Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Celebrities and anti-Semitism: has our liberal creative elite rediscovered an ancient prejudice?
'Darling, Is that the latest from Galliano?'
There are bar-room bigots – and then there is the top fashion designer, John Galliano. Latest reports show a video of the diminutive fashionista in a bar in Le Marais (a Parisian Jewish neighbourhood that experienced Nazi deportations during World War II) where he had already been accused of one anti-Semitic and racist outburst, with a drink in one hand, declaring: “I love Hitler.”
The British designer then tells a horrified woman: “People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers, would all be f****** gassed.”
Galliano may be adored by Kate Moss and all the other narcissistic airheads from fashion’s “master race”, but when a member of staff at the Parisian bar told one of the designer’s victims: “This guy deserves to be beaten up, but we can’t do anything, it’s John Galliano,” there were a lot of people who buy their clothes on the High Street who understood what he meant.
Yet, Galliano is not the only anti-Semite in the (celebrity) village. His drunken ramblings are reminiscent of Mel Gibson’s penchant for racist diatribes. Incidentally, Gibson’s new movie The Beaver is out next month – where’s the Jewish control of Hollywood when you need it, eh?
And then there’s Charlie Sheen. Fresh from carousing with porn stars, and despite being apparently self-cured of his cravings for drugs and alcohol, the sitcom star and once talented actor had a “Gaddafi moment” on a radio show last week, pouring invective over the Two and a Half Men creator, Chuck Lorre.
No doubt, Hollywood is a nest of vipers and everyone is screwing over somebody else but Sheen’s abuse was not restricted to a soured business/creative relationship. He repeatedly referred to Chuck Lorre (born Charles Levine) as “Chaim Levine”. The invention of a stereotypical Jewish name for his alleged nemesis was rightly described by ADL National Director Abraham H Foxman as, “at best bizarre, and at worst, borderline anti-Semitism.”
Last year, the ADL also had to have words with Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone about his “Jewish domination of the media” comments.
But if there is rising ambivalence towards Jews among the liberal, creative elite, then the British director Ken Loach represents its true face.
The dour Leftie, who can’t blame drink, drugs or rank stupidity, has endlessly used a desiccated anti-imperialist rhetoric to incite the boycott of Israel at every turn, and in doing so flirts with the very biogtry he claims to ideologically oppose.
This was highlighted by his notorious response to a report on the growth of anti-Semitism in the aftermath of the Gaza War, in which he said: “If there has been a rise I am not surprised. In fact, it is perfectly understandable because Israel feeds feelings of anti-Semitism.” So whether perpetrator or victim, in Ken’s world, the Jews are to blame.
For Booker prize winner Howard Jacobson, anti-Semitism is a historical bacillus too toxic to have become extinct in a generation or two. Post Holocaust, it has hidden in the cracks of time waiting for the right conditions to re-infect the minds of men. The bitter, at times cruel, Israel-Palestine conflict now provides the environment for renewed contagion. To borrow a phrase, it may not be long before anti-Semitism once again “passes the dinner-table test”.
Why Is the New York Times Shilling for Far-Left Terrorists While Smearing the Patriot Who Exposed Them?
As a wave of left-wing violence threatens to engulf the nation, why is the progressive New York Times running an ugly campaign of character assassination against a real-life American hero who saved lives and helped to safeguard the nation’s sacred democratic process?
Could it be because the newspaper is sympathetic to the goals of the thuggish community organizers and union goons intimidating state legislatures across America and wants to help advance the liberal-left narrative?
The man with the bull’s eye on his back is Brandon Darby, formerly a far-left community organizer. This heroic defector from the Left stands accused by the New York Times and by angry radical groups of becoming an agent provocateur. Unhinged anarchists across the country would love to get their hands on him.
All over the Internet Darby’s name has been dragged through the mud by the Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars crowd. They accuse him of selling out and pushing the wrongdoers hard enough that he essentially became a co-conspirator. Search for his name with the words traitor, rat, or fink and you’ll see what I mean.
Darby got to this point after years of leading in-your-face protests, using confrontational tactics, and working with America-haters. But he experienced an epiphany and rejected the radical Left and its ever-present culture of political violence. He came to realize that America, for all its faults, wasn’t such a bad place after all. “I felt I had a duty to atone after badmouthing my country for so many years,” he said. “I love my country.”
The change of heart happened around the time he returned from socialist Venezuela where he had been trying to get the government there to donate to his nonprofit group. While in that country high officials in Hugo Chavez’s administration tried to get Darby to launch a terrorist network in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. Darby refused.
After he returned to the U.S. Darby learned two anarchists wanted to attack the 2008 Republican National Convention. Darby offered his assistance to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and, at the FBI’s request, infiltrated a left-wing group that hoped to lay siege to the GOP convention that nominated the presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
The FBI sent Darby to meet with the plotters. “It was a group of people whose explicit purpose was to organize a group of ‘black bloc’ anarchists to shut the Republican convention down by any means necessary,” he explained. “They showed videos of people throwing Molotov cocktails, and they were giving people ideas.” (The plot and its aftermath is described in greater detail in my upcoming book on ACORN and its infiltration of the Obama administration which will be published in mid-2011. It was also referenced in Townhall.)
The 20-something plotters on whom Darby informed, David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder, made riot shields and were ready to use them in St. Paul to help demonstrators block streets near the convention site. They also manufactured instruments of death calculated to inflict maximum pain and bodily harm on people whose political views they disagreed with.
Thanks to the information Darby provided to authorities, police raided a residence and found gas masks, slingshots, helmets, knee pads and eight Molotov cocktails consisting of bottles filled with gasoline with attached wicks made from tampons. “They mixed gasoline with oil so it would stick to clothing and skin and burn longer,” Darby said.
Darby’s patriotic effort helped to put the would-be bomb throwers behind bars. McKay pleaded “guilty” and was sentenced in May 2009 to 48 months in prison plus three years of supervised release for possession of an unregistered “firearm,” illegal manufacture of a firearm and possession of a firearm with no serial number. A week before, Crowder cut a deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to 24 months in prison for possession of an unregistered firearm.
McKay received the stiffer sentence largely because he told a tall tale about Darby’s involvement in the plot.
As the U.S. Department of Justice reported in a press release available on the Internet, during sentencing the trial judge went out of his way to make a specific legal finding that McKay obstructed justice by falsely accusing Darby of inducing him to manufacture the incendiary devices.
McKay also confirmed that finding, the Star Tribune reported. “I embellished – I guess actually lied – that Brandon Darby came up with the idea to make Molotov cocktails.”
Yet somehow these publicly available facts could not be located by the New York Times, America’s Google-averse newspaper of record.
Australian MPs attack anti-Bible 'madness'
OPPOSITION MPs have strongly attacked the ban on Bibles and other holy books being handed out at citizenship ceremonies, with Tony Abbott describing it as outrageous.
Tasmanian Liberal senator Guy Barnett told the Coalition party room this was "political correctness gone mad. There should be freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."
Previously, local councils and community groups gave people at citizenship ceremonies Bibles, which they could keep. But under rules that the government says came in during the Howard years, people can bring their own Bibles or other holy books but they can't be handed out.
Senator Barnett last night described the ban as "an extremist US approach to the separation of church and state" and called for its overturn. Under the old practice, people were not obliged to accept the books, he said.
Nationals MP Paul Neville, from Queensland, told the Coalition meeting that Bibles were still used in courts and tribunals and the Bible was the centrepiece of the oath. But people no longer put their hand on the Bible at citizenship ceremonies.
Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull said if people wanted to offer Bibles and other holy books they should be able to do so. Mr Abbott said the government was interfering with the long-established practice to offer holy books.
A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the minister would look at the code's "appropriateness".
Australia: Privacy decrees gone mad
No privacy for the little guy
YOU KNOW what really gets my back up? It's privacy laws. I know, they are meant to keep our affairs private. But why do they work only one way? When my telecom "provider" makes an unsolicited call to "help me get a cheaper plan" the first thing they want to know is my date of birth. Why? For privacy reasons, we must ensure we are talking to you, I am told.
Well, they rang me, I didn't ring them, so how do I know it is them, not some devious schemer trying to steal my identity? Reasoning on this level doesn't compute. I have tried suggesting they tell me my date of birth, and if correct, I would continue the discussion. No, I am told. We are unable to disclose that information - privacy laws, you know!
I went looking for a cheaper green slip for my rego. No problem, said the smiling customer service officer at a big bank. What is your full name? What is your date of birth? What is your address? What is the rego number of the car in question? Etc etc. I replied that I only wanted the price on a green slip for a 2005 popular make of car, that I was under 75 and over 25, lived outside the metropolitan area, and had no demerit points, surely that was all she needed to know to give me a price. "No - the computer has to have all that information to give a quote," I was assured. My full name? My exact address? My exact date of birth? The rego number of my particular car? What for? What about my privacy? Does the process of getting comparative quotes have to put me at the mercy of every junk mail distributor in the world?
Our local paper recently ran a notice, inserted by a city funeral director, announcing the funeral of a former resident who left our district 50 years ago, leaving behind many friends, most of whom are dead. In recognition of the fact that this lady was a good friend of my parents, now both dead, I rang the funeral director for her family's address in order to send a sympathy card on behalf of my family. "No, privacy laws forbid us releasing the family's address. We will forward any card you wish to send."
Well, did they think that this old lady did something dastardly to my family half a century ago, and that I have been waiting ever since for just such an opportunity to even the score with her bereaved family? What absolute rot. Why do we have to accept such mindless and senseless nonsense?
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.