR today:
ReplyDeleteFrom “Darwin Reconsidered” by Bill Ross
August 15, 2006
"Note that your life equals time and energy. You must exchange life for money and property, even if you are a criminal. Therefore money and property equals life. Theft of your property is appropriation of whatever portion of YOUR life it took to acquire it. A 50% tax rate makes you a half slave. Note that no property rights allows seizure to be threatened, subjecting you to compulsion, making you a full slave at the whim of those who control the apparatus of state, at any time they choose, for whatever purpose they choose."
What a faulty line of logic…where should I begin? The beginning seems rather appropriate, rather enough. (1) Simply because one element is composed of certain elements does not make the compound and the elements equal. A simple analogy is a cookie; while it is composed of butter, flour, sugar, (etc), a cookie is not equal to the said ingredients. And yes, the majority of persons do exchange some of their time and efforts for some of their time, which I would argue is different from life. However, (2) simply because two items/services are exchanged for one another does not make them equal, i.e. You must exchange life for money and property…Therefore money and property equals life. The fact that one was willingly exchanged for the other, by economic definition reveals that there was a competitive advantage in making the transaction, ergo the traded elements cannot be equal. You then attempt to formulate a price system based on how long one works toward a goal, stating that your property is appropriation of whatever portion of YOUR life it took to acquire it. However, unless Adam Smith was wrong all these years, your property’s [monetary] value is only determined by its demand at free market (or set price in demand economies). Unless my terrible golf game is marketable for half my life’s worth. And finally, (3) while taxes do constitute theft, this in itself does not constitute slavery. They may be taking your money, but they do not force or control your actions.
I'm having problems logging into my own blog. This is just a test.
ReplyDeleteIt's a sad day when we care more about entertainers' behavior than our government's.
ReplyDelete